Citizenship, the Commonwealth and candidacy: Can a Vincentian-Canadian contest general elections in St. Vincent and the Grenadines?
By Guevara Leacock
On A View from the Outside this week, we turn our attention to CITIZENSHIP, with the view being that a Vincentian is a Vincentian and Canadian citizenship does not of itself disqualify a Vincentian-born person from seeking election to Parliament in St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
During the last general elections held in St. Vincent and the Grenadines in November 2025, two Unity Labour Party (ULP) candidates raised objections to two New Democratic Party (NDP) candidates contesting the general elections in East Kingstown and the Northern Grenadines respectively on the basis that the law did not permit them, the NDP candidates, to contest the general elections because they, having been born in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, had obtained Canadian citizenship.
The NDP candidates were allowed by the election officials to contest the general elections held on Nov. 27, 2025. The NDP candidate in East Kingstown secured 2,728 votes to the 1,727 obtained by the ULP candidate. It is worth mentioning that this was the fourth consecutive time that the ULP candidate in East Kingstown was defeated at the polls by the NDP. In the Northern Grenadines, the NDP candidate secured 2,185 votes to the 339 obtained by the ULP candidate. This was the second consecutive time that the incumbent ULP candidate was defeated by the NDP in the Northern Grenadines. The numbers show that the choice of the people in those constituencies is clear:they overwhelmingly elected the NDP candidates to represent them.
In fact, the ULP, who occupied the seat of government in St. Vincent and the Grenadines for 25 years from March 2001 until November 2025, never won either the East Kingstown or Northern Grenadines seats during their time in power.
The legitimacy of the candidacy, and subsequent election, of Fitzgerald Bramble and Godwin Friday the NDP candidates for the East Kingstown and Northern Grenadines is now the subject of election petitions before the High Court in St. Vincent and the Grenadines with a trial scheduled for July 2026 or thereabout.
It is interesting to note that both Fitzgerald Bramble and Godwin Friday contested general elections before, against the same ULP candidates who are now petitioning the court to have their election overturned, but their nomination, candidacy and election were never challenged in the court of law by the same people who now seek to do so. In fact, they were allowed to sit as elected representatives in the last parliament after the 2020 general elections. Why not bring petitions to have them removed then? “Why now?” we ask on A View From the Outside? What is the ulterior motive of one or both of the ULP candidates who now seek to unseat Fitzgerald Bramble and Godwin Friday, not by the democratic ballot, but by the court?
We turn now to the question of whether a person born in St. Vincent and the Grenadines who subsequently acquires Canadian citizenship may contest general elections for the House of Assembly in St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
This question requires careful consideration of the law in St. Vincent and the Grenadines including the Constitution of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Citizenship Act, the Representation of the People Act, and the Commonwealth Countries Act. We on A View from the Outside, urge you to listen carefully to our analysis of this serious question.
The issue is not simply whether dual citizenship is permitted, but whether the acquisition of Canadian citizenship creates a constitutional disqualification under the provisions governing parliamentary membership. On the proper interpretation of the constitutional framework, our view on A View from the Outside is that such a person may contest general elections, provided that he satisfies the ordinary qualifications for election and is not otherwise disqualified. Canadian citizenship, by itself, does not create a constitutional disqualification.
The starting point is citizenship by birth. Both Fitzgerald Bramble and Godwin Friday were born in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Having been born in St. Vincent and the Grenadines before Oct. 27, 1979, when St. Vincent and the Grenadines obtained independence from colonial Britain, the law provides that both Bramble and Friday are citizens of St. Vincent and the Grenadines by birth. The law is also clear that a person born in St. Vincent and the Grenadines begins with full constitutional citizenship and does not lose that status merely by residing abroad or obtaining another nationality.
The Citizenship Act makes this position even clearer by expressly recognising the possibility of dual nationality. Section 10 provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed so as to “debar, prevent or preclude” any person from being or becoming a citizen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines because he or she is a national of another country. This is a direct legal acknowledgement that the possession of another citizenship, including Canadian citizenship, does not automatically extinguish Vincentian citizenship.
Loss of citizenship occurs only where there has been formal renunciation. Under section 13(1) of the Citizenship Act, a citizen of full age and capacity who, for the purpose of becoming a citizen of another country, makes and registers a declaration of renunciation of Vincentian citizenship ceases to be a citizen from the date of registration. Therefore, unless the individual has formally renounced Vincentian citizenship, he ordinarily remains a citizen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines notwithstanding the acquisition of Canadian citizenship.
Is there any evidence that either Mr. Bramble or Mr. Friday renounced their citizenship of St. Vincent and the Grenadines? We, on View from the Outside, and all Vincentians at home and abroad would like to know.
The next issue concerns the constitutional qualifications for election to the House of Assembly. Section 25(1) of the Constitution governs qualification for election as a representative. It provides that a person is qualified if he is a Commonwealth citizen, has attained the age of 21 years, satisfies the prescribed residence or domicile requirements, and is able to speak and unless physically prevented, read the English language with sufficient proficiency to take an active part in parliamentary proceedings. Significantly, the Constitution does not require exclusive Vincentian citizenship. Instead, it deliberately adopts the broader category of “Commonwealth citizen“. This is constitutionally important because it demonstrates that Parliament was never intended to be restricted solely to persons holding only Vincentian citizenship.
