The last half of the twentieth century has witnessed a significant increase in global migration and dual citizenships as a key dynamic of globalization.
World borders have become more fluid for capital, investment and movement of people. The United Nations Population Division (UNPD) estimates that 185 million people have lived outside their country of birth for at least 12 months since the mid-70s.
But mass migration, dual citizenship and election irregularities are causing legal issues for some who are holding and vying for high office in the Caribbean archipelago.
Today the constitutions and courts of these small island states are struggling to legally redefine and rule on these new political realities while trying to maintain their own clear definitions of sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Such was the case in Jamaica during the 2007 general elections. After the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) defeated the People’s National Party (PNP) in the West Portland Constituency, the PNP opposition called on the High Court to remove the Member of Parliament on the basis of his dual citizenship with the United States.
After a protracted legal battle, the court ruled in favour of the PNP and barred JLP’s Daryl Vaz from holding a seat in the House of Parliament.
In its judgment, the court ruled that the fact that Mr. Vaz had renewed his American passport indicated that he had pledged allegiance to another country. It ordered a bi- election in which Mr. Vaz could be a candidate if he renounced his American citizenship.
But Mr. Vaz’s PNP opponent Mr. Abe Dabdoub, expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome saying that the fact that his rival knowingly broke the laws and violated the constitution, should be enough to bar him from participating in future elections.
Mr. Dabdoub said, “The responsibility to ensure that all candidates in an election are eligible lies squarely with the Director of the office of Elections, the party’s leader(s) and the candidates. There is no doubt if Mr. Vaz had broken any laws; he had. The constitution is clear and the court’s decision is a testament to that.”
But Mr. Vaz renounced his U.S citizenship and won the March 2009 bi-election by a wider margin. The ruling against the government demonstrated that the Jamaican court’s fairness, independence, leadership and courage.
In Dominica the opposition UWP went to court against the Labour party government for PM Skerrit’s and Education Minister St. Jean dual French citizenships. Skerrit’s lead attorney waged a vigorous PR campaign and had some success in trying the case in the court of public opinion before it went to trial. But independent legal experts and other sources that are familiar with the Jamaican case indicate that they are confused by some of the presiding Judge’s early rulings and are not confident that the opposition will prevail.
But if the court grants Skerrit and St. Jean their wishes, that would be a colossal mistake. It would demonstrate a lack of respect for the constitution, laws and our people and would send shock waves throughout the entire region.
It would almost certainly throw the debate over the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and Privy Council into further disarray. Can you hear the background rumblings? Skerrit and the compromised Dominican courts can have their CCJ but let us keep our Privy Council. It would demonstrate that as a people and region with a long and painful history, we have not attainted the maturity to attain self determination. In spite of this seemingly potential set back, do we still need the Law Lords of the Privy Council from London to hand down a fair decision? I don’t think we should doubt the CCJ as the ultimate legitimate court for the region and our people.
Today presents an excellent opportunity to allow ourselves to mature as a nation and region and take on the challenges of an ever evolving society. The Jamaican courts have respectfully answered that courageous clarion call. At the’ wicket’ is Dominica’s court. The world is watching and paying very close attention.
If the court rules in favour of the PM and Pastor St. Jean and allows Skerrit (who became the PM after the quick and sudden deaths of PMs Douglas and Pierre while in office) to remain as the Head of State having probably knowingly broken the laws as he proclaimed in December 2009, then our country may be in trouble. It will be an empty victory for him and his die-hard supporters who can’t see (and many can’t grasp) the potential long term consequences. It would mean that he would be occupying the office of the Prime Minister without heed or respect for the constitution. That is a perfect text book formula for disaster.
The Dominican courts and the Judge need to heed President Obama’s advice. ‘We need not fear the future, we should shape it; we need not avoid responsibility we should embrace it, and when we do, we will answer the call of history’.
The petitions are about Dominica and not about Senator Green, PM. Skeritt and their political parties. The ‘take home’ message is that having power and popularity should not mean you cannot be touched by the legal system. The court should be mindful that it does not reinforce the reality that myopia, insecurity, greed, nepotism and narcissism are the ingredients, which when combined with platform politics and political theatre spawn below average politicians with possible dire consequences.
