By *Jomo Thomas
The decision by the government to amend the Constitution and the Representation of the People’s Act without public debate is, to say the least, self-serving and unwise. The act is not illegal, but constitutional tinkering and substantive change demand much more than the listing on the Order Paper for next Tuesday’s parliamentary session. It is particularly troubling since, according to reports, the government intends to conduct all three readings and pass the law when the Parliament meets.
The government says that there’s nothing wrong with the proposed change. It’s simple to offer clarity on a matter of fundamental importance. There are several flaws in this approach. Chief among them is the fact that following the elections of last November, election petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the eligibility of then opposition leader Godwin Friday and Fitzgerald Bramble, the East Kinstown parliamentarian.
The petitions were premised on the notion that both men held dual citizenship and, in doing so, had sworn allegiance to a foreign power, Canada, and thereby ran afoul of section 26 of our Constitution, which proscribed such actions. Dr. Friday and Mr. Bramble have long maintained that our Constitution makes clear that any Commonwealth citizen meeting the requisite residency requirement is allowed to offer themselves for election or nomination to high office. They maintain that since Canada is a Commonwealth country, the issue is, as we say, “any open and shut case”.
So confident was PM Friday that on his emergence from the first hearing of the election petition, when Justice Gertel Thom set the hearing for July 28 to 30, he described the challenge as “frivolous” distractions that took him away from the pressing task of national governance.
Stange, then we’d say that less than a month after such bombastic utterances, his administration hatches a legislative sleight of hand to take the matter away from court determination, or to propose a constitutional spoon-feeding as to how the court must interpret who is a foreign power or state.
Is this a sign that the government is running scared? We think so, but unnecessarily so. Our Constitution is uniquely different from many of those gleefully cited by Dr Gonsalves and his supporters. There are three branches of government: Executive — to administer the affairs of state; the legislature — to make the laws by which we are governed; and the judiciary — whose task is to interpret the laws. The issue as to what our Constitution says is preeminently a matter for the court. It is not for the government to attempt to shore up its position to change the law under the guise of bringing clarity, when the very law they are attempting to “clarify” is before the court for decision. The Court must be allowed to do its work. It is uniquely positioned to bring finality to this very important matter.
Another problem with the proposed amendments is that they smack of opportunism. If a government intends to tinker with an instrument as sacred as the Constitution, why not do something bold, meaningful and progressive? Why not change the Constitution to read that any person born in St. Vincent and the Grenadines is eligible for election and or nomination to high office? There are thousands of Vincentians holding American citizenship who are locked out of our political process. Why accord more rights to a Pakistani Taliban, an Australian racist or an English greedhead simply because they are from a Commonwealth country? Clearly, limiting the change to commonwealth citizenship, many of whom have little or no connection to SVG, would leave us stuck with the colonial constitution granted by the British at independence in 1979.
A further problem with the proposed amendment is its retroactive nature. Laws, to be truly meaningful, must be proactive and forward-looking, not stopgap and reactive. To give the legislation retroactive effect is a thinly disguised ruse to offer an insurance policy to PM Friday and Fitz Bramble, whose elections are being challenged.
Dr. Friday and Mr. Bramble seem to have taken the issue of Canadian citizenship to the level of a fetish. Both men, now in their 60s, are senior officials in our government. Both could usefully serve for at least another 10 years in Parliament. PM Friday is eligible for the best health care Vincentian taxpayers’ money can buy, even after retirement. If social security benefits and health care are the basis for their clinging to Canadian citizenship, is that not a commentary on their commitment, as senior government leaders, to improving the general health and social security situation in our country?
Something needs to be said about the rowdy chatterings of the opposition. The challenge is an opportunistic gambit by Gonsalves and his clansmen. Dr. Friday contested and was elected five consecutive times before the challenge in the 2025 election. Fitz Bramble’s eligibility was questioned in his second outing. Both men were central advocates in the opposition’s massive electoral victory. Browne, the ULP’s East Kingtown challenger, was whipped by 1,000 votes while Dr Friday’s sixth victory was in a no-contest.
The opposition claims that now is better than never, but those making the claim have no moral authority to express outrage at the government’s constitutional gambit. During his quarter-century as prime minister, Gonsalves became notorious for violating the law. The ULP’s approach to public administration is suspect at best and borders on illegality. The Public Administration Act essentially runs a horse-and-carriage through the Constitution. It fundamentally usurps the authority of the Public Service Commission regarding which public servants can be hired and/or promoted. Then there’s the Financial Administration Act, which grounds the government’s authority to have an overdraft facility. The Gonsalves’ government routinely violated it by borrowing more than the law allowed. It also compounded the violation by turning a large portion of the overdraft into a government loan.
The opposition leader’s attempt to persuade us of the merits of the court is convincing evidence of a person practising quackery or a similar confidence trick to obtain power, fame, or other advantages through pretence or deception. Following the 2015 election, petitions challenging Louis Straker and Montgommery Daniel, Gonsalves said:
“The courthouse doesn’t determine who represents you. I want to emphasise that. People who represent you are those whom people vote for in an election, and there will be other elections in St. Vincent and the Grenadines in which real flesh and blood people, who are entitled under the law and Constitution to vote, will vote. That is our system. Judges do not decide who your representatives are.”
Now he is singing a different tune. Politics. Narrow partisan politics is ruining this nation. A refusal to be duped by either side of the political divide is the surest guarantor for our maturity and development as a people and nation.
*Jomo Sanga Thomas is a lawyer, journalist, social commentator and a former Speaker of the House of Assembly in St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
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].
