The Editor, Sir:

Both the prime minister and the speaker of the House of Representatives have conveniently confused calls for declaration of citizenship status by members of either House with the determination of questions as to membership of either House.

The chief justice of Jamaica has determined that individuals who have renewed their United States passports and travelled thereon are disqualified from being validly elected or appointed as a member of either House.

Both the prime minister and the Speaker cannot ignore that ruling and are obliged to apply such ruling to the members of both Houses. This they have failed to do. So far as we are aware, it is only the member for Western Portland who has sought to abide (in part) by the determinations made by the honourable chief justice.

So far as we are aware, the calls for the declaration of the citizenship status of members of either House have not sought to oust the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal on the challenges being made to the validity of elected or appointed members.

Full disclosure

In light of the heightened interest in divided allegiance of the legislature, full disclosure of their citizenship status is appropriate and ought to be deemed to be in the 'national interest'. Secrecy is diametrically opposed to trans-parency and facilitates doubt as to integrity.

The legitimacy of Parliament must never be open to serious question and nothing should be done by those sworn to uphold the Constitution, which could be interpreted as a conspiracy in furtherance of the breach of the provisions of the said Constitution.

To quote the much-maligned Daryl Vaz, "law makers must not be law breakers."

I am, etc.,

Dr PAUL ASHLEY

Attorney-at-law

1 Braemar Ave

Kingston 10