The country is buzzing with debate, back and forth, over the application of Section 28, Subsection 1(a) of the St. Kitts and Nevis Constitutional Order of 1983, otherwise known as the Constitution. After 25 years and more of flouting this provision of the “supreme law of St. Christopher and Nevis”, both political leadership and electorate have equally come to realise that this provision demands our immediate attention.
This stipulation has become a hot discussion item in our bi-polarised political culture like other historically contentious provisions like Section 27, known as the “Bryant Clause”, which disqualifies persons who were born outside of the Federation and whose parents were also born outside of the Federation and Section 113 which provides for the “Separation of Nevis from St. Christopher”.
From 1983 to 2006, nobody in the Federation on either side of the political divide found it right to challenge any member of parliament who ran afoul of the law and was “under [an] acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state” as a citizen thereof.
Our history will speak of men and women like Roy Jones, Constance Mitcham, Bertram Charles, Dwyer Astaphan and Shawn Richards who sought political office in contravention of this provision. The irony is that from 1983 to the present there has been at least one person seated in our House of Assembly to make the law, by breaking it at the same time.
Today we look back believing that our leaders broke the law then, partly because of their ignorance and more greatly as a result of an unspoken complicity of the legal luminaries not to share this light with an ignorant electorate. Holy writ admonishes that “God winked at the times of ignorance”. The nation, the voice of God, could not then and should not today seek to punish past deeds which we were ignorant of, but now that the matter has come to light, no law abiding citizen should stand by idly and allow our laws to be trampled continuously.
It is interesting to discuss, however, the manner in which the breech of this section came under the political spotlight. Firstly, it was realised that similar breeches were being challenged in the Courts of Law in neighbouring islands and in the wider Commonwealth of Nations. Prominent among the litigations were Members of Parliament in Jamaica and Australia who faced legal challenges as a result of breeches of similar stipulations in the Constitution Orders of those lands.
These then opened the eyes of the political opponents of Prime Minister Douglas who thought it would have been the ideal way to destabilise the Labour-led Administration. , The belief was that, on a Government bench of seven elected Members of Parliament, three members plus the Attorney General were holders of dual citizenship. The hope was that Prime Minister Douglas was included in the three who held at least a second citizenship.
Each side sought to out manoeuvre the other, but at the end of the day the law is the law and Section 28, Subsection 1(a) of the Constitution is the law.
On Thursday 2nd July, 2009, The National Assembly Elections (Amendment) Bill, 2009, was read and passed in the House with the expressed aim of ensuring that any “candidate before nomination, takes an oath to the effect that he or she does not hold dual citizenship; and if he or she held dual citizenship, produces proof that he or she renounced the other citizenship since the holding of the previous elections.”
It was on that day that the first calls for the repeal of that stipulation were sounded. The plea was made that as it is not enshrined in the Constitution - that is to say that this section will not have to go through the rigors outlined in Section 38 of the Constitution for alterations but needs a two-thirds vote in the House, only - that it could easily be removed from the books.
Should the section then be repealed? Should we give way to the wishes of those who believe that enforcing this provision in the Constitution will prohibit the return of nationals abroad to lead this country?
My humble opinion is no. The role of leadership is too important to be left to the uncommitted. When a man dates, he may pursue any number of ladies as he chooses but when this man pledges to commit himself to marriage and family building he now must display a level of commitment to one woman and one home.
So too, the leaders of any country, who desire to commit their energies to the national interest and nation building, need only to be committed to one country.
Citizenship by extension is allegiance. Dual citizenship is tantamount to wanting to enjoy the “best” of two worlds with no full adherence to either nation. The man or woman who does that should never be denied any of the privileges accorded to the citizens of either country, except to lead.
I therefore support upholding the disputed provision for two reasons. Firstly, my leadership must be accorded full diplomatic status under international practices and the Vienna Conventions in any nation of the world to which they travel. Every foreign dignitary or emissary who visits another country is, by practice, accorded diplomatic status including immunity. This exempts them from search, from investigations and arrests and any other practice which may be characterised as distrust and bad faith between sovereign states.
There is no country on earth that accords this status to its own citizens. Therefore if the Prime Minister of St. Kitts-Nevis should ever be a citizen of the United States of America as well, he cannot enjoy the privileges of a visiting foreign power but be reduced to an ordinary Yankee coming home. If he by chance owes taxes to his second home and has been charged and tried for tax evasion, he has no protection of diplomatic immunity in accordance with international practices as he is a citizen being tried by his government.
We needs leaders who will be accorded full diplomatic status and be respected in every forum in which they represent this nation. There should never be a possibility that the sovereignty of this federation could be made secondary to the interest of another state, as a result of the conflicting allegiances of our leaders.
Secondly, I believe that when our leaders have demitted office that they should not have a prepared route of escape by retreating to their second home with a level of immunity from our laws. Simply put, we must be able to find them when they have left office.
After 1995, when the Labour-led Administration sought after former Minister Roy Jones to question his involvement in land, insurance, financial and other scandals during his tenure as a Minister of the Crown from 1984 until then. Roy Jones has not been available to account to the people until today.
As a citizen of the United States of America, Mr Jones has left the Federation after he lost power and never returned to the land he professed to have loved. His commitment to the people was not rooted enough for him to stay on and account for acres of lands or hundreds of thousands of dollars he was implicated to have surreptitiously misappropriated unto himself and his party.
There should never be another Minister who is allowed to evade the people in such manner.
It is for these reason I endorse the enactment of any bill which gives teeth to the Section 28, Subsection 1(a) of the Constitution while preserving its integrity. The time has come that our leaders are chosen from those whose love of people and of country stems from a commitment to St. Kitts and Nevis and St. Kitts and Nevis only. And anybody who is reluctant to give up second citizenship, in opposition to this provision, is not worthy of the votes of any of our people.
St. Kitts and Nevis needs the full commitment of her sons and daughters as she stands tall in the community of nations. Let us compete in this challenging global environment as a nation, led by those whose commitment to this country is above self.
