A looming constitutional debate in St. Vincent and the Grenadines has sparked political friction between the ruling New Democratic Party (NDP) and the opposition Unity Labour Party (ULP), with a sitting government senator pushing back against opposition claims that the proposed clarification of the nation’s constitution is an underhanded, last-minute power grab.
The core of the political dispute centers on two pending election petitions filed by the ULP, which challenge the eligibility of sitting Prime Minister Godwin Friday and Foreign Minister Dwight Fitzgerald Bramble to retain their seats won in the November 2025 general election. The ULP has argued that the pair violated constitutional requirements for parliamentary candidates by holding citizenship of a foreign power, a charge that stems from longstanding ambiguity around how the constitution defines the term “foreign power”.
Government Senator Jemalie John, a practicing lawyer, laid out the administration’s position during an interview with Hot 97 FM on Wednesday, emphasizing that the planned parliamentary action to clarify the constitutional language will have no impact on the pending court proceedings. John stressed that the two petitions remain fully active before the judiciary, and even if the amendment includes a retroactivity clause, it will ultimately fall to the courts to decide whether the new language applies to the ongoing case, leaving the opposition fully free to pursue their legal challenge.
John rejected opposition claims that the NDP rushed the amendment through without public transparency, noting that the plan became public through standard parliamentary procedure: the official Order Paper for the upcoming April 21 parliamentary sitting was circulated to all legislators one week in advance, as required by law, making the planned debate a matter of public record from that point.
He framed the ULP’s objections as a political power play, noting that the NDP secured a landslide 14-1 victory over the ULP in the November election, ending 25 years of ULP rule. The opposition’s end goal, John argued, is to overturn the results of two constituencies where voters overwhelmingly reelected Friday (to a sixth consecutive term) and Bramble (to a second five-year term) and install the defeated ULP candidates in their place. “Their mission is to have our prime minister and our foreign minister replaced with Carlos Williams and Luke Browne,” John stated, pointing out that the ULP has never won either of the two seats in its entire political history. “They essentially want to impose someone on the people that the people never voted for. Ethically and morally, they are wrong.”
Addressing claims that the amendment is a self-serving measure, John countered that the move is designed to protect St. Vincent and the Grenadines’ democratic process. “If the people went out in an election and voted for a particular candidate, how could it be ethically, morally or legally right that the votes of thousands of Vincentians should be disregarded, thrown away, and there’s somebody then sitting in Parliament represent them who they never voted for in the first place?” he asked. “Ensuring that that democratic right is protected, it could never be appropriately described as self-serving. If anything, it protects the right of the Vincentian people and protects a democratic franchise.”
On the substance of the amendment, John clarified that the proposal does not rewrite the constitution entirely, but only resolves existing ambiguity that directly led to the court case being filed. The key point of contention is how to define a “foreign power”: some interpretations hold that any dual citizenship, even with another Commonwealth nation, disqualifies a candidate, while others argue that Commonwealth countries do not count as foreign powers under the constitution. John noted that proponents of the latter interpretation often cite a landmark case from St. Kitts and Nevis, but St. Kitts’ constitution is explicitly different from St. Vincent and the Grenadines’ charter, making a direct application of that ruling inappropriate.
John also reaffirmed the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches, arguing that when constitutional ambiguity exists, it is the role of parliament – not the courts – to clarify the law. “The court is not there to make laws. The court is not there to change laws or to repeal laws. That rests with the parliament. The court is there to interpret the laws that parliament passes,” he explained. “If the role and function of the Parliament is to make, change and repeal laws, then we should not say, ‘Oh, well, let the judges do it.’ Parliament is the law-making body of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and it will continue to act on that responsibility to clarify policy that serves the public good.”
John added that the core policy question at hand is whether native-born Vincentians who acquire a second citizenship, including through marriage, should be barred from serving in parliament, a question he said will be fully debated during the April 21 parliamentary session.
The pending election petitions have already gone through a case management hearing in early March, with the next procedural hearing scheduled for May 19. The trial for the two challenges is set to begin on July 28, with three days allocated for proceedings.