|
|
Jestina Doe-Anderson
Citizenship and the Potential for National Disinheritance
Over the past few years, it appears that the attention of Liberians from all walks of life has been drawn to the Constitution and the Alien and Nationality Laws of the Republic of Liberia. It is truly important to note that people who have not paid much attention to anything close to a constitution since sixth grade civics class are now researching, dissecting, and discussing our Constitution as though it were the topic of a doctoral dissertation. Even those of us who are considered apolitical find ourselves reciting Article 52 of the Constitution like it’s the 23rd Psalm.
Why so much ado? Well, from any perspective, it’s extremely important that citizens of any nation demonstrate some familiarity with what is considered as the supreme law of the land.
Let’s backtrack to 2005. The debate on citizenship and “dual citizenship” developed steam during the presidential candidacy of George Oppong Weah. It was then that many Liberians and non-Liberians became somewhat familiar with Article 52 of our Constitution, which describes the requirements to vie for the offices of the presidency and vice-presidency; and Chapter 22 of the Alien and Nationality Laws, which describes the terms and conditions under which Liberian citizenship is lost. It was only then that many Liberians who had naturalized as citizens of other countries came to find out that they were no longer citizens of Liberia.
Another event that garnered scanty, albeit significant, attention was the casting of a ballot in our 2005 presidential elections by the non-Liberian wife of presidential contender George Weah. According to the National Elections Commission, one must have been a Liberian citizen, having attained at least 18 years of age, who had registered in Liberia to vote during the voter registration period. Well, it is alleged that Mrs. Weah (who is reported to be an alien of Jamaican-American nationality) received special dispensation per Subchapter B, Section 21.3(3) of the Alien and Nationality Laws. The law states that:
. . . a minimum of two years elapse after the filing of a declaration of intention before the filing of a petition for naturalization, may be waived by the President of Liberia, and an applicant as to whom such waiver has been granted may become a citizen immediately after filing his declaration of intention upon taking the oath of allegiance.
In simple English, this means that Mrs. Weah was able to naturalize as a citizen of Liberia in a day if the President provided such a waiver. We are therefore inclined to believe that Mrs. Weah summarily relinquished her US and Jamaican citizenships in order to naturalize as a Liberian citizen — just to legally cast her vote.
But the elections are over, so why should we concern ourselves with issues past and done deals? Rather, let’s fast-forward to the year 2006 when the citizenship issue resurfaced during the confirmation hearings of cabinet members appointed into the administration of President Johnson-Sirleaf.
I would suppose that the first notable incident was in the questioning of then Finance Minister-designate, Dr. Antoinette Sayeh. At the time, there seemed to be the pervasive impression that anyone who had lived in the United States for a significant period of time must have naturalized as a US citizen. Fortunately for Dr. Sayeh, and for Liberia, that was not the case.
I don’t know if the citizenship question is standard in confirmation hearings, or whether it is reserved for select candidates. The case of then Deputy Public Works Minister-designate Luseni Dunzo was, in my opinion, classic. I believe that the honorable senators had every right to pose the question of citizenship to any and all appointees, although the constitution does not specifically state that Liberian citizenship is a requirement for public offices other than those of the Senate, Legislature, and Supreme Court. If the citizenship question had to be asked, it should have been to all candidates, irrespective of where they may have recently lived. Otherwise, the questioning would take on the appearance of a singling out for other-than-official reasons.
I believe many other Liberians shared the sentiment that dismissing the hearings of Mr. Dunzo, based on his admission of naturalizing as a US citizen, was unfair and an unfortunate error. After all, he was willing to renounce US citizenship to regain his Liberian citizenship – just to qualify for the position for which he is well suited. He should have been given a fighting chance – and so he was.
This also raises the issue of the hearings of Dionysius Sebwe and Othello Warwick, who appeared to have summarily lost their Liberian citizenship by serving in the Armed Forces of another country. If they did not, in fact, naturalize as citizens of the country in whose Armed Forces they served, did that render them stateless? It’s interesting that Mrs. Weah was able to naturalize as a citizen of Liberia in a couple of days in order to vote, but apparently not Dunzo, Sebwe, or Warwick in order to hold public office.
