PAM moving forward with dual citizenship challenge

BASSETERRE, St. Kitts –THE leader of the opposition People’s Action Movement (PAM) party, Lindsay Grant, said yesterday (Aug. 6) that he and his team of candidates would not back down from challenging the National Assembly Elections (Amendment) Bill 2009.

The law, which was passed in Parliament on July 3, mandates that political candidates seeking nomination to the National Assembly must swear an oath and present proof that they do not have dual citizenship.

Prior to the amendment being passed, Grant and PAM Deputy Leader Shawn K. Richards renounced their citizenships to the United States of America.

Although an ongoing trial over changes to the electoral boundaries in St. Kitts has fully occupied the party’s legal counsel, Grant said they had not forgotten about the challenge over dual citizenship, and would be moving forward with the case as soon as they received leave from the court. 

“My lawyers have drafted the necessary documentation. We first have to get leave of the court to file documents within the codification before we can do so. It’s really a technicality because of the court’s vacation period. We certainly will file them once we get leave, which we expect to be within the next 14 days,” he stated during a press conference at the Ocean Terrace Inn.

The Federation’s Constitution debars naturalised citizens of foreign jurisdictions from sitting in Parliament. According to Grant, the amendment is unconstitutional and should therefore be removed from the legislation.

“The Constitution, which is our supreme law, says if a Parliamentarian has sworn allegiance to a foreign power, he is subject to a challenge by anyone in St. Kitts and Nevis. You can only be challenged after you’ve won an election. What this amendment does, by implication, is amend a constitutional provision. It says that on nomination day, when the individual goes to be nominated, the presiding officer can decide at that moment whether or not he’s going to accept the certificate. 

“It therefore leaves the basis of whether or not to accept a certificate in the hands of a presiding officer, rather than leaving that decision to the court. That is our principle challenge; it ought to be the court as the final arbiter and interpreter of the Constitution,” he explained.

The PAM Leader declined to comment on his party’s chances of success. He did say, however, that none of their detractors would deter them from pursuing the matter.

“No one can prevent us from moving forward with our challenge. The court will decide whether we are right or wrong. I am not going to make a judgement call and say if we will win, but we are hopeful that, at the end of the day, we will be successful.”