Your editorial makes the point, inter alia: "... While we respect the motivations and intent of the framers of the Constitution, we agree with Prime Minister Golding - and the justices of the Court of Appeal in their ruling in the Daryl Vaz case - that there is an absurdity in the fact that a citizen of a Commonwealth country, who has lived in Jamaica for a year, is eligible to be a member of parliament, while a Jamaican, who has become a citizen of a non-Commonwealth country, is disqualified ... ."

What was the motivation and intent of the framers of the Constitution?

This clause, Sec 40(2a), has caused so much anxiety and debate it is only reasonable that the people of Jamaica deserves to hear from those persons still around, the basis for inclusion of such a clause.

A human response could possibly temper the absurdity claimed by the Court of Appeal in its strictly legal approach to rulings in these cases.

I am, etc.,

Norman Lee

namronlee@rogers.com