That Honourable House

According to Section 62 of the Jamaican Constitution, before taking his or her seat in Parliament, every member must swear the prescribed oath of allegiance, which reads:

"I, [name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Jamaica, that I will uphold and defend the Constitution and the laws of Jamaica, and that I will conscientiously and impartially discharge my responsibilities to the people of Jamaica - So help me God."

Jamaica's Parliament is supposed to be an Honourable House, which means, among other things, that each and every member must "uphold and defend the Constitution". This is what they swear to do, and a member of the House is honourable if their actions are in line with their promises.

It turns out that several of them swore the oath of allegiance and took their seats while being constitutionally ineligible to do so. Does this make the House of Parliament less honourable, or is it that only certain parliamentarians are dishonourable?

Prior to 2007, all Jamaican political parties ignored Section 40 (2) of the constitution which says, "No person shall be qualified to be appointed as a Senator or elected as a member of the House of Representatives who (a) is, by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign Power or State." During the candidate selection process, neither party asked questions to ensure that the Jamaican Constitution was conscien-tiously upheld and defended. Both parties behaved dishonourably in this regard.

But then, after losing the 2007 general election by a slim margin, the People's National Party (PNP) sought to gain a few more seats (and thereby gaining a majority) by proving the ineligibility of certain Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) parliamentarians. Pure political opportunism it certainly was, but it was also upholding and defending the Constitution.

Empty formalism

Once "allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state" became an active issue, if a member of parliament (MP) knew himself or herself to be ineligible to sit in the House, what was the honourable thing to do? Advise their party and the country that they were ineligible and step down? Or keep quiet and hope nobody finds out? Or if the truth is exposed, sit tight and dare the other side to prove it in court? If the person has taken an oath to conscientiously "uphold and defend the Constitution", then what does that exactly mean? Is it empty formalism, or do our parliamentarians mean what they say when they swear on the Bible?

I do not think that keeping quiet, or sitting tight and daring the other side to prove ineligibility in court, is the honourable thing to do. If we expect a high standard of ethical conduct from our public servants, we must demand that they do better than this. I believe that that sort of behaviour is dishonourable, and is a breach of the oath of allegiance.

The matter of Shahine Robinson is a case in point. She is an intelligent woman, and must have known all along she was ineligible to sit in the house. Yet she hung on, expressing confidence she would be victorious in court, until documentary evidence was presented in court proving what she already knew to be the case. The fact is that every vote she cast in our legislature was invalid, and she knew it, but did it anyway.

What is even more scandalous is that her party is not scandalised at her dishonourable behaviour, and intends to nominate her to contest the seat she was forced to vacate without even an apology. I believe that this is dishonourable behaviour by the Jamaica Labour Party, and further brings Jamaican politics into disrepute.

How many other PNP and JLP members of the Honourable House of the Jamaican Parliament are sitting there, knowing that they are ineligible to do so? Constantly casting invalid votes?

Section 46 (1) of our constitution says:

46. (1) Any person 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 for each day upon which he so sits or votes.

It is a small amount of money, but every one of them must pay!

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and a Roman Catholic deacon. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.