Long gone are leaders like Premier Le Blanc who inspired the level of nation building and enthusiasm, which led our grandparents and parents to believe tomorrow, would be a better day. Today we have a lot more than our grandparents ever dreamt possible. The question is more of what? We are certain that we have more mouths capable of producing “podium-promises”, talk radio diatribes, decrees and proclamations designed to placate a populace whose only desire is good and ethical leadership.
We owe it to future generations to use intelligence and patience with respect for the process of law in order to continue to build a society based on fairness and justice. They need not inherit the myopic effects where party politics took precedence over our country.
The petitions provided our country with an excellent opportunity to learn, and become more reliably informed of the politics, policies, laws, constitution, inconsistencies and contradictions of our homeland. The time to achieve practical long term change and reform of our political system is now. The future of our nation should be in our hands and not in those of a lone judge and a questionable court.
Opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Dominica News Online.
WIN,LOOSE OR DRAW,ALL I NEED FROM SKERRIT IS WETHER ON NOT HE HAD A FRENCH PASSPORT, IN ORDER TO BRING CLOSURE TO THAT CASE.SOMETIMES WINNING IS NOT ALL, IT IS THE HONESTY OF WINNING.IF YOU EDGED THE BALL TO THE KEEPER AND CAUGHT BEHIND DURING A CRICKET GAME AND YOU WERE NOT GIVEN OUT BY THE UMPIRE, YOU WENT ON TO SCORE 183 RUNS,YOUR TEAM WINS THE MATCH,WOULD YOU EVER ACCEPT YOUR SCORE OR WIN IN CONSCIENCE.
LET MR. E.O.LEBLANC REST HIS PEACE BECAUSE
YOU ALL NEVER GAVE HIM WHAT HE DESERVED WHEN
HE WAS ALIVE.
DR. FINN YOU SEEMS VERY INTERESTING IN WHATS
GOING ON WHY CAN’T YOU COME BACK TO DA AND
JOIN WITH THE OTHERS, THAN STAYING IN THE US
RUNNING YOYR MOUTH
We need more commentaries like this. Objective and to the point. It hurts some so they hit back by attacking the messenger as usual in Da where mepuis is most times the way to fight back when truth and objectivity hit people like a bullet. The CCJ knows who you are (politicians or not, espeicially politicins), but the Privy Council does not.
This is completely different and you know that. You are just trying to run from the truth just to mislead people.
The truth of the matter is, SC knows the power of a signature especially that of the nations PM. For him to advise the young man to write a letter to the French Ambassador requesting to denounce his French Citizenship, was nothing short of a set up. SC knew all along that the PM who called general elections had enough time to denounce his french citizenship and then call an election. The man waited until the final week to advise the young man to write that kind of letter and authenticated it with his signature. Does the SC not understand the power of a signature? A signature is a valid piece of evidence and it is even more powerful than a verbal admission. That’s why we are always advised to read carefully before we sign. So for the SC to do that to his young cliant is proof that he did his best to expose the young man, knowing that the majority of supporters would not notice that because they so blind. So win, draw, or lose the SC tried his best to expose him; it is left to the judge to see the trick and follow conscience. But please don’t blame the SC reguardless of the out come.
Lighten up people.WHy hasn’t the pM come out and tell the people the truth.Why did his lawyer not let him take the stand?Don’t you think that he has something to hide? Don’t you think that he owes it to the people he represent to tell them the truth?This should have nothing to do with party but honesty.
Good example for the thieves and other criminals.
But how come whenever a ruling is against us, the court bias. Finn you like Lennox now man.See the speaker won her case and what the BUSH LAWYER say. I glad the cost reduce. By the way Finn why didnt you not seek a crew of people to follow Ron in court? Not one of the henchmen was loyal enough to stand behind Ron. Instead he got”illiterate, semi-illiterate and half blind people” Chroniclesaid that. Do you realistically think that this so described bunch can convince a judge. Boy you should see drama when these were cross-examined. BLAME RON FOR HIS CAST OF ACTORS NOT THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
I have no doubt that Skerrit will be made the winner in this case not because he did not transgress the law or because of lack of evidence as DLP supportters have been trying to sell, but rather, because of injustice that continues to prevail in our caribbean today.
