In defence of Sheila

Dec 07, 2008 AFC Column, Features / Columnists

… and in deference to the Diaspora

By Khemraj Ramjattan
AFC Chairman

In politics, the perfect combination of being strategic and principled is what appeals to the right-thinking community. But working out a formula to get this perfect combination is so difficult in an ever-changing, dynamic environment.

Some lady-luck, plenty of hard work, and a heavyweight intellect all help. Obama’s leadership and his campaign team got straight ‘A’s on all of the above, and it led to victory.

The best efforts of some, on the other hand, to get this balance of strategy and principle right can lead to the utterly unexpected. This oftentimes happens as a result of the mischievous machinations from quarters least anticipated.

Sheila Holder, one of the principals of the AFC, some Sundays ago in this column emphasized a point that was most principled – there must be adherence to the Rule of Law and to our Constitution. She then accurately pointed out several Presidential contraventions, and even one by certain Parliamentarians.

This latter is where our National Assembly is being seated with disqualified members, they having what is popularly called dual citizenship. I can think of several PPP/C Parliamentarians she had in mind.

No doubt the topicality of this issue out of a recent Jamaican case, following an older Trinidadian decision, obviously sparked her to make mention of it.

Totally valid an issue you may think. Almost all the Guyanese to whom I spoke, and they were many, said the issue she raised was a worthy one.

But not so for Mr. Peter Ramsaroop who, to begin with, ascribed to Sheila a statement that she never made in her column – “anyone with dual citizenship is not allowed to serve in Government or Parliament”.

He then, in my interpretation, chastised her for bringing to the public domain a breach of the Rule of Law, and proceeds to advise that “she cease from pushing the agenda to stop dual citizens from serving their nation in government”. Now nowhere in Sheila’s column of 2nd November 2008 did I see her pushing any such agenda.

You see Peter wants her to shut up on the issue because this disqualification will come back to personally haunt him – (now that there are rulings out of T&T and Jamaica as to the interpretation to be put on article 155(1) (a)) – in his obvious ambition of wanting to run for President.

I do understand his concern. But he must not give it that spin which has spread all over the Diaspora, as a result of his networking, that the AFC is not inclusive enough to accommodate and court our overseas based Guyanese.

Of course the AFC has as a top priority the return of the willing within the Diaspora, and the remitting of their capital in all forms, (human, financial, and intellectual), to rebuild this destroyed land.

I made this quite clear, as did Raphael Trotman and Sheila Holder, on the several overseas fundraisers and meetings. The AFC, too, is the only political party whose constitution permits overseas members to contest for seats in its National Executive. We have such a member presently.

I have been asked the question sometime back, by a Diaspora member who knows of this disqualification, as to whether the AFC will lobby for a change to delete this disqualification. I must confess that it left me uncomfortable. This is the truth.

I recall that my reply to him then was: “Do you think it strategic to raise as an issue now? Lots of local Guyanese on nationalist grounds may want its retention. It may very well require a 2/3 majority plus a referendum.”

His response: “Oh y’all want we money, but not we candidacy!” Exactly what Peter was not so subtly daubing on Sheila and the AFC last week.

I struggled back with: “There are lots of implications. Logically the claim can be made that overseas voting should be re-instated.”

He was blunt: “So what wrong with dat?” This member turned out to be one of the AFC’s major contributors. He still is.

Let me point out that this disqualification has historical groundings. Former Chief Justice Sharma of T&T set its origins in 1962 when “upon attaining Independence nationalist feelings were high and feelings of patriotism fervent”.

Nelson J.A. pointed out the jurisprudential underpinnings thus: “the provision was designed to ensure that MPs did not have a split allegiance and were not, as far as possible, subject to any improper influence from foreign governments…The purpose is to prevent persons with foreign loyalties or obligations from being MPs.” Michael De La Bastide C.J. ruled similarly: “Dual citizenship may create split loyalties and the potential for a conflict of interest, which are better avoided in the case of an MP even though acceptable in the case of an ordinary citizen”.

These dicta will apply to Guyana whose constitutional provision is almost in exact terms with T.T. and Jamaica. This is thus our law! When it is contravened, should someone who wants to pick it up and run with not say so? Sheila felt so and ran with it; and, that is principled.

Peter Ramsaroop felt differently, obviously for strategic reasons. He wants to be the runaway champion of the Diaspora, and to leave on the ground Sheila and the AFC as the villains who are not inclusionary!

He has failed on both fronts! It is rather surprising to see an apology at this late hour. But it is more surprising to now learn, from his apology, that one who is in the politics of Guyana for sometime now was so totally ignorant of this disqualificatory provision – Art. 155.

So what is to be done? Should sleeping dogs lie or should the issue be confronted and resolved satisfactorily? I am supportive of the latter – it is both principled and strategic.

And these are my proposals. Firstly, as a matter of urgency, legal proceedings to settle the meaning of our Art. 155 (1) should be instituted in our High Court.

And if our Court’s ruling is similar to T&T and Jamaica, which undoubtedly is my forecast, it will mean that those with dual citizenship will be disqualified from our National Assembly. Unless, of course, they renounce their overseas allegiances.

Secondly, propose a Motion that there be a deletion of this Art. 155 (1) disqualification, on ground that there is no longer any patriotic fervour nor nationalistic sentiments these days in Guyana, like there was in 1966 when the provision had its origins. Guyanese now dream of leaving the motherland.

Moreover, a President or an MP does not have to have a dual citizenship to come under the improper influence from foreign governments.

Those with single citizenship can be as treasonous, selling out to USA or Russia or China or some such other country. So the logic, on jurisprudential and historical grounds, that justified the article’s existence no longer prevails.

This will specifically address the Diaspora’s concerns, especially those who dream of coming back home and wanting to be candidates for our august Assembly or even the Presidency. I will have to expect the PPP’s and PNC’s support on this one to make it happen. I doubt it though.

These parties’ governing cabals will not want their respective territories to be invaded by overseas interlopers. How about that for starters, Peter? I rather suspect that you may not care so much for the first one.

Latest News