Dual citizenship & Parliament — what the drafters really intended

By Maxron Holder, attorney-at-law and lecturer in law

Over the last few weeks, the public conversation in St. Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG) has been buzzing with one question: Can a dual citizen serve in Parliament?
With nominations challenged, court cases looming, and political strategists counting seats, the entire debate feels louder than it is clear. At the centre of this discussion is what I call the Haynes-Lewis Debate — the insightful perspectives of Linton Lewis, PhD and Jason Haynes, PhD have shaped much of the current conversation about dual citizenship and parliamentary eligibility.

When you strip away the noise and return to the Constitution itself, something important emerges: the people who drafted our Constitution had a very specific intention, and understanding that intention helps us to see the issue much more plainly.

Here’s what you need to know:

1.     The Constitution welcomes Commonwealth citizens. That was deliberate.

Section 25 of the Constitution sets out who can be elected to Parliament. It provides:

(1) Subject to the provisions of section 26 of this Constitution, a person shall be qualified to be elected as a representative if, and shall not be so qualified unless, he-

1. is a Commonwealth citizen of the age of twenty-one years or upwards
2. has resided in Saint Vincent for a period of twelve months immediately before the date of his nominations for election or is domiciled and resident in Saint Vincent at that date: and
3. is able to speak and, unless incapacitated by blindness or the physical cause, to read the English language with a degree of proficiency sufficient to enable him to take an active part in the proceedings of the House.

(2) Subject to the provisions of section 26 of this Constitution, a person shall be qualified to be elected or appointed as a Senator if, and shall not be so qualified unless, he is a Commonwealth citizen of the age of twenty- one years or upwards.

Notably, the Constitution does not limit eligibility to “citizens of St. Vincent and the Grenadines only”. Instead, it requires one to be a Commonwealth citizen. That is deliberate. The drafters could have followed the approach of other Caribbean states, such as Saint Kitts and Nevis, that restrict Parliament to its own citizens. The Constitution of St. Kitts and Nevis provides:

27. Qualifications for Representatives and Senators.

Subject to section 28, a person shall be qualified to be elected or appointed as a member of the National Assembly if, and shall not be so qualified unless, he or she is a citizen of the age of twenty-one years or upwards and he or she or one of his or her parents was born in Saint Christopher and Nevis and he or she is domiciled there at the date of his or her nomination for election or his or her appointment, as the case may be.

28. Disqualifications for Representatives and Senators.

(1) A person shall not be qualified to be elected or appointed as a member if he or she

• is, by virtue of his or her own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state;

Why did the drafters of SVG’s Constitution choose a different approach? It must be that at the time of independence, the vision was a shared Commonwealth community, where people across the region and Commonwealth territories were free to participate in each other’s democratic institutions.

The intention was clear: the pool of eligible candidates should be wide, inclusive, and connected to the Commonwealth family.

As the Court of Appeal of Jamaica stated in the case of Abraham Dabdoub v Daryl Vaz, although permitting Commonwealth citizens to run for office is an “oddity”, that is the Constitution.

2.     Section 26 is not meant to disqualify every dual citizen. Only certain kinds of allegiance.

Section 26 deals with disqualification.

It provides in part:

26. (1) No person shall be qualified to be elected or appointed as a Representative or Senator (hereinafter in this section referred to as a member) if he-

1. is by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state,

It has been argued that this section automatically disqualifies every dual citizen. However, the structure of the Constitution suggests otherwise. If the drafters wanted to disqualify dual citizenship outright, Section 25 would never have allowed Commonwealth citizens in the first place. They would have simply said “citizen” just like in the Constitution of St. Kitts and Nevis.

Indeed, the Constitution does not define a “foreign power or state”, but, as Dr. Haynes notes, it is useful to consider section 95, which defines an “alien” as “a person who is not a Commonwealth citizen, a British protected person or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland”. An alien under international law is generally understood to be a person who is not a citizen or national of the state in which they are present.

Dr. Haynes points out something many people overlook: the Constitution itself distinguishes between “aliens” and Commonwealth citizens. Commonwealth citizens are treated differently across the document, a sign that the drafters saw them as part of a shared system, not as outsiders. Yes, Canada is a separate sovereign state. Yes, it is “foreign” in the international law sense, as Dr. Lewis notes, but the question under the Constitution is not whether Canada is foreign in theory — it is whether the drafters meant to treat Commonwealth citizenship the same way as allegiance to a non-Commonwealth country.

The language of Section 25 strongly suggests they did not. When you read Sections 25 and 26 together, the more reasonable view is that the drafters intended to allow dual citizens, particularly Commonwealth dual citizens. This is a far cry from a blanket ban.

A literal reading of Section 26 would lead to an absurd result. It would be contradictory for the Constitution to allow a person to qualify for office simply by being a Commonwealth Citizen, while at the same time treating that same person as owing allegiance to a “foreign power or state” and thereby disqualifying them from being members of parliament.  

3.     The drafters built a Constitution that could evolve — because they knew citizenship would. The Constitution is a living instrument.

Dual citizenship was not as common in 1979 as it is today, but the drafters were not naïve. They knew migration was on the rise, as Caribbean people were moving to Canada, the UK, and the US, and many would return home with a new passport. Instead of writing a rigid rule, they wrote a Constitution that could adapt. That is why our courts interpret the Constitution as a “living instrument” — built to accommodate social realities the drafters foresaw, even if they could not predict the details. The intention was flexibility, not exclusion.

If you are in doubt, have a look at Section 29, it reads:

“(3) A member shall also vacate his seat in the House-

• if he ceases to be a Commonwealth citizen”

Wishing everyone a safe election week.

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].