Dual citizenship Debate: Jagdeo says law not retroactive
Jan 01, 2019 , https://www.kaieteurnewsonline...law-not-retroactive/
Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo, sought to rubbish the pronouncement by Attorney General, Basil Williams, that former Member of Parliament, Charrandass Persaud, is unqualified to serve in the National Assembly because of his status as a dual citizen.
Williams, in a press conference held hours before Jagdeo’s, cited Article 155 (1) (a) of the Constitution, which states: “No person shall be qualified for election as a member of the National Assembly who is, by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power or state.”
The Attorney General had said that this constitutional provision voids Persaud’s vote, which he cast on December 21, last. Persaud, who voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence against A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU/AFC) government, is a citizen of both Guyana and Canada.
Challenging the validity of Persaud’s vote in Parliament would also bring into question, the validity of judgments made by many other members of the National Assembly on both sides of the political divide, who also have dual citizenship. The government will only be challenging Charrandass Persaud’s vote, despite the precedent it will set.
If the speaker of the house interprets the constitution to state that Persaud’s vote is null and void, the implication would be that the no-confidence motion would have to be reversed, allowing the government to carry its time in power to term, until General Elections in 2020.
Jagdeo said that what must be considered is “…what it will do to all the legislation passed before.
Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo
He said that if you invalidate his vote on this matter, then nothing would be valid that he voted on before. So, it has implications for all the budgets [and, by extension], the legality of all the government’s actions.”
The Leader of the Opposition also said he was advised that there is a principle in law which states that these issues can’t be dealt with, retroactively.
Jagdeo cited Article 165(2) of the Constitution, which governs Regulation of Procedure in Parliament, and states that “The assembly may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership (including any vacancy not filled when the assembly first meets after the commencement of this Constitution or after any dissolution of Parliament) and the presence or participation of any person not entitled to be present at or to participate in the proceedings of the Assembly shall not invalidate those proceedings.”
“Even if you have someone there, in layman’s language, who may not have been legally there at that time, it does not invalidate the proceeding. I think it’s quite clear.”
Because of the government’s protests of the no-confidence vote, Jagdeo said that the opposition will not be attending parliament when it reconvenes on January 3, 2019. The opposition, he stated, will be writing to the Speaker of the House, to notify him of the intended absence of the opposition.
He further told the press that the opposition would only attend parliament if the proceedings relate to the progression of the country toward General Elections, as the constitution would dictate in the case of a carried no-confidence motion.
