[xml][/xml]
The Bahamas Weekly Facebook The Bahamas Weekly Twitter
Columns : Letters to The Editor Last Updated: Feb 13, 2017 - 1:45:37 AM


A Constitutional Conundrum
By Pastor Cedric Moss, Think, Bahamas!
May 17, 2016 - 10:09:41 PM

Email this article
 Mobile friendly page
If Bill 1 fails and Bill 3 succeeds

Having given considerable thought to Bills 1 and 3, and having had the benefit of legal counsel to confirm the correctness of my conclusions, it is out of a sense of national duty that I seek to make the Bahamian public aware that if Bill 1 fails and Bill 3 succeeds in the June 7, 2016 referendum, there will be a constitutional conundrum in The Bahamas. Such a scenario (the failure of Bill 1 and the success of Bill 3) will have two earth shaking and brow raising results.

First, it will result in the taking away of the constitutional right of unwed mothers to pass Bahamian citizenship to their out of wedlock children born abroad.

Second, it will result in giving to Bahamian men, single and married, who father children of foreign women through fornication or adultery, the constitutional right to pass Bahamian citizenship to those children whether born in The Bahamas or abroad, upon proof of paternity.

Following is how I’ve come to the foregoing conclusions.

1. Article 14 of the Constitution states that “in relation to any person born out of wedlock other than a person legitimated before 10th July 1973,” any reference in Chapter II of the Constitution (Articles 3-14) to the father of a person shall be construed as a reference to the mother of that person. Therefore, children born out of wedlock to unwed Bahamian women get citizenship through their mother when born in The Bahamas (Article 6) and abroad (Article 8 — because “father” in Article 8 must be construed to mean mother).

2. Bill 1 seeks to amend Article 8 and repeal Article 9 and allow for children born abroad to be Bahamian at birth if either parent is Bahamian by birth.

3. On the other hand, Bill 3 seeks to amend Article 14 so that in the case of out of wedlock births, the meaning of “father” will be changed to mean a male who proves paternity as prescribed.

4. Therefore, if Bill 1 and Bill 3 succeed, unwed mothers who give birth to children abroad will still be able to pass citizenship to them by virtue of the newly amended Article 8, but no longer through being construed to be the father (as is the case under the current Article 14 but which will not be the case under the newly amended Article 14).

5. If Bill 1 succeeds and Bill 3 fails, Article 14 will remain as is, and “father“, which is implied in Article 6 and stated in Article 8, will continue to be construed as mother for citizenship purposes in the case of out of wedlock births. Therefore, unwed mothers will still be able to pass citizenship to their children born abroad (both as the mother, as stated in the newly amended Article 8 that Bill one would bring into force, and as the construed father in Article 14, which would remain unchanged if Bill 3 fails). Thus, as a result of Article 14 remaining unchanged, the status quo will remain, and men who father children out of wedlock with foreign women (whether through fornication as single men or adultery as married men) will still not be able to pass citizenship to those children.

6. However, if Bill 3 succeeds and Bill 1 fails, unwed mothers will NOT be able to pass citizenship to their children born abroad because “father” in the unaltered Article 8 would mean a male who satisfies paternity in accordance in the newly amended Article 14 that Bill 3 will bring into force. To put it another way, Article 8 will remain as is with the specific reference to father (because Bill 1 failed), and “father” in Article 8 will no longer be construed as the unwed mother because of the newly amended Article 14 that replaces the unwed mother with the male who proves paternity.

7. In conclusion, if Bill 3 succeeds and Bill 1 fails, the so called “Gender Equality Referendum” will be turned on its head because unwed mothers will lose the right to pass citizenship to their children born abroad, but single men (who father children with foreign women through fornication) and married men (who father children with foreign women through adultery) will gain a new constitutional right to pass citizenship to those children by proving paternity in accordance with the newly amended Article 14. And more importantly, and in glaring contrast to the new citizenship passing rights that would be given to Bahamian men who father children out of wedlock with foreign women, if Bill 3 succeeds and Bill 1 fails, Bahamian women married to foreign men will still not be able to pass citizenship to their children who are born abroad. This is nothing short of a moral contradiction.

The above analysis is a sad indictment on Prime Minister Christie and his government. It further demonstrates the lack of care and thought they have given to the four Bills that are being put before the Bahamian people. They failed to appreciate the interconnection between Bills 1 and 3, and it has the potential to produce a constitutional conundrum, if Bill 1 fails and Bill 3 succeeds. But more importantly, the conundrum that will result if Bill 1 fails and Bill 3 succeeds is a clear demonstration that Prime Minister Christie and his government have no appreciation for the reasons Articles 8 and 14 are in our Constitution, yet they sought to change them. They failed to follow the wise counsel in this wise saying: “Don’t take down a fence until you know why it was put up.”

It is for good reason that the framers of our Constitution only allowed married men and unwed mothers to pass citizenship to their children. Such an arrangement was and still is consistent with male leadership and male responsibility upon which God-honouring societies are built. When children are born out of wedlock it is an indication of failure of leadership on the part of men. Thus, the only fitting response in terms of citizenship is to give the unwed mother the right to pass citizenship under such circumstances, not the man who failed to lead and appropriately govern his sexuality.

That said, I fully support amending our Constitution to enable Bahamian women married to foreign men to pass citizenship to their children born abroad; thus, I fully support Bill 1.

It is my considered view that Article 14 is a national ancient boundary mark placed by the framers of our Constitution, and we as a nation would be wise not to change or move it. While it is my hope that a majority of voters will vote “no” to Bills 2 and 4 (which are standalone Bills), I urge all conscientious Bahamian men and women to vote “yes” to Bill 1 and “no” to Bill 3 (which are interconnected Bills). In so doing, we will uphold the wise pro-family morality in our Constitution and at the same time protect the right of our single mothers to continue to pass citizenship to their children born out of wedlock, at home and abroad, as a result of failure on the part of men to lead and govern themselves and ensure that sexual relations take place only within the boundaries of the holy estate of marriage.

My prayer is that Prime Minister Christie and his government will have the humility and wisdom to at least remove their support from Bill 3 and urge voters to do the same.

Cedric Moss serves as senior pastor of Kingdom Life Church. He also serves as the leader of the referendum education group Think, Bahamas!

Think, Bahamas! seeks to provide Bahamian voters with a clear understanding of the Four Constitution Amendment Bills being put before them in Referendum 2016. While those in the government’s campaign are emotionally calling for a blanket “yes” vote, others are thoughtlessly calling for a blanket “no” vote, and some are sending confusing messages, Think, Bahamas! is calling voters to think, then vote. For more information, please call 242-393-8262, or email us atquestions@thinkbahamas.org, or visit our office at Kingdom Life Church, 25 Chesapeake Road.



Bookmark and Share




© Copyright 2016 by thebahamasweekly.com

Top of Page

Receive our Top Stories



Preview | Powered by CommandBlast

Letters to The Editor
Latest Headlines
Proposed zero vat removal from breadbasket items
Michael Brooks: A look at Bahamian culture
Equality Bahamas Welcomes Women in Parliament to Advocate for Human Rights
Letter to the Editor: The time is now! The Bahamas must act now to ban oil drilling forever
Joe Darville: Open Letter to The Prime Minister of The Bahamas