EDITOR: In light of the ongoing and extensive discussion about the proposed Constitutional Amendment Bill that the NDP government placed on the Order Paper for Parliament, I find that this is a teaching moment for all Vincentians on matters of constitutional law. Accordingly, I decided to write this article to enlighten my compatriots on applicable principles that arise on the facts before us.
We already know that the NDP won the last elections with a commanding mandate 14-1. We also know that the section of the Constitution that the government is trying to amend (section 26) can be amended by a two-thirds majority vote in parliament, without a referendum.
On the face of it then, it would seem as if the NDP has the power to change the section in any way it seems fit. Fortunately, this is not the case. We have constitutional safeguards that prevent any government be it an NDP government or a ULP government from abusing its power. For example, we have safeguards that require all laws to pass legally-defined tests of fairness. Even though the government has a 14-1 mandate, it does not have the lawful authority to pass unfair laws. As a case in point, it cannot pass a law that affects the fundamental rights of Vincentians under the Constitution – this will be illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional and void. The proposed Constitution Amendment Bill 2026 touches and concerns the constitutional right of citizens to a fair trial and also engages matters of the independence of the judiciary which has the exclusive right to interpret and clarify laws.
Under the law, it is not fair and therefore illegal to try to change the constitutional meaning of a word with retroactive effect in the middle of a case that turns on the meaning of that word. I believe that all of society can have an appreciation of this point. We simply cannot change the rules of the game after it has been played.
What if a future government gets into power and changes back the law with retroactive effect? Are we going to be locked in a perpetual cycle of political tit-for-tat that destabilises our democracy? This will not be appropriate for our country.
Luke Browne
