THE EDITOR, Sir:

SECTION 46 of the Jamaica Constitution makes it clear that he "who sits or votes in either House knowing or having reasonable ground for knowing that he is not entitled to do so, shall be liable to a penalty of twenty dollars ($20) for each day upon which he so sits or votes". The attorney general is given, by the said section, the responsibility of filing claim to collect the fines so imposed upon the offender.

This section is now brought into sharp focus following the national general elections of September 2007. Following on that election, the landmark case of Dabdoub vs Vaz settled the law that a number of sitting members of the House of Representative may have been disqualified from sitting in the House by virtue of their nationality or by virtue of his own act, where he acknowledged allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or State.

Do what is right: resign

It is my view that following the February 27 ruling in the Dabdoub/Vaz case, all members of the House who know or, more important, have reasonable ground for knowing that they are not entitled to sit in the House and/or vote therein, ought to do that which is right and resign therefrom. How can a member who sits in violation of Section 46 of our Constitution, the highest law of the land, by extension demand respect of the laws of our country form its citizenry?

What of the legitimacy of laws voted on and passed since September 2007, where votes cast in Parliament have been cast by persons who were by law disqualified from sitting? Further, the refusal of some of our parliamentarians to do the right thing and resign from the House is resulting in the waste of tax dollars we can ill afford at this time. Judicial time, along with the court's limited resources, are, in my humble view, being wasted as a result of the reluctance to comply with our Constitution.

An obstacle

Where is leadership and the commitment not to waste our taxes by our Government at this time? Both sides of the House must take advice and do that which is right and required by our Constitution. I get the feeling that rather than seeking to comply with the Constitution, its requirements are currently being treated as an obstacle in the path of expediency and someone's warped interpretation of good governance. There is now much grumbling, that the reserved judgment scheduled for September this year in the Stern case is going to adversely affect us. Who, in the first place, created this grand waste of time? Is this a member of the House who had reasonable grounds for knowing that he is not entitled to sit in the House?

Let us now hear from those who swore in September 2007 to uphold the laws and Constitution of Jamaica in this our time of grave economic recession.

I am, etc.,

BERT S. SAMUELS

bert.samuels@gmail.com

4 Duke Street

Kingston