When the PM will be officially declared the winner we need to be very careful not blame his attorney (SC) or praise him for that because to me he although the SC appeared to be happy in his defence it is quite clear to me that he tried his best to ensure that the PM is removed from power so don’t blame him if that was not achieved by the Judge.
My point is simple: How could SC advise the PM to send a letter of denounciation of his french passport to the French Ambassador in St Lucia, with Mr Skeritt himself signing the reques? Doesn’t the man (SC) know that a persons signature on a written request is as strong as a verbal confession? I think it is a good technical effort while pretending to be helping the man. The Judge is going to seriously consider the letter wrote and signed by Mr Skeritt as proof of evidence.
Imagine you wrote a letter to the White House to share your personal struggle and instead of receiving a form letter in return, President Obama cut you a check.
It’s happened, and more than once, according to Washington Post reporter Eli Saslow’s new book “Ten Letters: The Stories Americans Tell Their President.” Fellow Post reporter Nia-Malika Henderson writes Friday on a surprising excerpt from Saslow’s book:
A few times during his presidency, Obama admitted, he had written a personal check or made a phone call on the writer’s behalf, believing that it was his only way to ensure a fast result. “It’s not something I should advertise, but it has happened,” he told [Saslow]. Many other times, he had forwarded letters to government agencies or Cabinet secretaries after attaching a standard, handwritten note that read: “Can you please take care of this?”
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-cut-personal-checks-regular-americans-185608423.html
“The ruling against the government demonstrated that the Jamaican court’s fairness, independence, leadership and courage.”
A courts fairness should be based on whether the right decision is taken based on the evidence provided. It should have nothing to do with siding Government or the opposition.
All the discussions regarding Dual Citizenship must be looked at within the broader picture of having Free and Fair Elections in Dominica. The bigger picture is about improving our democratic way of life, respecting the Constitution and Laws of the land.
The Constitution mandates the ‘Independent’ Electoral Commission to conduct our Elections. The Commission requested funds from Govt., about 7 years ago, for Electoral Reforms, specifically, to provide Voter ID Cards and to clean up the unclean, bloated Voters’ List. Up to now, No funds. No Reform. Only Zazi Mouzai. The Independent Electoral Commission is being treated with utter contempt and disrespect.
The request for Electoral Reform and the work of the Commission, has been severely undermined. Dominicans know exactly who are putting a spoke in the proposed wheel of changes to the election Process for Free and Fair elections in the future in Dominica. What a calamity? Why would any right-thinking Govt. not want to help the Commission with the money to Clean Up a Voters’ list that is unclean with dead people’s names and other names that may not eligible to vote? Suspicious?
Electoral Reform would provide a clean Voters’ list, reduce fraud, irregularities, cheating, stealing. Electoral Reform would ensure elections are conducted in a manner that is FREE and FAIR. It would certainly be in everybody’s interest, political parties, Civil Society, in fact, good for all Dominicans. We would be in sync with the rest of the world craving, protesting for democracy, Free and Fair elections, transparency, fairness and good governance.
Is that not what we want in Dominica, FREE and FAIR elections? a democratic way of life as opposed to a dictatorship? Is not that we want in Dominica, for each and every candidate vying to be a member of Parliament, to obey the Constitution and laws of the Land, irrespective of who you are, or think that you are?
If not, so be it? Let us live like the wild beasts in the jungle. Law and order must not deter us from doing anything that we want. Is so Dominica come? the Bigger Picture must be about FREE and FAIR elections. The only way to achieve that is by Govt. assisting the Electoral Commission to fufill its mandate, by providing it with the funds to provide Voter ID cards and to Clean up the unclean Voters’ List. No kind of influence or stalling tactics by political operatives must be accepted by peaceful, loving Dominican people.
Dominicans show the love to country, yourself, to your children and children to come by struggling consistently for Electoral Reforms and for FREE and FAIR Elections or the country will be doomed or damned.
