We agree with Justice Seymour Panton about the incongruity - absurdity even - of a citizen of a Commonwealth country being eligible to sit in the Jamaican Parliament, while a Jamaican who is a citizen of a non-Commonwealth state is barred.

The former, as was implicitly confirmed by the Court of Appeal in its Daryl Vaz/Abe Dabdoub ruling, only has to spend a year in Jamaica to confirm his eligibility.

Indeed, as this newspaper suggested last week, this is an issue deserving of robust debate on the constitutional provision that allows for what Justice Panton, president of the Court of Appeal, referred to as 'this oddity' in his remarks from the bench during the delivery of the judgement. Although this intervention by Justice Panton was not part of the court's arguments, we would have preferred that the observation had not been cast so narrowly as a contest between the United States and other countries, notwithstanding the fact that it was Mr Vaz's status as a US citizen that sparked the case.

Conflict of interest

The basis of that debate must be what Jamaicans expect of their legislators and whether it is right to presume that persons of dual citizenship are potentially subject to divided loyalty and/or conflict of interest. Or, does it matter?

When posited in those terms, it matters not whether the person being barred from the Jamaican legislature is a citizen from 'their friendly neighbour up north', which is more likely to accommodate Jamaicans, 'compared to many Commonwealth countries'.

What becomes important is the philosophical issue that the founding fathers attempted to address when they barred persons who are "by virtue of their own act, under any acknowledgement or allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state", and into which net, Mr Vaz fell.

Forty-seven years ago, when the framers of the Constitution crafted that provision, the idea of the Commonwealth, and Jamaica's place in it, was different than it is today. A full review is, therefore, in order.

Of course, some of the provisions regarding who is eligible to serve in Parliament are deeply entrenched. Any change will demand broad national consensus. In the meantime, we endorse Justice Panton's call for clarification from the Parliament, by way of specific legislation, of what is to happen in the event of an unqualified candidate being nominated and a vote has taken place. The court, in this instance, relied on common law doctrine, which left, in Justice Panton's opinion, some grey areas.

Justice is not a cloistered virtue

Finally, Justice Panton, more than most, would know and comprehend the adage that justice is not a cloistered virtue - certainly not in a liberal democracy.

We are surprised, therefore, that the justice would characterise as an attempt to bully his court the observation of those, including this newspaper, who felt that it was unwise to announce the Vaz/Dabdoub decision without delivering the detailed argument. It was on the basis of the ruling that the leader of Mr Vaz's party, Prime Minister Golding, named the date for the by-election, which the court held was the remedy for Mr Vaz's initial ineligibility. His opponent in the by-election adheres to a foreign power, albeit Commonwealth. What if the court's ruling had rendered him ineligible as well?

We respect Jamaica's judiciary. But to assume it to be beyond question is to abrogate democracy, or to acquiesce to pure arrogance or peeve.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.