Recently, the Court of Appeal affirmed the chief justice's ruling in the Vaz-Dabdoub case. There are implications of this ruling.

Vaz would not have been disqualified as a candidate because his mother took out United States citizenship for him, because it would have been an involuntary act.

Exclusive allegiance

For Vaz to be disqualified, he would have to make a deliberate act to swear exclusive allegiance to a foreign power.

The court's ruling is that on Vaz's re-application for a passport he would have been required to swear an oath of allegiance to the US and this would, undoubtedly, have been an acknowledgement of allegiance "by virtue of his own act".

However, the words on the US passport do not say anything about swearing exclusive allegiance to the US, but rather, request confirmation that the person has not sworn allegiance to a foreign power.

The chief justice seems to be suggesting the words on the passport amounted to an acknowledgement of allegiance owed to the US by Vaz who signed the form.

And, interestingly, the reason Dabdoub was not awarded the seat was based on a technicality.

Dabdoub's notice of disqualification merely states that Daryl Vaz "is a citizen of a foreign power or state, and is the holder of a passport issued to him by the Government of the United States of America".

In the opinion of the chief justice, it did not state any act of acknowledgement by Vaz and, therefore, does not satisfy the legal requirements of being clear, definite and certain.

Monumental blunder

In addition, Danville Walker, when he was director of elections, issued a statement on August 16, 2007, that all 146 candidates had been properly nominated and cautioned the media and the public not to fall prey to and be misled by election or political gimmickry in the sensitive period leading up to the general election.

This statement muddied the waters and seemed to have been given weight by the chief justice. Walker needs to be man enough and apologise for that monumental blunder.

Barring no one

The ruling does not prevent a disqualified candidate from running for office or from sitting in Parliament or from being a Cabinet minister.

The returning officer cannot bar someone. The question of a candidate's disqualification has to be determined by the court.

So, even if the PNP candidate, Kenneth Rowe, were not qualified, based on his Canadian citizenship, and he won the West Portland seat, the country would have to undergo the same litigation process.

Or, if Vaz had given up the passport only and retained the US citizenship, then no one could have prevented him from running in the by-election.

The chief justice made no order as to costs in respect of Dabdoub and Vaz as against each other and ruled that Dabdoub must bear the costs of the second and third respondents.

This ruling is strange. It is tantamount to the whistle-blower being punished.

It is commendable that Vaz has offered an apology. However, he or the JLP ought to pay for the cost of the original election.

Financial punishment

There should be a financial punishment. I was the lone columnist who disagreed with the former PNP administration which had a waiver passed in Parliament allowing a PNP minister of state to keep her salary after she had lost the petition against Dabdoub to retain the seat as MP. I said she should have paid back that unearned salary. I also believe the same for Vaz.

If there is no financial punishment, why should MPs and Cabinet members, who are disqualified, resign?

At least they get their salaries with no punishment. This is a most unfortunate implication of the ruling.

Devon Dick is pastor of the Boulevard Baptist Church and author of 'Rebellion to Riot: The Church in Nation Building'. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.