Gordon Robinson | Fly di gate

With all of 189 candidates nominated for Wednesday’s election concerns can arise regarding the nomination process.

The Constitution [ section 40(2)] provides that no candidate is “qualified to be elected” if he/she is party, whether personally or through a corporation/partnership, to any Government contract unless he/she has published details of the arrangement in the Gazette. This becomes problematic when other provisions of the Constitution are considered especially section 41 (10) (g) which provides that a seat shall become vacant if a member “becomes” party to a Government contract unless he/she discloses this to the House and the House exempts him/her.

So here are possible scenarios:

(1) A candidate for re-election became party to a Government contract while in Parliament and was exempted from vacating his seat but the contract remains in force on Nomination Day;

(2) A new candidate is party to a Government contract.

What process is in place at the Electoral Office to have these situations discovered especially as nominations increased by over 30% and could increase even further in future elections?

The Nomination Form includes a declaration by nominators that “to the best of our belief” the candidate qualifies under the Constitution’s nationality/residency provisions. Then the form has a box checking portion where the candidate “declares” (by checking “yes” or “no”), inter alia, that:

“I am, by virtue of section 40 of the Constitution, not disqualified…”

The candidate must also give his/her address, occupation and TRN. Also an “official agent” must be named.

So let’s take a closer look at possible scenario (1) above. The candidate ticks “yes” to the not-disqualified declaration and signs the nomination form innocently for the simple reason that, like too many colleagues, he/she hasn’t read the Constitution, and is clueless about section 40.

Does the Electoral Office conduct any checks or investigations to ensure the nominee is, in fact, not disqualified? As a first stop, ECJ could check the Parliamentary record for exemptions. ECJ could ask the Clerk to send a list of MPs who received exemptions during the last parliamentary term along with copies of the contracts or certification of their termination dates.

Surely there’s a reason for the law’s insistence that Election Day must come 16-23 days after Nomination? Election Day workers should long ago have been hired and trained especially this time around when the election period was no mystery. However, if ECJ says that some other type of election prep work is needed to the extent that it’s unable to check for potentially disqualified nominees in those three weeks then that’s another argument in favour of fixed election dates. In any event, it should be standard protocol for the Clerk of Parliament to send this information to ECJ as soon as Parliament is prorogued.

Instead of forcing ECJ to waste resources acting as a political ombudsman, in conflict with its core objects, Parliament could add an investigative department to ECJ, akin to the Integrity Commission’s Investigation Division. After all, ECJ is supposed to ensure the integrity of elections not the resolution of political squabbles.

A regular reader sent me a message that goes even further. The reader suggested it should be a condition of nomination that the prospective candidates produce three years of tax returns. This might be a tad intrusive but not if you consider that the candidate is seeking to become a MP who must declare income, expenses assets and liabilities to the Integrity Commission. PNP is campaigning on making all MPs’ statutory declarations public. So why not ask candidates for MP to produce at least a tax compliance certificate as a pre-requisite for nomination?

We must remember that, under our current constitutional conditions, these are persons who could have control of government (or from which pool of suspects cabinet can be chosen); oversight of the award of government contracts; and appointment of sensitive statutory Boards. Why should they be allowed a job interview (a.k.a. campaign for election) without establishing at least some minimum qualifications?

In UK, candidates must supply the nomination form; a home address form; consent to nomination; and, if they are standing for a political party, a certificate of authorization for use of the party name and symbol. On the home address form the candidate must state:

• their full name;

• their home address in full;

• their qualifying address;

• the full name and home address of the witness to the consent to nomination form.

The candidate’s home address must be completed in full; must not contain abbreviations; must be their current home address; and must not be a business address (unless the candidate runs a business from their home).

In USA, in addition to establishing the standard qualifications of citizenship and residency (must be resident in USA for 14 years), every candidate for federal office (other than for Vice President) must designate in writing a political committee to serve as his/her principal campaign committee as well as any other organizational campaign committee. The principal campaign committee must file a Statement of Organization within 10 days of designation by the candidate and reports of receipts and disbursements. Details of campaign contributions must be reported whether made to the Committee or to someone on behalf of the Committee.

But, in 2025 Jamaica, one hundred and eighty-nine candidates are allowed to be nominated to potentially become Government Ministers simply by declaring that they’re qualified? No checks? Not even referencing parliamentary records? No publication by Government of details of all Government contracts and names of contractors? No campaign financing monitoring or reporting required before election?

Fly di gate

and let in di pirate!

I keep telling you, we don’t have accountability in Government. We don’t even have accountability in pre-government processes like nominations. We live in a country where our political leaders thrive on secrecy yet we must leave our homes; line up in the oppressive heat; and help them to bury their snouts in the public trough?

Give me a break!

Yu gwaan like sey yu neva respec’ man.

Well now mi come back

an’ mi coming een strong.

A fire now unda dem foot bottom!

Born Marcus Thousand on March 31, 1966, “Bionic Steve” (a.k.a. “Pirate”) rose to fame in 1993 with his hit song Fly di Gate which was repeatedly played on PNP political platforms to prompt the PM of the day to set the election date. Tragically “Bionic Steve”, who took his moniker from TV action character Steve Austin (“The Bionic Man”), was murdered on January 17, 1997; his body riddled with stab wounds and left in a gully.

So yet another process shrouded in secrecy, uncertainty and unreliability is in full swing. Until We the People stop listening to the noise masquerading as election campaigns, whereby name calling and escalating, empty promises are abundant, and insist on proposals to make our Governments accountable to us, Jamaica is heading nowhere fast. Permission to vote for MP once every five years isn’t accountability. That’s contempt for We the People. despite this, many of us turn out like sheep every five years and give one or the other cult a turn at the trough.

We should be demanding staggered electoral terms so that someone or some representative branch of government is up for election every two years at the longest. We must demand a direct vote for PM/President; MPs; Senators; Mayors. We must demand that every proposed cabinet member and Statutory Board Chairman be vetted by Parliament before appointment. We must demand Government be separated from Parliament. We must demand Freedom of the Press so media can access official information unrelated to national security without having to beg, bow and scrape. We must demand defamation law reform so Public Officials, our employees, can’t sue us, their employers, for defamation unless they can prove malice.

We must demand recall elections to remove non-performing MPs. We must demand impeachment of Government officials (not MPs) followed by trial in the Senate and dismissal if convicted for governance breaches. The Opposition’s nonsensical “Impeachment Bill” whereby MPs elected by us are to impeach other MPs elected by us is ludicrous.

If none of the campaigns’ glut of promises includes any of these fundamentals then Wednesday’s “voting” will be a farce. The entire campaign has been a circus. On Wednesday, we send in the clowns.

Peace and Love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com