By the way, does our constitution support the appointment of an alien as Chief-of-Staff of our armed forces? Perhaps a Nigerian national who has served in the Nigerian army would be less of a security threat than a Liberian national who was trained and served in the US army. I doubt that the Nigerian General risked losing his citizenship for serving in the army of another country. The Nigerians are not so selfish with their citizenship. In fact, many of my Nigerian colleagues found this topic rather amusing. Nigeria recognizes multiple citizenships, and nobody there seems to be bothered about it.
For many of us, anyone who was born in Liberia, who has at least one Liberian parent, who has lived in Liberia for any period of time, and identifies with Liberia as his/her homeland may be recognized as a Liberian national. That seems to be quite different from a Liberian citizen who has to meet the terms of citizenship documented in our Constitution and Alien and Nationality Laws. So as far as I’m concerned, George Weah, Luseni Dunzo, Dionysius Sebwe, Othello Warwick, and many others should be recognized as Liberians even though they may have lost Liberian citizenship at some point in time.
Because these and other recent events have led us to pay such close attention to the contents of our Constitution and Nationality laws, I would like to personally address a few additional areas that I believe warrant serious consideration:
ALIEN AND NATIONALITY LAWS
Except as provided by section 5.2 or other sections of this title, the following classes of aliens shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission to Liberia:
5.1. Grounds for exclusion.
a) Aliens who are feeble-minded;
b) Aliens who are insane;
c) Aliens who have had one or more attacks of insanity;
d) Aliens afflicted with psychopathic personality, epilepsy or mental defect . . .
g) Aliens not comprehended within any of the foregoing classes who are certified by the examining surgeon as having a physical defect, disease, or disability, when determined by the consular or immigration officer to be of such a nature that it may affect the ability of the alien to earn a living, unless the alien affirmatively establishes that he will not have to earn a living;
All of the above grounds clearly signify discrimination against people with disabilities. Is this not a human rights violation?
q) Immigrants who are ineligible to citizenship;
If aliens of non-Negro descent are ineligible for citizenship, then there should be no non-Negro immigrants. What is the immigration status of Lebanese and Indians who have been living in Liberia for over 20 years?
Of course, there are always exceptions. Per Chapter 5.3, certain excludable aliens are admissible under exceptions or conditions. For example:
“any alien excludable because he is likely to become a public charge or because of physical disability other than tuberculosis in any form, leprosy, or a dangerous contagious disease may, if otherwise admissible, be admitted in the discretion of the Attorney General upon the giving of a suitable and proper bond or undertaking approved by the Attorney General, in such amount and containing such conditions as he may prescribe, guaranteeing the Government of Liberia and all counties, townships, municipalities and districts thereof against such alien becoming a public charge. In lieu of such bond such alien may deposit in cash with the Attorney General such amount as the Attorney General may require, which amount shall be deposited by him in the public depository of the Republic and a receipt therefore shall be given the person furnishing such sum. In the event such alien becomes a public charges the Attorney General shall dispose of such deposit in the same manner as if it had been collected under a bond as provided in this section. In the event of the permanent departure from Liberia of such alien, or his naturalization or death, such sum shall be returned to the person by whom furnished or to his legal representatives. The admission of such alien shall be a consideration for the giving of such bond, undertaking or cash deposit.”
Does this mean that aliens with disabilities cannot enter Liberia unless they deposit money with the Attorney General (at his/her discretion) for their upkeep?
6.7. Restriction on settlement of immigrants.
Immigrants may be directed by the Attorney General to settle in specified sections of the country in order to prevent unreasonable numbers from settling in one county, city, town, or village. An immigrant who establishes a residence in a place other than the one designated by the Attorney General shall be liable to payment of a civil penalty of for every month of noncompliance.
