Lawyer, journalist, and socio-political commentator Jomo Sanga Thomas has agreed with Opposition Leader Ralph Gonsalves that the election petitions filed against Prime Minister Godwin Friday and East Kingstown MP Dwight Fitzgerald Bramble are not frivolous.
Unity Labour Party (ULP) candidate for Northern Grenadines, Carlos Williams, is challenging his opponent, Friday, becuase of his Canadian citizenship.
Williams is contending that Friday “is not qualified to be elected as a member of Parliament”, citing section 26 (1) of the Constitution of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, which says:
“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: (a) is by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state”.
ULP candidate Luke Browne is similarly challenging Bramble’s election as East Kingstown MP on the same basis.
Friday has been MP for the Northern Grenadines since 2001, while Bramble was elected to a second five-year term in November, following his initial victory in 2020.
Following the first case management hearing on March 5, Friday told reporters outside the High Court in Kingstown: “The people elected me to do their business, I’m spending two hours in the court here answering a frivolous application.”
Speaking on his Morning Comrade show on Star Radio on Monday, Gonsalves said the prime minister “was mouthing the word frivolous, but he knows it’s not frivolous” because he knows that “this is a serious matter to be addressed”.
Speaking on his Plain Talk programme on Boom FM on Tuesday, Thomas who, like Gonsalves and Friday, is a lawyer, said he agreed with the opposition leader that the “issue having to do with the interpretation of our Constitution is fundamentally important, that it would quiet all of the talk about who can run and who cannot run for politics in St. Vincent and the Grenadines”.
He said that “until the government, whichever government, moves to change and reword section 26, which says that any Vincentian citizen can run for and be elected to office, that’s not what it says now…
“So it is not a frivolous claim; it is an important constitutional question which would be resolved,” Thomas said.
“I have long said that I think that Prime Minister Friday and parliamentarian Bramble have a case to answer. I have followed the debate very well, closely read documents which were presented. I read cases from across the world — Falkland Islands, Australia, England, St. Kitts.
“I am of the considered view that, having read all of those cases, that Dr. Friday and parliamentarian Bramble would survive the challenge based on the peculiar nature of our Constitution. But, having said that, I still don’t think it’s frivolous. So I’m not so sure why our prime minister would say it is a frivolous claim.”
Thomas said Section 25 of the Constitution talks about the qualifications for representatives and senators.
He ntoed that it says subject to the provisions of section 26 the person shall be qualified to be elected as a representative if, and shall not be qualified unless, (a) he is a Commonwealth citizen of the age of 21 years or older or he has resided in St. Vincent for a period of 12 months immediately before date of his nomination for election or domicile and resident in St. Vincent at that date and then able to speak and understand English you’re not incapacitated by blindness or physical causes.
“So that’s what it says as it relates to 25 — and remember 25 is subject to the provision in 26 — and 26 says no person shall be qualified to be elected or appointed as a representative or senator if he is by virtue of his own act and acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to foreign power. And that’s where the hinge is,” Thomas said.
Thomas said that “is what a lot of these cases have been decided on across the region”.
He said that if people were listening closely to one of the attorneys whom the opposition brought in to deal with these petitions, former Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Stuart Young, they would recall him saying that the Vincentian Constitution is a little different and there are nuances which they intend to explore.
“The St. Vincent and the Grenadines Constitution has some similarities but there are also certain differences, so it is important that this matter be determined for the people of St Vincent and the Grenadines,” Stuart Young said in an interview immediately following the first case management hearing in Kingstown.
“So there was Mr. Young — the good lawyer that he is — not coming out definitively and making a position one way or the other but was prepared to concede a jump that the Vincentian Constitution is slightly different than some of the constitutions across the region,” Thomas said.
The astute lawyer said that Gonsalves has made heavy weather of the petition case involving former St. Kitts and Nevis Prime Minister Denzel Douglas, saying once the court ruled in the way it did in that case, it is almost certain to rule against Friday and Fitzgerald Bramble.
Thomas, however, said he did “not necessarily agree” with that, adding, “but then again I am not a constitutional scholar.
“I think the Constitution clearly speaks to who can run as a citizen. There are some nuanced arguments there which I’m sure lawyers who are much more adept in these areas would present to the court.
The case will be heard by acting High Court judge Gertel Thom, who the court has appointed to hear the case.
As is often the case with the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, Thom has been appointed to act as a high court judge, having retired as a justice of appeal.
Thomas described Thom as “a highly experienced judge”, noting that she served as a jurist for about 10 years in SVG before being appointed a justice of appeal, serving for another 10 years.
“… she’s one of the judicial heavyweights we have … very good judge, highly respected judge not only here but across the region,” Thomas said.
It is not frivolous.
It is very mischievous! For about 20 years the govt allowed parliamentarian(s) to take oaths, appointments and sit in parliament fully well thinking that said appointment(s) were null and void.
However, Jomo, I disagree with your opinion that the MPs will prevail.
SVG’s constitution clearly states the provisions for qualifications/disqualifications as a member of the House of Assembly. See section 26(1)(a).
Using these provisions, the 2 MPs are clearly disqualified to take seats in SVG’s parliament.
I am not a lawyer but will outline these reasons in layman terms.
According to the constitution, no member can be qualified to sit in parliament if “by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state”.
“by virtue of own act, under any acknowledgment of allegiance”. As far as I know, the MPs are Vincies by birth. Therefore, they applied for Canadian passports voluntarily and took oaths of allegiance to Canada.
Canada is a foreign power. The constitution interprets ANY other country as foreign, commonwealth or not.
The 2 MPs took oaths of allegiance to Canada and are also expected to espouse Canadian values. Bilingualism, multiculturalism and gay rights are examples of Canadian values.
I thought the ULP was being frivolous by telling people not to vote for the 2 MPs during the campaign. Why? The reason is that I expected the 2 MPs to have long vacated their passports because of this very moment.
For the love of God and country, the ultimate question remains. Is being in possession of a Canadian passport more important than the office of Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of SVG?