I am not Dominican, I am ASHAMED to call myself Dominican…..admin…..make sure you post this comment from me BECAUSE IT IS MY LAST!!……I AM ASHAMED THAT PEOPLE WILL STAND UP AND TALK TRUTH AND JUSTICE AND THEN TURN AROUND AND SUPPORT THE PM IN HIS DECEITFUL BEHAVIOUR AGAINST ME MY CHILDREN AND ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL DOMINICANS…..I BOW GRACEFULLY OUT AND LOWER THIS FLAG I ONCE SO PROUDLY HELD HIGH.. FOR IT IS NOW A MANS FACE THAT WE FLY SO HIGH ABOVE OUR CONSCIENCE…..THERE WILL BE MORE CRIME TO COME…..YOU ALL HAVE SENT THE MESSAGE LOUD AND CLEAR FOR ALL TO HEAR!!! I CAN SMELL CIVIL UNREST IN DOMINICA, BECAUSE THERE ARE THOSE WHO AGREE TO DIE BEFORE THEY SWALLOW THIS GROSS PERVERSION OF JUSTICE……AND THERE ARE THOSE WHO WILL SELL THEIR SOUL FOR A DOLLAR…
ADMIN: I guess you going to your anti-DNO Facebook page now since this is your last post. LOL
Ghadafi was thinking and lead an uprising like you’re proposing, look what him to him. Those who want to take leadership by fore will be removed by force in the most inhumane way
Aren’t you dead yet fool???? We could really do without you dude (critically stupid). GOOG RIDANCE and GET OUT OF DA SOON!!!!!!!
TANTO TANTO WE WILL MEET IN THE BOHEMIAN GROVE…
I wish to disagree with Dr. Finn’s premise. I should first state that from what I’ve heard in the media, it is my firm opinion that both Mr. Skerritt and Mr. St. Jean should be found to have been ineligible to contest the elections. Nonetheless, if the court in Dominica comes to the opposite conclusion, it does not follow that this court is biased or compromised, or had made a colossal mistake. The court may well have made the correct decision based on the evidence provided and the arguments made by each side. We should resist the idea that a court demonstrates “fairness, independence, leadership and courage” simply on the basis that we agree with one of its decisions, but that another court makes “a colossal mistake” if it renders an opinion we disagree with.
I’m not sure what any of this has to do with the CCJ, and Dr. Finn’s arguments on this are inconsistent. If the Jamaican court is as fair, independent and courageous as Dr. Finn suggests, surely this portends good things for the fairness and independence of the CCJ. That same CCJ cannot be cast in a negative light simply because a national court arrives at a decision that some people (who likely did not follow the case in detail, are ignorant of the facts surrounding the case and the evidence presented in court) disagree with that decision.
These di-***-porans get all their news and information from those WICKED SOULS on Q95 and dont worry if its true or not.COME HOME AND DO SOMETHING FOR YOUR COUNTRY,I KNOW SOME CANNOT.Who JAH bless no man CURSE.WICKED SOULS.
I am baffled most times by person who sits on the side lines and pen articles without getting to full scope of the facts. For one to even attempt to write an article on the subject of dual citizenship of the Prime Minister, Hon St. Jean and Mr. Green, I would want to believe that this writer was present throughout the duration of trial and heard all the presentations from both sides including the judges direction to the questions.
I cannot and will not accept the view of Mr. Finn who in court and is not presently residing in Dominica. I can only come to the conclusion that his views are biased and politically motivation.
There are times when it is better just to be silent. I think Mr. Finn should be quiet in this instance. Mr. Finn you don’t hold to answer to every topic in the public domain. Some times you talk out of turn.
I could stay in space, even on pluto and see that the PM is hiding something. and anyone who denies that FACT is a liar!!!
How can a man KNOWING HE IS INNOCENT…..boy i doe have time for that today nuh, i have my passport to go and make so i can leave Duminica for the Dummies
Hmmmmmmm my brother, Dominica is allu own eh, so do what allu want……Just know that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE, CAN MAKE ME SWALLOW THAT THE PM HAS NOTHING TO HIDE…..so go on and soothe allu broken egos….
When a matter is presented in court the judge presiding over the matter can only deal with the evidence presented to them.
