The changes that the government is proposing to make to the Constitution will not affect the two election petitions filed by the opposition Unity Labour Party (NDP), challenging the qualifications of Prime Minister Godwin Friday and Foreign Minister Dwight Fitzgerald Bramble to run in the November 2025 general election.
Government Senator Jemalie John, a lawyer, speaking on the matter on Hot 97 FM on Wednesday, said that the government is seeking to clarify the meaning of “foreign power” in the Constitution.
He further rejected the suggestion by the ULP — which the electorate rejected 14-1 in favour of the New Democratic Party (NDP) in the November polls after 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.
The matter became public after the Order Paper was circulated to lawmakers on Tuesday, one week ahead of the next meeting of Parliament, as the law stipulates.
“So, the public would know by now that we are having a parliamentary session on the 21st of April, which is Tuesday coming. But the notice was circulated and the Leader of the opposition, of course, he’s going to take a strong objection to the proposed amendment,” John said.
He said Opposition Leader Ralph Gonsalves has “a particular political objective … to try to narrow the seats that the government has in the House of Parliament.
“Their mission is to have our prime minister and our foreign minister replaced with Carlos [Williams] and Luke Browne,” he said, referring to the candidates that Friday and Bramble defeated in the November vote.
John said that the clarification of the law has no bearing on the ongoing case, “in the sense that it doesn’t get rid of the case.
“The case remains before the court. And even if you ask them a question in relation to whether or not this amendment would apply retroactively, even if that provision is there, the court still has to make a determination as to whether or not the amendment will be applied retroactively or not. So, they’re still free to pursue their case before the court,” John said.
He said the question that should be asked is whether people, who, “for all intents and purposes, are Vincentians”, should be barred from sitting in Parliament because they acquired citizenship elsewhere, including by marriage.
The senator said he did not want to say too much, noting that he will debate the matter in Parliament.
“But one of the points that I will make is that Parliament has a specific role and function, and so does the court.
“The court is not there to make laws. The court is not there to change laws or to repeal laws. That rests with the parliament. The court is there to interpret the laws that parliament passes,” John said.
“So, if the role and function of the Parliament is to make, change and repeal laws, then we should not say, ‘Oh, well, let the judges do it.’
“No, the Parliament is the law-making body of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. And the Parliament will continue to make laws, amend laws, repeal laws as they see fit, and give direction to the policy position that we think best.
“We don’t leave judges to make those determinations for us, especially when there is an ambiguity that needs to be resolved.”
In winning their respective seats, Friday was elected to a sixth consecutive term in office and Bramble to a second five-year term.
However, before the vote, the ULP had given notice that if Friday and Bramble were elected, the party would file petitions challenging their elections.
Notwithstanding the ULP’s notices, the voters rejected the party’s candidates and cast their votes for the NDP as they had done in the two constituencies.
John said that the ULP’s mission was to win the seats other than via the ballot box.
“So understandably, they would have some issue with it, but it’s, in fact, not a rumour. There will be an amendment. It will be debated in the Parliament on Tuesday,” he said.
The senator, however, explained what the government is proposing.
“Well, the Constitution itself is not being amended. What we are, in fact, doing is removing the ambiguity because there is some ambiguity. If there was not an ambiguity, we would not have this case before the court right now,” he said.
He noted that similar cases have been before the courts in other jurisdictions.
“And so, we are seeking to remove that ambiguity so that we know exactly what the Constitution says,” he said, adding, “The ambiguity is in relation to what is the meaning of foreign power or state.
“There are some who say that as long as you are — as long as you hold dual citizenship, it doesn’t matter which country you hold it, you must be a citizen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines and a citizen of St Vincent alone.”
John said that based on this interpretation, a Vincentian who is born in St. Vincent and the Grenadines who acquires citizenship elsewhere and swears allegiance to any other country is barred from holding a seat in the Vincentian Parliament.
“And so, one of the questions that causes ambiguity is, what exactly is a foreign power or state?” John said, adding that some people argue that all other countries are foreign powers and states.
“And there are some who say, ‘Well, our Constitution says countries within the Commonwealth are not foreign powers or states.”
John said that while some people cite the Denzil Douglas case in St. Kitts and Nevis, “the Constitution in St Kitts is actually very specific. It requires you to be a citizen of St. Kitts and Nevis.
“Our Constitution is different, and that’s one of the points that will eventually be trashed out in the court, because our Constitution is not identical to St. Kitts.”
He said people who cite the St. Kitts and Nevis case “have lifted the interpretation out of that Kittitian case to apply it wholesale to St. Vincent, when in fact, the constitutions are not the same.
“Our Constitution says ‘Commonwealth citizen’ and so we need to clarify exactly what ‘foreign power or state’ actually means within our own local context.”
John noted people’s right to an opinion on the matter.
“Of course, we have our view, and I’m looking forward to listening to what the leader of the opposition has to say later today, but one of the things that I will say is that, if there is ambiguity, who better to clarify that? Should we leave that for our judges, or should the Parliament be the one to clarify that?”
The senator also addressed the issue of whether the proposed amendment is self-serving.
“… here is the political reality: the challenges that are being brought against our representative for Northern Grenadines and East Kingstown, these are two seats that the ULP, they have never won those seats in their entire political history. Never!
“So, they essentially want to impose someone on the people that the people never voted for. And so, ethically, morally, they are wrong,” the senator said.
“They will come and they will try to give you the impression that you know they are, of course, the morally upright persons who are here. But this is also important in relation to protecting our democracy.
“Because if the people went out in an election and voted for a particular candidate, how could it be, whether ethically, morally or legally, right that the votes of thousands of Vincentians should be disregarded, thrown away, and there’s somebody then sitting in Parliament represent them who they never voted for in the first place?
“Ensuring that that democratic right is protected, it could never be appropriately described as self-serving. If anything, it protects the right of the Vincentian people and protects a democratic franchise,” John said.
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.