This specific restriction appears to be contradictory to Article 13(a) of the Constitution, which states that “Every person lawfully within the Republic shall have the right to move freely throughout Liberia, to reside in any part thereof and to leave therefrom subject however to the safe-guarding of public security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others”.
21.31. Children born outside Liberia of alien parents or of citizen mother and alien father. Derivation of citizenship through naturalization of father.
A child born outside Liberia of alien parents, or of a citizen mother and a father who was not born a citizen of Liberia, becomes a citizen of Liberia through naturalization of the father if (a) such naturalization takes place while such child is under the age of 21 years; and (b) such child is residing in Liberia following lawful admission for permanent residence at the time of the naturalization of the father, or thereafter begins to reside permanently in Liberia while under the age of 21 years.
What happens if a Liberian woman had a child for a Guinean man while residing in a Guinean refugee camp? The child was born outside of Liberia and the father is not a Liberian by birth or by naturalization. Should this child then be deprived of Liberian citizenship?
THE CONSTITUTION
My first concern about the Constitution is that there are several references to the People’s Redemption Council. In addition to the fact that the PRC is no longer in existence, I don’t believe that a non-constitutional organization, which removed a constitutional government in a non-constitutional manner, should be referenced in a legitimate constitution.
I also have questions about Article 22(a), which states that “Every person shall have the right to own property alone as well as in association with others; provided that only Liberian citizens shall have the right to own real property within the Republic.” Well, many Liberians who have taken on citizenship of other countries continue to own real property in Liberia, so what does this really mean?
It is quite obvious that our Alien and Nationality Laws and our Constitution are passé and require urgent reconstructive surgery. Perhaps a closer look at our entire Legal Code would render a similar judgment. Until these critical issues are addressed, numerous Liberian nationals will continue to be victimized by the captains of our untimely disaster.
I am particularly pleased that Liberians are now reading, comprehending, and seeking to uphold the laws that address our basic human and civil rights. There is no question that this has not happened in past take-it-or-leave-it administrations. In fact, I’ve never been more contented to know that taxi drivers, market women, schoolchildren, etc. are all referring to the constitution. It pertains to all of us, and — as a democratic nation of the people, by the people, and for the people — we all should have a say in what affects our nation and our people.
I’m also concerned about the disturbing sentiment amongst many of our brothers and sisters “on the ground” that those of us living in the Diaspora are less entitled to Liberia because we did not “suffer” through the war:
Firstly, all Liberians living in the Diaspora have not relinquished Liberian citizenship. We should therefore enjoy all of the constitutional rights and privileges that pertain to any Liberian citizen, irrespective of where we live.
Secondly, all Liberians living in the Diaspora are not living outside of Liberia by choice.
Thirdly, many of us have had to struggle with the conflicting priorities of living as foreigners to earn the income required to sustain ourselves, our families, and relatives back home (who are always calling collect and waiting outside the Western Union office for lil’ something); or returning to live in Liberia with no assurance of an income to sustain ourselves, our families, and relatives back home (who can’t believe that we could possibly have returned home broke).
Finally, some Liberians (myself included) were sent to other countries by the Liberian government for professional development, and were abandoned during the war. Isn’t it as much the responsibility of the government to repatriate us as it is our responsibility to serve our country in the capacity for which we were trained? I await my return ticket.
And then there’s the debate about GEMAP.
Those who have concerns about GEMAP must understand what led us to the existence of a GEMAP in the first place. By our own doing, we have given the world the perception that we are incapable of good governance, financial management, and respect for the rule of law. This determination was not based on the activities of Liberians in the Diaspora, but rather on the inactivity of Liberians in Liberia to whom all priorities for national entitlements should presumably belong.
It appears that Liberians who live in the Diaspora are really damned Liberians, at risk of national disinheritance – damned for not having lived through the height of our beloved country’s civil unrest; damned for having lived with electricity and running water when our fellow countrymen at home didn’t’ (as if we are responsible for that); and even more damned for trying to return to the one place that we know as “home.”
Copyright © Jestina Doe-Anderson
|
|
|
