KINGSTOWN, St. Vincent (CMC) — Opposition Leader Ralph Gonsalves is urging the media in St. Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG) to speak out against what he termed efforts by the recently elected government of Prime Minister Godwin Friday to undermine democracy.
In a letter sent to the editors, Gonsalves, who lost the Nov. 27 general elections, said that the government’s decision to seek to amend the Constitution in light of two election petitions challenging the nominations of Friday and his Foreign Affairs Minister, Dwight Fitzgerald Bramble, is not to be taken lightly.
“At stake are principles we collectively hold dear: the supremacy of our Constitution, the rule of law, and the separation of powers,” Gonsalves wrote, adding that the “petitions turn on the Court’s interpretation of Section 26 of the Constitution, concerning persons who, by their own act, have sworn allegiance to a foreign power.
“After initially dismissing these petitions as ‘frivolous’, the Government has now taken the extraordinary step of tabling a retroactive constitutional amendment which, if applied, would have an effect on the outcome of those Election Petitions by altering the law in the midst of ongoing litigation,” Gonsalves wrote.
Last week, attorney Jemalie John, a government legislator, speaking on a radio programme here, said the proposed changes to the Constitution are not intended to affect the two election petitions filed by the Unity Labour Party (ULP).
The defeated ULP candidates in the Northern Grenadines and East Kingstown, respectively, have filed an election petition challenging the qualifications of Friday and Bramble to contest the polls, given their Canadian citizenship.
A case management hearing in the cases took place on March 5 and the next one is slated for May 19. The court has set aside July 28, 29, and 30 as trial dates.
John rejected the suggestion by the ULP, which lost November’s general election after being in office for nearly 25 years, that the NDP government had sprung the matter on the public.
“Okay, so the first thing I would say is that it’s not a rumour. The reason why there’s a conversation going on is because the rules stipulate that notice of a parliamentary sitting must be sent out, including the Order Paper,” John said.
But in his letter to the media, Gonsalves, who is also an attorney, said that this development is without precedent in SVG.
“There has never been an attempt to amend the Constitution … with one week’s notice … without consultation with the public or the parliamentary opposition … without any official explanation from the Prime Minister or the Attorney General; and in circumstances where the practical effect is to pre-empt judicial determination of a live matter before the courts.
“Similarly, while there are myriad examples within the Caribbean and worldwide of politicians whose eligibility has been challenged — legally and politically — on the basis of their dual citizenship, there is not a single example of a government amending the constitution to sidestep such a challenge,” Gonsalves said.
He wrote that while constitutional amendments “are a legitimate exercise of parliamentary power, that power must be exercised responsibly and for general, prospective purposes. It cannot properly be used to resolve a specific, pending dispute.
“The interpretation of the Constitution is the exclusive province of the Courts. A retroactive amendment, directed at a live election petition, does not simply change the law; it risks interfering with the administration of justice by effectively dictating the outcome of proceedings properly before the judiciary.”
He insisted that such a course raises serious concerns about the integrity of the judicial process, the principle that laws should not operate retroactively to affect accrued rights, the proper limits of Parliament’s constitutional amendment power; and the role of election petitions as a cornerstone of electoral fairness and accountability.
“Election petitions are not ordinary litigation. They exist to ensure that elections are conducted in accordance with the law as it stood at the time. To alter that legal framework after the fact undermines legal certainty and public confidence in the electoral process.
“No responsible democracy should permit the Constitution to be amended in a manner that appears designed to shield individuals from judicial scrutiny in an ongoing case. Constitutional power, however broad, is not without limits. It must be exercised consistently with the fundamental structure and values of the Constitution itself — values which include democracy, the rule of law, and the separation of powers.”
Gonsalves said that it is precisely these foundational principles that are now at risk.
“I therefore respectfully urge you, in your joint capacities as journalists and members of the mass media, to make your voice heard. The Press has always played a vital and vocal role in safeguarding our democratic traditions. Your considered intervention at this moment would help to affirm the importance of constitutional restraint, democratic principles and institutional integrity”.
He said he was also urging the media to encourage the government “to reconsider this course and to allow the Court to determine the pending petitions in accordance with the law as it stood at the time of the election.
“This is not a partisan appeal. It is an appeal to principle. If actions of this nature go unchallenged, they risk establishing a precedent by which any government, present or future, may endlessly revise our Constitution — without public consultation — for personal gain or protection. That would have lasting adverse consequences for our democracy,” said Gonsalves.
