Nothing could have done more to persuade the electorate that our politicians are utterly cynical than the pantomime which has been playing out over MPs having dual citizenship in contravention of the Constitution. Irrespective of the decision which the courts might hand down in the case of Mr Charrandass Persaud, the matter has exposed in a stark way how little our parties really care about the rule of law, for all that that phrase trips off their tongues so effortlessly.
Now it is not as if this issue has not been raised myriad times before, not least in the letter columns of this newspaper and more particularly when the previous government was in office. But no party, on any side of the House, ever made a serious move to ensure that all the representatives on their lists met the full constitutional criteria to assume seats in Parliament. It is true that at a press conference last Wednesday, AFC Chairman Khemraj Ramjattan told the media that prior to the submission of the names for its twelve MPs in 2015, the question of whether any held dual citizenship was put to them, and the only one who indicated that he did so was Business Minister Dominic Gaskin, who was born in the UK.
In Minister Ramjattan’s view, however, Mr Gaskin is not in violation of the Constitution, because he did not acquire his British citizenship as an act of personal will: “Being born there or having a parent means you would have gotten it as a child and not of your own will, and it is why Janet Jagan is excluded also. When you are a baby born [there] or a child, you cannot say [no],” he was quoted as saying in our Friday edition.
The constitutional provision to which the AFC Chairman was referring was Article 155 (1) (a), which states, “No person shall be qualified for election as a member of the National Assembly who is, by virtue of his or her own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state.” Exactly what the full implication of that article is, will no doubt be explicated by the courts in due course, although it should, perhaps be mentioned that Foreign Minister and acting Prime Minister Carl Greenidge may possibly be in the same position as Mr Gaskin, since he confirmed last week that he had acquired UK citizenship after leaving Guyana as a child. We reported him also as saying that he has engaged his attorneys on the matter and is awaiting the outcome of the court case.
But those three individuals do not exhaust the list on the government side. There is also Dr Rupert Roopnaraine of APNU who has said he holds British as well as Guyanese citizenship, and that he has held it for a very long time. In his case, he has been reported as being prepared to relinquish it if that were necessary. There is too Minister of State Joseph Harmon who last weekend conceded that he was a dual citizen, holding both US and Guyanese citizenship. However, he would not reveal whether he travels on a US passport, or whether he would be prepared to give up that citizenship if called upon to do so. What can be said is that unlike the tradition in the UK and most Commonwealth countries, the popular understanding is that those who hold United States citizenship have to give up any other national allegiances they may possess. As a senior member of government, however, one must presume that even if he does not in fact have a Guyanese passport, he would have been issued with a diplomatic one by this administration which would obviate his travel problem.
There is also the opposition to consider. Last week Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo disclosed that PPP members Gail Teixeira and Adrian Anamayah have dual citizenship. “From what I have heard, we have two persons on our side who I can confirm are dual citizens,” we reported him as telling a press conference at his Church Street office. We further reported that Mr Anamayah had denied this on Monday, and when subsequently asked about what Mr Jagdeo had said, he seemed shocked, but did not resile from his former denial.
“He [Jagdeo] did that?” we quoted him as responding, “I gotta see the press conference…”
The other opposition member identified to Stabroek News, but not mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition was Mr Odinga Lumumba. We reported him as giving us a response which could only be described as enigmatic, viz., that he would have to make a check. He also remarked that he would await the outcome of the court case if he does hold such a status.
All of this has only come to the fore because of Mr Charrandass Persaud’s ‘yes’ vote on the no-confidence motion in the National Assembly last month, and the subsequent challenge by private citizen Mr Compton Herbert Reid that since his citizenship disqualified him as an MP, Mr Persaud was not eligible to vote on the motion. Prior to that, as mentioned above, none of the parties was particularly exercised about the matter, or prepared to purge their lists to bring them in line with what had generally been accepted to be constitutional requirements. All that can be said on that matter is that if it is the case that dual citizenship is not that important nowadays, then the parties should amend the Constitution, not disregard it.
It may well be, as some of the correspondents to our letters column have suggested, that dual citizenship has to be seen in a different light nowadays, given that such a large number of Guyanese have family living abroad – in some cases, their entire family – and that the connections are so close. It might be added that some in government might wish to retire elsewhere to be in the company of their families, while others want dual citizenship as a form of security, either economic or political. In other words, there are all kinds of reasons for holding two passports which might, prima facie at least, find some justification. In such circumstances, it may be that pursuant to the court ruling, the relevant constitutional article requires modification rather than excision.
It has been pointed out too in our letters column that given that this country exports so many skilled and qualified people, we should be far more flexible about facilitating the appointment of technocrat ministers. There is no denying we have a human resource crisis of formidable dimensions, and that this affects government and, it might be added, the public sector as much as it does other areas of national endeavour. As such, we really have to start looking at the skilled segments of the diaspora with a less jaundiced eye.
Of course, no government would take on the reform of just one constitutional article should that become necessary, because that opens the gate to larger constitutional reform and neither of the parliamentary parties really wants that. But if nothing else, this issue quite incidentally has cast the spotlight once again as much on the Constitution and the failure of the parties to take it seriously and reform it, as it has on the legitimacy of Mr Charrandass Persaud’s vote.