What is discussed in the media regardless if who is for the applicant or against the respondent cannot apply in a court of law.
I can have my personal biase or views on the situtation but that is not law and have no bearing on the outcome of the case.
Wait for the court to decide and give their reasons why it took whatever decision they arrive at.
We have to separate “they say” from law.
The “they say” will play out during an election not in the court.
you “righteous” people will still go and vote him back in, allu not enjoying allu good time nuh????? at the expense of others, so have a good time liar
THAT IS WHY PEOPLE TAKE THE LAW IN THEIR OWN HANDS, BECAUSE THIS COURT THING IS @#$%^&*()*(&%$#@$%&*()(*^&%$#$%&*
All these di-***-porans get their news and information from their radio station Q95,WITH NO FACTS AND HALF TRUTHS.Let them continue.Who JAH bless no man CURSE.WICKED SOULS.
If Finn is using the results of the Jamaica court to equate what is going on in Dominica in terms of the dual citizenship case he is making a mistake.
The two appear the same, yes but in the end the Jamaican court DID NOT rule in favor of the PNP. The PNP, led by Abe Dabdoub, had petitioned the court to disqaulify Vaz on the grounds that he was an American citizen at the time of his nomination during the last general election in Jamaica. They further petitioned that Vaz’s PNP opponent be automatically given the consituency because he was the only one who was “duly nominated” before the election.
This is a critical aspect of the Jamaican case Finn did not mention in his piece. Yes, the Jamaica court did bar Vaz from sitting in parliament but only when the case is being heard, pending a verdict.
The UWP is also doing the same in Dominica. They want Skerrit’s opponent to be automatically given the consituency of Vielle Case (it appears they don’t want the same for La Plaine because the UWP’s attorneys have agreed that Ron was an American citizen on nomination day. Hahahahahaha).
Now Finn is saying the Dominican courts should rule in favor of the UWP petitioners (that is give Veille Case automatically to Skerrit’s opponents) in the spirit of the Jamaican court ruling. But his conclusion is wrong.
I will repeat, the Jamaican court NEVER ruled in favor of the PNP.
One thing the Dominican courts should have done, following the footsteps of the Jamaican court, was to bar both Skerrit and St. Jean from sitting in parliament pending a verdict in the matter.
Most likely the Dominican court will rule both nominations null and void, call a bi-election and Skerrit and St. Jean will will again.
Then we are back to square one of 18-3
Hahahahahahahaha
as someone who is living in Dominica i think its the opposition that is trying the case in the public before it goes to trial.Again this man is not in tune with what is happening here in Dominica.
Sir, are you saying it would be a lack of respect for our people if the courts rule in favour of the PM?, what are the wishes of our people?, isn’t 18-3 a clear testiment of the wishes of the people?. Some of you people thing you are so smart yet we the ordinary see right though you all and your emptyness.
So what is the correlation here. The case you were referring to had evidence, the individual renewed his passport. where is skerrit and st jeans so called incriminating documents there is none. you people need to stop causing problems in our country. leave the government alone to do there work, which is making the country better. so what if things are hard didnt you hear its hard everywhere. count your blessings
wicked people salt must suck, chaaa, more robbery to come. no justice no peace
All you you need to go and get reading glasses or remedial reading classes…. If this is how you all read your bible then I can understand why you all have such a problem understanding the simple concepts being used in this commentary…
But why they cannot keep these commentaries nice and tight. You think everybody have time to read those long stories?
You have never publicly supported anything that this government has done, could it be that you and your ilk are the only ones who may see the ‘light’.
You stay in your office in DC and pontificate to us what should happen-quit your job move back home roll your sleeves and get working. Too much talk from you!
In your diatribe posted above, you did not mention that a man you are friends with and have supported, Mr. Ron Green himself throughout his political life in Dominica was guilty of the accusations that he and the UWP now accuse PM Skeritt of. Should the Dominican people get a refund on the monies paid to Mr. Green during this time?
Finn, have you ever seen the certificate of renunciation that the US embassy “supposedly” gave Mr. Ron Green when he went to Barbados a few days before the General election of 2009?
