The Editor, Sir:

The Budget Debate is a critical exercise in outlining the measures by which the Government intends to raise revenue to fund its programmes and the business of the bureaucracy.

The chief justice has interpreted the section of the Constitution of Jamaica dealing with those qualified to be elected or appointed to the Parliament. The ruling has the effect of deeming those members of parliament and senators holding United States passports ineligible to sit in the legislature.

This has profound implications for the passage of the Budget, as there are a number of members on both sides of the aisle who are in this offending position.

Profound questions

Can such offending members morally or legally participate in this exercise, knowing full well of their dual citizenship status?

Will a budget passed with the participation of persons not 'fit and proper' to be sitting in the House of Representatives be constitutional?

Awaiting the court's ruling on individuals who, as adults, applied for and obtained US passports (and they themselves are relying on legal technicalities) cannot be considered appropriate in the Westminster/-Whitehall model of government.

The contamination cannot be tackled in a piecemeal fashion by holding a number of by-elections at court-determined intervals.

The Parliament must be constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution before any attempt to pass legislation.

I am, etc.,

Dr PAUL ASHLEY

ashlaw@cwjamaica.com