Attorney-at-Law Anselm Clouden is calling on the Keith Mitchell-led Government to finally put to rest "the vexing problem of the citizenship of elected representatives" to the Lower House of Parliament.

Clouden's latest pronouncement came against the backdrop of a legal document which was printed by GRENADA TODAY newspaper showing that opposition Member of Parliament, Peter David is legally entitled to sit in Parliament although he holds dual citizenship.

Mitchell's ruling New National Party (NNP) has been trying through the courts to have David dislodged as Member of Parliament for the Town of St. George Constituency on grounds that he holds Canadian citizenship.

David, a senior member of the main opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) defeated Communications and Works Minister, Senator Brenda Hood in the 2003 General Elections for the covetous Town seat.

The legal opinion on locals holding Canadian citizenship was given to the Speaker of the House by a prominent Queen's Counsel from Trinidad and Tobago. Clouden told the media the attempt to unseat David borders on deception and callous disregard for the Constitution and that legal opinion which the House Speaker received long before the court proceedings against David were instituted.

The legal opinion paid particular attention to Sections 30 and 31 of the Grenada Constitution. Clouden who is one of the attorneys representing David in his legal battle said these are the very sections of the Constitution which the Legal Counsel to the Cabinet, Jamaican Hugh Wildman said disentitled the Opposition Member from sitting in the House.

The outspoken lawyer said that Wildman and his "erroneous interpretation" of the Constitution and the Citizenship Act of Grenada has led this country into continued costs and expenses. He noted that at every stage of the legal proceedings the Mitchell government has been defeated.

Last month, an application filed before the OECS Court of Appeal by the Attorney General of Grenada for leave to appeal to the British Privy Council was thrown out. David received cost in the sum of $1,000.00.

Since the court proceedings began to unseat David, the costs awarded to him have moved to $20,000.00. Clouden said the people of Grenada cannot continue to throw away money on a frivolous and vexatious matter as initiated by Wildman.

The outspoken attorney is adamant that the legal opinion as rendered to the House Speaker should get the widest possible circulation due to its importance. He said the legal opinion brings clarity to the interpretation that ought to be attributed to section 31 of the Grenada Constitution.

"Having the benefit of this opinion which I propose to circulate to the Grenadian people, we would be able to prevail upon this government to cease and desist from continuing to expend large sums of money to undefensible causes," he said. Clouden extracted details from the legal opinion showing its relevance to the Constitution.

He charged that with the Speaker of the House having in his possession that legal opinion long before the legal proceedings began against David, the government must have known that when it undertook to pursue the matter against the opposition member they would have known that it was "frivolous and vexatious". A government source told this newspaper that the Mitchell regime decided to follow the "Wildman position" on the issue and not that from the eminent Queen's Counsel from Trinidad and Tobago.