If he did go to Barbados to renounce his US citizenship, was he not in violation of the constitution of the Great Nation of Dominica as he did not do this prior to nomination day or the day he registered as a candidate for the La Plaine constituency?
You guys continue to amaze me. This board will not usher any of the UWP guys into office.
Every case that the UWP has taken to court, they have lost….so far.
That has nothing to do with a flawed legal system. It has much to do with a flawed group of people who associate with the UWP.
Physician heal thyself!
Dentist cure the toothache!
So Mr. Finn what you are saying is that with absolutely no evidence the court should rule against Skerrit and St. Jean. That is your LAW.
The UWP can make allegations present no evidence and the Court should condemn a man solely on ALLEGATIONS with no evidence.
Hatred is a serious thing.
if it is “alleged that your wife have aids, would you still go ahead without a condom, because is you wife SMDH????
you all are purposely diluting the context of the commentary, you might fool some, but not all….
The same way there was evidence in the Jamaica situation, there is in this one. The only difference is that the court is being manipulated by the (DLP)Lawyers. The evidence in Jamaica was the passport, what needed here also was that the passports of St Jean and Skerrit should have been presented as evidence.
If Skerrit and St Jean are allowed to remain in office, it would would not be because there was no evidence(there is more than enough)it would mean the courts have no respect for the constitution.
And that would be no surprise because the courts and police in Dominica are not independent but obviously under the control of the current and past administrations.
Accountant, I am happy your specialty (accountant)is with numbers and not with literature so I forgive you. For anyone to say that their is no evidence against PM Skeritt in particular, is just pure blindness, wickedness, upholding evil, and hates truth and honesty.
How could anyone say that there is no evidence against the PM when he, Mr. Roosevelt Skeritt, wrote a letter to the French Ambassador to the OECS in St. Lucia, where he himself informed them that he now wants to renounce his french citizenship? Now how do you wish to renounce something you do not have?
Instead of being dishonest and keep doing everything to protect a person who has knowingly disrespected our constitution, the same constitution that is used against you, me, our children and others when they have trangressed, you and others who thik like you should take a good look at the mirror and with your right hand on your chest say, I am setting a very bad example in my country of bith and I want to repent for that because it’s very, very, very wrong, and I cannot be part of those who have no respect for the rule of law.
You seems to be misunderstanding the whole matter here.
The Constitution is not anti-dual citizen. It only says that persons WHO SWORE ALLEGIANCE TO A FOREIGN STATE cannot run for political office. What the court is trying to determine is not whether Skerrit and St. Jean were French citizens or not but whether they SWORE ALLEGIANCE to France. One way of determining allegiance is (following the Jamaican court ruling) having a passport and traveling on it.
That is the crucial aspect of the case. Is there a passport to prove the two swore allegiance to France? There have been “talks” of passports but none so far. That means no evidence, no case.
To make this simple and this is real and true. My mother is a French citizen by virtue of her mother (my grandmother who has been living in Gwada from time eternal). However my mother has never sworn allegiance to France by receiving French passports or otherwise. Hence my mother can run for political office in Dominica since she have NEVER sworn allegiance to France.
Bottomline: being a citizen of a country doesn’t means you necessarily have sworn allegiance to that country.
Can someone help me, but is it I alone who finds this individual has a ‘funny’ look about him???? Anyway, nuff said. Re the commentary: just the usual same ole, same ole regurgitated garbage from the ‘envy Skerrit crew’. Let’s move on……………
yeah you cannot attack his points so attack his appearance, tactical…… not impressed at all
We are attacking on all sides of the border. Finn is a nonsensical guy from Laplaine.
FINN .I WANT TO KNOW WHT INTREST FIN HAS IN DOMINICA. THESE ARE THE PERSONS WHO GIVE ALL THERE SERVICE TO OTHER COUNTRYS BUT HAVE MORE TO SAY THAN THOSE WHO DO GIVE THEIR SERVICES TO DA
I feel so sorry for you guys because it hurts to see the level of stupidity and ignorance that still exist in Dominica today in such an enlightened world. Shame on you all!
I wonder what service you giving to the country? Hope is not dishonesty and lying.
Why cant you look at an issue.What values and principles do you hold.