The Tribune

By TANYA SMITH-CARTWRIGHT

tsmith-cartwright@tribunemedia.net

ACTIVISTS have criticised the Office of the Attorney General’s appeal of Justice Ian Winder’s landmark ruling on citizenship.

Local group Equality Bahamas and the Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights, an international organisation, said they welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision, saying this is an important step towards upholding equal nationality rights for Bahamians without discrimination on the basis of gender or marital status.

In a joint statement, the organisations took issue with the government’s appeal of this decision.

“We are pleased with the interpretation of the Constitution as inclusive and rights-giving rather than restrictive and punitive,” said Alicia Wallace, director of Equality Bahamas and Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights coalition member. “It is unfortunate that the attorney general is positioning himself as a defender of the Constitution and his narrow view of it, rather than a defender of the people for whom the Constitution was written. We continued in our work toward constitutional reform and the expansion of women’s rights.”

The court’s decision, if upheld, could benefit thousands of children of Bahamian men born outside of wedlock to non-Bahamian women. Justice Winder ruled last month that children born out of wedlock to Bahamian men and foreign women are citizens at birth and do not have to wait until 18 to apply for citizenship, which is the common interpretation of the Constitution. If the ruling stands, it could affect the status of many people in the country.

The Bahamas is one of three countries that discriminates against unmarried fathers in their ability to confer nationality on their children. It also remains one of 25 countries globally whose nationality law denies married women the right to confer nationality on their children on an equal basis with men, the activists said. Married Bahamian women lack the right to pass nationality to children born abroad, a right reserved for married Bahamian men. The Bahamas is also one of approximately fifty countries that denies women the same right as men to confer nationality on a non-citizen spouse.

A Constitutional referendum in 2016 attempted to address the disparities, as well as introduce a new article banning sex-based discrimination, however all four questions were rejected by a wide margin.

“The Supreme Court decision is an important step towards achieving equal nationality rights for Bahamian women and men,” said Catherine Harrington, manager of the Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights. “The persistence of gender discrimination in the nationality law of The Bahamas undermines women and men’s equal citizenship and equality in the family. We urge the government of The Bahamas to build on the recent momentum and take concrete action to advance equal nationality rights for all citizens.”

Justice Winder’s ruling focused on whether a reference to “father” in Article 14 (1) of the Constitution is applicable when interpreting Article 6 of the document.

Article 6 says: “Every person born in The Bahamas after 9th July 1973 shall become a citizen of The Bahamas at the date of his birth if at that date either of his parents is a citizen of The Bahamas.”

Article 14 (1) says: “Any reference in this chapter to the father of a person shall, in relation to any person born out of wedlock other than a person legitimated before 10th July 1973, be construed as a reference to the mother of that person.”

The judge concluded that if drafters of the Constitution wanted Article 14 (1) to apply to Article 6, they would have used the words “either father or mother”, not “parents” in Article 6.

In an application filed on June 10, government lawyers have asked for his judgment to be set aside.