Former speaker of the House of Assembly, lawyer, journalist and social commentator Jomo Thomas says he still believes the opposition will lose the election petitions, and that the government’s move to amend the Constitution is “unnecessarily burning political capital”.
“Well, I think it’s self-serving, because it seems intended to protect our prime minister, Dr. Godwin Friday and our Foreign Minister, Fitzgerald Bramble, because there’s this whole question about Commonwealth, Commonwealth, Commonwealth,” told iWitness News.
The opposition Unity Labour Party’s (ULP) candidates in the Northern Grenadines and East Kingstown have brought petitions challenging the election of Friday and Bramble in the November 2025 general elections, as they also hold Canadian citizenship.
The ULP’s Carlos Williams and Luke Browne failed in their second and fourth bids, respectively, to win the seats, which the ULP have never won.
Friday was returned for a sixth consecutive five-year term, while the electorate granted Bramble a second five-year term.
However, after the Order Paper for next Tuesday’s sitting of Parliament was circulated to lawmakers on Tuesday, Opposition Leader Ralph Gonsalves accused the government of attempting to change the Constitution to shield the NDP lawmakers from the election petition.
Thomas, who was a candidate for the ULP in 2015 but left the party in 2019 and quit as house speaker in early 2020, said that the move suggests that the NDP administration is not serious about legislative reform.
He noted that the section of the constitution that the government is attempting to change is not entrenched, in that it does not need a two-thirds majority in Parliament and a referendum in order to change.
“You could change it by a simple majority,” Thomas said, noting the NDP’s 14-1 majority in the 15-member Parliament.
“So it seems to me that one of the things that they could have done was to make that change and say any Vincentian wherever they may be living, even if they accepted citizenship in Germany, or Finland, or Sweden, or Russia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, wherever, that that Vincentians once that person is born in St Vincent, that person should be eligible to be elected to our Parliament or to be nominated and selected to high office.”
He, however, opined that this is not what the NDP administration is doing.
“This is to protect in the short term. Dr Friday and Fitz,” Thomas told iWitness News.
“The second point, I think, is that they are unnecessarily burning political capital. Yes, they have a lot of goodwill still for them, and I don’t know why they would choose to do this, because this, to me, seems to indicate a lack of confidence in their case,” he said.
“But why would they have a lack of that confidence in their case when Dr. Friday emerged from the court after the first hearing before Justice Thom, he said the case was ‘frivolous’?
“You may recall, I countered by saying the case is not frivolous, but I’m convinced that Dr. Friday and Foreign Minister Bramble would prevail.
“But if they’re now doing this, it seems as though they lack confidence in their case, or they’re not sure about the case; consequently, they’re doing these amendments as an insurance to make sure that if the court rules against them, they would be able to remain in Parliament.”
The lawyer said he was also troubled by the amendment’s retroactive effect.
“Why make this change retroactive to 1979 is more than troubling to me. I don’t think that it is necessary. I think that we should be looking forward rather than looking backwards… I think all change should be intended to lay the groundwork for what happens here on in.
“Again, that’s because I am of the view that the case is solid. I mean, they have a case to answer, but they’re going to prevail because of the uniqueness of our Constitution, and I would love to see that case go forward.”
Thomas said he would love to see the case decided on its merits “because it’s going to quiet all of the talk that is swirling around who can be elected and who cannot be elected, and whether somebody went to a Commonwealth country, swore allegiance to a Commonwealth country, whether they will be seen to have sworn allegiance to a foreign power.”
He said he did not agree with the ULP that the cases it was citing from St. Kitts and Nevis, Jamaica, and Australia apply to the petitions filed in SVG.
“So, I believe that our parliamentarians who have dual citizenship with Canada don’t have as much to worry about. But then again, I’m not a judge. I can only give you what my readings tell me, or when I talk to other persons who study these issues much more in depth, and what they come away thinking.”
Thomas, however, questioned the rationale behind the prime minister holding dual citizenship.
“It was said that there may be social security issues, health benefit issues that may arise as you get older, but we know that in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, somebody who was served as a prime minister has provisions to allow him or her to get the best health care money can buy,” Thomas said.
“And we are talking about taxpayers’ money to do that. My understanding is that [former prime minister] Mr. [Arnhim] Eustace has benefited from that facility, that [the late] James Mitchell, another former prime minister, benefited from that facility.
“So, I don’t know what the obsession is with maintaining the Canadian citizenship, especially when you hold such a high governmental position, as in the case of Dr Friday, as it stands now.”
Thomas said he disagrees that the NDP is changing the Constitution to bring clarity.
“When they do the case as, they’re doing it, they’re saying they’re looking for clarity. I don’t think they’re looking for clarity. I think they’re looking for security.
“And the security that they’re looking for is coming after the fact, because if they feel that there is no problem, no legal problem, why try to cover this up by making a change to the Constitution?” he said.
“And I think there’s also an important question about you’re making a change to the Constitution, and you’re bringing a bill to the Parliament, and from the indications, you may be doing this in three readings in one sitting.
“So by the end of the day, this would become law without any real discussion, public discussion, on a constitutional change.”
