– should Tourism Minister remain in Parliament following breach of Constitution
A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) has signal its intention to initiate legal proceedings against Minister of Tourism, Industry and Commerce, Oneidge Walrond, should she fail to step down as a Minister of Government and Member of Parliament having allegedly breached the Constitution.
Walrond, an Attorney-at-Law, took the Oath of Office to serve as a Minister of Government, knowing fully well that, at the time she was, a citizen of the United States of America (USA).
Her appointment to Office later resulted in her taking up a seat in the National Assembly, notwithstanding the fact that Article 155 of the Constitution bars dual citizens from being Members of Parliament.
During an emergency press conference on Saturday, APNU+AFC Member of Parliament, Roysdale Forde SC, said the coalition expects that Walrond would resign her post with immediate effect.
“It is clear that she is in breach of the Constitution; it is clear that she is not eligible to sit in the National Assembly, and that is the natural consequence and the proper thing to do,” the Senior Counsel said in response to a question posed.
However, he warned that legal proceedings will be initiated should she not resign.
In her defense, Walrond, in a statement, pointed out that she is a Technocratic Minister sitting in the House, and her subsequent decision to relinquish her foreign status was only out of caution and was not mandatory.
But the APNU+AFC Member of Parliament said the 2019 decision of the country’s Chief Justice (ag), Roxane George-Wiltshire clearly states that Constitution prohibits dual citizens from being Members of Parliament.
“There is no distinction, with regard to eligibility, between elected Members of Parliament and technocrat Members of Parliament,” Forde said while adding that “a person’s dual citizenship comes to an end at the time of the dated renunciation certificate, not at the time when one decides to embark on the process.”
In her statement, Walrond admitted that at the time she was sworn in as a Minister, on August 5, 2020, she was not in possession of the renunciation certificate. It was not until August 18, 2020 that the Minister wrote the US Consular Office requesting that her citizenship to the United States of America be renounced. According to her, by August 27 she had complied with the established procedure so as to obtain her Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States, and has since received such.
But Forde said the Tourism Minister was not specific, and as such, is demanding that she makes public her Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States.
“Ms. Waldron does not specifically state that at the time when she was sworn in as a Member of Parliament that her citizenship was renounced. Ms. Waldron is being disingenuous and duplicitous and misleading when she states that she “immediately renounced her citizenship”. There is no such thing as the immediate renouncing of one’s citizenship. It is a process and it is only formal and final after the process is completed, not when one initiates the process,” the APNU+AFC Parliamentarian said.
Noting that it is event that at the time when Walrond was sworn in as a Minister she was not eligible to be a Minister as all Ministers must be eligible to be Members of Parliament, the Senior Counsel pointed to Article 103 (3) of the Constitution. That Article, he posited, specifically deals with the eligibility requirement for non-elected members of the National Assembly or Technocrats.
“It says, not more than four ministers and two parliamentary secretaries shall be appointed by the President from among persons who are qualified to be elected as Members of the National Assembly,” he pointed out.
He maintained that the Tourism Minister breached Constitution and is therefore scandalously and illegally squatting in the National Assembly. He was also keen on pointing out that the Clerk of the National Assembly, Sherlock Isaacs had written all Members of Parliament to ascertain their status. It is unclear what Walrond’s communication to the Clerk. He said the Clerk should also take action against Walrond.