Canada is expressly listed as a Commonwealth country in the Commonwealth Countries Act. A Canadian citizen is therefore unquestionably a Commonwealth citizen for constitutional purposes in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. This means that the acquisition of Canadian citizenship does not undermine eligibility under section 25 of the Constitution of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. On the contrary, Canadian citizenship falls squarely within the category of citizenship positively recognised by the Constitution as sufficient for election. Our view, on A View from the Outside, is that a Vincentian-born person who acquires Canadian citizenship remains comfortably within the constitutional definition of a person capable of election.
The principal constitutional objection to Mr. Bramble and Mr. Friday being nominated, contesting elections and being elected arises under section 26(1)(a) of the Constitution of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. That provision states that no person shall be qualified to be elected or appointed as a Representative or Senator if he is, “by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state“. The same language is repeated in section 35(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act. At first glance, it might be argued that voluntary acquisition of Canadian citizenship constitutes an acknowledgement of allegiance to Canada and therefore creates automatic disqualification. However, on closer examination, we on A View from the Outside say that that interpretation is too broad and creates constitutional inconsistency.
A proper reading of the Constitution requires that sections 25 and 26 be read harmoniously rather than in conflict. Section 25 expressly permits Commonwealth citizens to be elected to Parliament. If section 26(1)(a) were interpreted to mean that voluntary acquisition of citizenship of any Commonwealth country automatically disqualifies a person, then section 25 would be pointless. The Constitution would be saying, on the one hand, that Commonwealth citizens are eligible for election, while saying, on the other hand, that many Commonwealth citizens are disqualified because of the very citizenship status section 25 accepts. Such a reading would render the express use of the term “Commonwealth citizen” meaningless.
On A View from the Outside, we say that cannot be the correct interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution must be presumed to speak coherently. Section 25 was plainly designed to widen eligibility beyond exclusive Vincentian citizenship, not to create an illusory qualification immediately withdrawn by section 26. The proper interpretation then is that section 26(1)(a) is directed at forms of foreign allegiance inconsistent with parliamentary membership, such as allegiance to non-Commonwealth foreign states, or allegiance that places the member in conflict with constitutional loyalty, not at Commonwealth citizenship expressly recognised by section 25. In other words, section 26 should not be read so broadly as to destroy the express constitutional acceptance of Commonwealth citizens.
Our interpretation, on A View from the Outside, is reinforced by section 29(3)(b) of the Constitution, which provides that a member of the House of Assembly vacates his seat if he ceases to be a Commonwealth citizen. This demonstrates that Commonwealth citizenship is not merely tolerated; it is constitutionally central to parliamentary membership. It would be strange for the Constitution to make Commonwealth citizenship the relevant continuing status for holding office while simultaneously treating allegiance to a Commonwealth country as inherently disqualifying under section 26(1)(a). Section 29 strongly supports the view that Commonwealth citizenship is part of the constitutional structure of parliamentary eligibility rather than an exception threatened by disqualification.
The law in the Citizenship Act supports our view here on A View from the Outside. Section 2 defines a “foreign country” as a country that is not a Commonwealth country. Although section 26 of the Constitution uses the phrase “foreign power or state” rather than “foreign country“, it remains highly persuasive that Vincentian citizenship law treats Commonwealth countries as a distinct legal category rather than simply as foreign states. This suggests that Canada should not readily be treated as the type of “foreign power” contemplated by section 26(1)(a) for purposes of ordinary parliamentary disqualification.
The practical consequence is that a person born in St. Vincent and the Grenadines who later acquires Canadian citizenship remains constitutionally capable of contesting general elections, provided that he still satisfies the ordinary qualifications of age, residence or domicile, and language proficiency. If he has formally renounced Vincentian citizenship, he may need to rely upon provisions permitting re-registration as a citizen, but Canadian citizenship itself is no legal disqualification. Of course, other disqualifications under section 26, such as insolvency, criminal conviction, office of profit, or other constitutional prohibitions, would still apply and must be considered separately. However, the possession of Canadian citizenship, standing alone, does not disqualify the NDP candidates.
It is our view, A View from the Outside, that a person born in St. Vincent and the Grenadines who later acquires Canadian citizenship may contest general elections in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Vincentian citizenship is retained unless formally renounced, dual nationality is expressly recognised by the Citizenship Act, Canada is a Commonwealth country, and the Constitution deliberately makes Commonwealth citizenship the relevant qualification for election to the House of Assembly.
Most Vincentians will remember PR Campbell, a well-respected Vincentian legal mind, saying during the 2009 referendum to change the constitution of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, when this very issue arose that a “Vincentian is a Vincentian“. Canadian citizenship does not of itself disqualify a Vincentian-born person from seeking election to Parliament in St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
Guevara Leacock is a barrister at law of Lincoln’s Inn in England and an attorney at law in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. He has a keen interest in history and politics and is a social commentator.
The opinions presented in this content belong to the author and may not necessarily reflect the perspectives or editorial stance of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected].
