Dear Editor,

I read your headline ‘JLP, PNP squabble over Golding’s dual citizenship drags on’, published on Friday, May, 24 2024. The choice of headline is the prerogative of the editor; therefore, pardon my presumption to suggest that it belittles a matter of grave national importance.

You may be of the view that Jamaicans are uninterested in the subject of whether their leader is obliged to a foreign power. I am moved to write to you because I find it offensive that someone who has obligations to another country could seek to lead my country. For many years I worked in a US federal agency. There were certain positions that I could not be promoted to, regardless my qualifications, because I was not a citizen of the US. To this day I have not taken up US citizenship, though I was offered and encouraged based on my particular skill sets.

My work sent me to Australia in 2017, where, at the time, there was a major purge of dual citizens from the Australian Parliament, including the deputy prime minister and other senior government ministers. I recall explaining to my American boss that Jamaica went through a similar episode almost a decade before, whereby Jamaican American parliamentarians were evicted from the Jamaican Parliament because of their non-Commonwealth citizenship. The concept of a Commonwealth of countries having the same head of State was difficult for an American to wrap his mind around.

So it was surprising to discover that Australia, though a realm country in the Commonwealth, evicted from its Parliament people who were citizens of the British realm. Dual citizens of Britain, New Zealand, and Canada, all countries that share the same head of State, then Queen Elizabeth II, were deemed ineligible to sit in the Australian Parliament. Most of the offending parliamentarians had renounced their citizenship when they discovered it was inconsistent with their constitution. Nevertheless, the Australian courts ruled that renouncing the additional citizenship did not cure the breach. They were ineligible to be elected or appointed “ab initio”.

The Australian Constitution requires candidates for parliamentary office not to be a “subject or citizen of a foreign power”. Apparently the Australian Constitution did not make the distinction that Jamaica has, whereby Commonwealth countries are not considered “foreign” countries, another element of the difficulty in explaining this crazy arrangement with the Commonwealth to an American.

In the Jamaican cases, the central issue was whether or not the non-Commonwealth citizens took positive action which would put them under an obligation to a foreign State. Even people who inherited their citizenship from an American parent were disqualified on the basis that they renewed their American passport. The Jamaican view is now evolving to be closer to that of Australia; wherein, being a part of the Commonwealth does not create an exemption for split allegiances.

I had an opportunity to glance through the recommendations of the Constitutional Reform Committee, which essentially states that only a Jamaican citizen with Jamaican allegiance exclusively may sit in the Parliament. This recommendation, in its literal interpretation, would exclude the privilege that Commonwealth citizens now have.

I could only imagine the quagmire that Leader of the Opposition Mark Golding would immediately see upon reading this recommendation. He would have just participated in a process that would disqualify him from Parliament. If he agreed to this, the Government could move ahead with amending the law and he would have to renounce his British citizenship to continue to hold office.

So Jamaica becoming a republic is stalled until the leader of the Opposition brings himself to renounce his private interest, which conflicts with the national interest. This goes to the heart of what it means to become a republic, all decisions must be made with regard to the public. No consideration of other powers, foreign publics, or private interests must enter into the minds of our decision-makers.

If followed to its logical conclusion, it would mean that our final court must be Jamaican as well. The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) would not be an improvement of Jamaican sovereignty. So the argument of holding out on the republic to achieve full sovereignty is not a good reason to explain the reluctance of the leader of the Opposition.

In this very important process we have a leader of our country who is definitely ethically conflicted. On one hand he is encouraging the country to give up the King as head of State, but he refuses to give up his personal citizenship of the King’s country. This is why I am deeply offended by your headline.

The process of ensuring that the decisions made about our country by our leaders are based only on what is in Jamaica’s best interest should not be relegated to a squabble. This is not a
TikTok fad. I am amazed at the lack of well-researched articles and contextual arguments around this matter in our local press.

It may surprise many, but Jamaica’s journey to republicanism is being closely watched around the world. A former co-worker sent me an article which recounted politicians who voluntarily renounced their other citizenships. This included Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada; Boris Johnson, who was born in the USA; and Edward Seaga, who was born in the USA as well.

All of these politicians gave up their other citizenships without being asked to do so, without waiting on the slow but sure build up of public suspicion about allegiance and motives behind their decisions. It showed their unmistakable, instrumental, and unquestionable choice. They chose the country they love to serve.

Why is Golding not choosing Jamaica now, why didn’t he chose Jamaica before now? I like Golding, but it is clear he doesn’t love Jamaica enough to give up all else.

Bernard Headley

bernard.headley@yahoo.com