“OUR TAKE ON DUAL CITIZENSHIP” – Dukule`:

Introduction

As the leading, vocal, visible opponent, on-ground in Liberia, of dual citizenship in our country, we have covered, almost, all aspects of the citizen, citizenshipdebate, dual or otherwise, from the State of Nature to the present Social State, includingJus soli(right of the soil),Jus sanguinis(right of blood) andCllr. Varney Sherman’s fallacious“Once-a-Liberian, always-a-Liberian” theory against the all-important, critical question of “Dual Citizenship: Loyalty, allegiance & Patriotism to whom?

On validity, we aware that law is made with proposal for amendment/repeal that, in the event that the conditions which give rise to its passing are not, any longer, prevailing or valid, a law is amended/repealed . But that is not case here; for, the reasons or conditions which gave rise to the law against dual citizenship – disloyalty, public dishonesty (corruption) – is as valid today as it was years ago when it was passed into law.Therefore, there is no need for amendment/repeal as demanded by the proponents.

During these days of local ethnic/tribal conflicts & violence, international terrorism with violence, inordinate quest/desire for political power and its perceived, associated wealth,Boko Haram’s Muslim-Islamist, international violence on our African Continent with no regard for human life, it is unreasonable, indeed, dangerous, to place the life and survival of our nation and people in the hands of “aliens” and “former Liberians” whosold and mortgaged their allegiance and patriotism to foreign countries, with religion in politics, without due scrutiny and safe-guard.

Today, this day, the great United States, the most powerful nation on this planet, in terms of power-politics, diplomacy, economic development, etc., a nation that could land a person on the moon, is now involved, franticly, in trying to extricate itself from nuclear confrontation with some developing nations, occasioned by dual citizens.

This Response

As indicated earlier, we do not countenance Our Take on Dual Citizenshipbecause it raises no new, compelling issues, but the old, worn-out clishe`s. Our attention is drawn toDr. AbdulayeDukule`s response to Mr. Theodore Hodge. Mr. Hodge argued that “This man,Dukule, has been a questionable and dubious character for a long time. Right here in the pages of . . . of this . . .Perspective.org, Dr. BoimaFahnbulleh questioned what high school did he attend? Who were some of his elementary, junior high and high schoolmates?. . . Those questions” Mr. Hodge concluded, “werenever resolvedbecause Mr. Dukule adroitly dodged the issue and never responded to the challenge of proving to us that he was indeed a natural born Liberian . . .Now,we know that Mr. Dukule is a personal friend and adviser to Liberia’s President Ellen Johnson¬-Sirleaf. I think Mr. Dukule should have the decency to abstain from such a sensitive debate; he has no part in it. We’re sick and tired of his con games”.

To this argument, Dr. Dukule` responded thus: “I stand on my own as a proud American (citizen) with enough knowledge and creativity, I can make life anywhere. Admitting that I have US citizenship in no way disqualifies me (from) speaking about Liberian issues. Don’t kill the messenger”(but deal with the message, his implicit advice).

In support of Mr. Theodore Hodge, it is reasonably permissible to call into question or challenge the standing of (a witness or) the messenger such as Dr. Dukule`,when andwhere the argument, debate or policy prescription that he (the “messenger”) presentsrestson the standing, interests, rights, etc., of the“messenger”.It is for this reason that trial attorneys in a court of law challenge the credibility or standing of witnesses.Now, in this case of citizenship:

Firstly, Dr.Dukule` argues, implicitly, that it is his right to be involved or take active part in lawful debates on Liberian, political issues, in this case, citizenship, as a “messenger”; but he is not a messenger or conduit through which the message is conveyed, but an individual presenter of basic policy prescription, having vested interest in the policy debate, with a right.

Secondly, rights are not absolute, even to a citizen. One is required to perform a given function/obligation in order to exercise that right.

Thirdly, Dr. Dukule`, unfortunately, is not a Liberian citizen, according to his own admission, a function/obligation required to exercise the right of citizenship; therefore, he is estopped from engagement in debates of Liberian sensitive, political issues.

