Swearing blunder

By Prince Moore    

 

Constitutional law expert Dr. Lloyd Barnett says councillors should not be prevented from sitting in Municipal Corporations because they object to taking the oath of office by swearing.

 

He was reacting to Thursday's incident in which two Jamaica Labour Party councillors were prevented from sitting in the chamber during the monthly meeting of the St. James Municipal Corporation after they refused to take the oath of office by swearing, in accordance with the Local Governance Act, 2016.

 

Anthony Murray from the Rose Hall Division and Gregory Harris from the Salt Spring Division say because of their Christian beliefs they chose to affirm, but this was not accepted.

 

But Dr. Barnett says the law makes provisions for alternatives in the Oaths Act as well as the Interpretation Act.

 

Speaking Thursday on Radio Jamaica's Beyond the Headlines, he said the acts opt for affirmation in the case where a councillor objects to swearing an oath due to religious reasons. 

 

"The Oaths Act as well as the Interpretation Act provide that in substitution for an oath, a person on the basis of religious belief, may opt for an affirmation instead. And this is consistent with the freedom of religion, which our Constitution protects. It would be very unfair and monstrous to force a person to take an oath, if that is contrary to the person's religious belief when there is a suitable alternative which exists," he noted. 

 

Dr. Barnett believes the issue at the St. James Municipal Corporation occurred due to lack of proper advice. 

 

"That happens if you don't have a person who can advise you present, and if a layman reads the section and sees 'oath', he's not going to know that he must substitute affirmation."