On the point of fact and law, all states are sovereign, independent of each other and are foreign to each other. The concept of sovereignty posits that every recognisable state is considered as equal, autonomous, independent and will function without any external interference within the ambit of international relations.
If there is honesty and an adoption of a sensible and rational approach towards all things constitutional, any nation would benefit from the guidance provided by its constitution. It is as much historical as it is a legislative construct.
The constitution in St. Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG) is the supreme law of the land.
Unless one doesn’t understand it sufficiently, a politician, especially, is prone to make serious blunders and create more havoc for nationals to whom they owe the greatest accountability.
The claim made by some is that a sovereign state within the Commonwealth grouping is NOT necessarily a foreign state. According to what I have researched, this is a fundamental statement of error. A distinction has to be made here between political personalities and constitutional provisions. There is no attack personally on anyone, but rather there is need for clarity.
This matter is about the principles enshrined in our constitution. If leaders or aspiring leaders do not understand these provisions, they must seek legal guidance. It cannot be that our nation is headed to another election and there is lack of clarity by some about fundamental principles, one of which is an understanding of what exactly is a “foreign state”.
If we continue to ignore the significance of this issue or at best refuse to see its relevance, then this is going to trigger another round of “constitutional arguments” and create a platform for useless and baseless arguments. No need. To begin with, we revisit this extract from the SVG Constitution to give context:
26. (1) Disqualification for Representatives and Senators (hereinafter in this section referred to as a member) if he:
(a) is by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state …
I was led to believe that in this context of disqualification for representatives and senators, only an adult can or may by virtue of his own actions, acknowledge allegiance, or obedience or adherence to a foreign state or power. Not minors, so that if a child was born in any state, it is only until he attains the age of 16 years (in SVG) will his signature be accepted. It may be so in other states. At that age, he will be issued with his passport. Incidental to the issuance of his passport, he would be deemed to have done so by virtue of his own act.
Further, he will be under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to the state of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. If this reasoning is logical and in keeping with the laws of a nation outside of SVG, the same should apply if that child was born in a state foreign to SVG.
To those persons born outside of SVG to Vincentian parent/parents/grandparents and have a passport of that country in which they were born, they are eligible for dual citizenship and may apply here. Also, such other qualifications may exist according to the Citizens Act. Note again, any recognisable state outside of SVG according to international relations is a foreign state. I will attempt to explain further.
Additionally, a foreign state is a foreign state even if it is to be identified within and among a particular grouping of similar and other foreign states to which it belongs. Sounds like a mute point? It is not. Some argued that once a foreign, independent and sovereign state is within the Commonwealth grouping, that each state cannot be considered foreign to each other. But not so. Within international relations, such a state is held out as sovereign since it has its own independent structure of governance, a defined territory and is distinct and distinguishable from every other state.
The Constitution of SVG declares that it is a sovereign democratic state. It is an independent Commonwealth realm due to its nature of having a parliamentary democracy. The head of state is King Charles III represented by our governor-general. For example, in the case of Canada, it is roughly the same, save and except when it comes to its sovereignty, that Canada’s right to govern itself was clearly demonstrated by the patriation of its constitution in 1982. This gave Canada the constitutional right to sever the final legal ties with the United Kingdom.
Trinidad and Tobago is also a sovereign democratic state but the head of state is elected by its Parliament. So, too, are St. Kitts and Nevis and Dominica and many others that are all vested with independent, international legal personalities. They have separate and distinct laws relating to citizenship and its citizens owe different allegiances. Their respective exercise of sovereignty is completely independent of each other. They are all foreign states. They are foreign to each other.
As far as I am aware, the Citizenship Act of SVG does not state explicitly that our country is regarded as a foreign state even within its own laws.
Nonetheless, the act stipulates who are foreign nationals and guides anyone seeking procedure on obtaining citizenship through naturalisation, residency requirements, and the application of its laws to individuals who were not born in SVG.
Another thing, there is sufficient legal clarity (case law, settled law) on those elected officers who hold dual citizenship and were born outside of SVG. Only one serving member of Parliament (to my knowledge) complied with the constitutional provision under review in this article. Although he was born in a foreign state ( foreign to SVG), he demonstrated an understanding of section 26 (1) of the Constitution as mentioned earlier. He renounced citizenship in order to become compliant and to serve our country, his country.
There is sufficient legal guidance that he followed. It would appear that he understood by virtue of his own act, (signing to receive his second passport incidental to dual citizenship), that he would have been under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state. That would have triggered his disqualification. He remains a qualified member to serve until he is duly removed by operation of general elections. I support the principled and correct stance that he took.
While I served as our country’s minister counsellor/deputy to our high commissioner, with delegated authority, very frequently I sat in the company of representatives of all the other Commonwealth states from 2010 to 2017. Therefore to suggest that any nation was doubly qualified to attend meetings is to demonstrate a basic lack of understanding as to the nature of a sovereign democratic state and the role of the Commonwealth nations individually and collectively.
The Commonwealth grouping comprises 56 independent nations stretched right across the world. Most of these nations held historical ties to the British Empire as it was referenced. It’s not a political union, but a network of countries with a common history. Some areas of focus: cooperation among member states, collaboration in democratic ideals/legacies given their historical emergence as such and consensus on human rights initiatives among others.
Conclusion
You see, leadership is key. There must be the legality of effectiveness and efficiency. Not a single iota of evidence nor constitutional provision exists (in my humble opinion) or points to a member of Parliament having double qualification to serve in the capacity of a member of Parliament. Never! So, to all members of Parliament, if they hold dual citizenship and have been allowed to serve in the honourable House of Assembly they need to resign with immediate effect. As a result of knowingly sitting in the house and understanding the constitutional ramifications (they must know this), there are penalties.
The Constitution itself outlines these, one of which is that such members can be imprisoned and another is that they can be barred from future involvement as representation. We all have wasted enough time and taxpayers’ money to pay persons for jobs that are clearly held as unconstitutional. Let us take this to court, if in doubt. Let us ask the people’s lawyer — the attorney general for a legal opinion. I believe we must do so to stem the tide of unconstitutional errors in leadership of this blessed land. We must get it right, every time. This process of election to political office and service to our country is not trivia. Otherwise, our own history will condemn us!
Email us: [email protected]
Submitted by Doris Charles Frederick
A message from the National Liberation Movement of 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].