We hope that The Perspective.org will publish our response to give the readers the benefit of an opposing argument, and to silence Dr. Dukule` from dabbling in Liberian, sensitive political issues for good. P e r s p e c t I v e s

Public Policy .Economics . Democratic Politics . Political/Economic Decentralization . Public Dishonesty . Dual Citizenship

With Bai M. Gbala, Sr.
January 7, 2016

“OUR TAKE ON DUAL CITIZENSHIP” – Dukule`:
A Response

Introduction

As the leading, vocal, visible opponent, on-ground in Liberia, of dual citizenship in our country, we have covered, almost, all aspects of the citizen, citizenshipdebate, dual or otherwise, from the State of Nature to the present Social State, includingJus soli(right of the soil),Jus sanguinis(right of blood) andCllr. Varney Sherman’s fallacious“Once-a-Liberian, always-a-Liberian” theory against the all-important, critical question of “Dual Citizenship: Loyalty, allegiance & Patriotism to whom?

On validity, we aware that law is made with proposal for amendment/repeal that, in the event that the conditions which give rise to its passing are not, any longer, prevailing or valid, a law is amended/repealed . But that is not case here; for, the reasons or conditions which gave rise to the law against dual citizenship – disloyalty, public dishonesty (corruption) – is as valid today as it was years ago when it was passed into law.Therefore, there is no need for amendment/repeal as demanded by the proponents.

During these days of local ethnic/tribal conflicts & violence, international terrorism with violence, inordinate quest/desire for political power and its perceived, associated wealth,Boko Haram’s Muslim-Islamist, international violence on our African Continent with no regard for human life, it is unreasonable, indeed, dangerous, to place the life and survival of our nation and people in the hands of “aliens” and “former Liberians” whosold and mortgaged their allegiance and patriotism to foreign countries, with religion in politics, without due scrutiny and safe-guard.

Today, this day, the great United States, the most powerful nation on this planet, in terms of power-politics, diplomacy, economic development, etc., a nation that could land a person on the moon, is now involved, franticly, in trying to extricate itself from nuclear confrontation with some developing nations, occasioned by dual citizens.

This Response

As indicated earlier, we do not countenance Our Take on Dual Citizenshipbecause it raises no new, compelling issues, but the old, worn-out clishe`s.

Our attention is drawn toDr. AbdulayeDukule`s response to Mr. Theodore Hodge. Mr. Hodge argued that “This man,Dukule, has been a questionable and dubious character for a long time. Right here in the pages of . . . of this . . .Perspective.org, Dr. BoimaFahnbulleh questioned what high school did he attend? Who were some of his elementary, junior high and high schoolmates?. . . Those questions” Mr. Hodge concluded, “werenever resolvedbecause Mr. Dukule adroitly dodged the issue and never responded to the challenge of proving to us that he was indeed a natural born Liberian . . .Now,we know that Mr. Dukule is a personal friend and adviser to Liberia’s President Ellen Johnson¬-Sirleaf. I think Mr. Dukule should have the decency to abstain from such a sensitive debate; he has no part in it. We’re sick and tired of his con games”.

To this argument, Dr. Dukule` responded thus: “I stand on my own as a proud American (citizen) with enough knowledge and creativity, I can make life anywhere. Admitting that I have US citizenship in no way disqualifies me (from) speaking about Liberian issues. Don’t kill the messenger”(but deal with the message, his implicit advice).

In support of Mr. Theodore Hodge, it is reasonably permissible to call into question or challenge the standing of (a witness or) the messenger such as Dr. Dukule`,when andwhere the argument, debate or policy prescription that he (the “messenger”) presentsrestson the standing, interests, rights, etc., of the“messenger”.It is for this reason that trial attorneys in a court of law challenge the credibility or standing of witnesses.Now, in this case of citizenship:

Firstly, Dr.Dukule` argues, implicitly, that it is his right to be involved or take active part in lawful debates on Liberian, political issues, in this case, citizenship, as a “messenger”; but he is not a messenger or conduit through which the message is conveyed, but an individual presenter of basic policy prescription, having vested interest in the policy debate, with a right.

Secondly, rights are not absolute, even to a citizen. One is required to perform a given function/obligation in order to exercise that right.

Thirdly, Dr. Dukule`, unfortunately, is not a Liberian citizen, according to his own admission, a function/obligation required to exercise the right of citizenship; therefore, he is estopped from engagement in debates of Liberian sensitive, political issues.

We hope that The Perspective.org will publish our response to give the readers the benefit of an opposing argument, and to silence Dr. Dukule` from dabbling in Liberian, sensitive political issues for good.