Opposition Leader Dr. Ralph Gonsalves has characterized court testimony by government minister and Member of Parliament Fitzgerald Bramble as an “incredible” exposure of defective governance, after Bramble admitted under oath that major proposed constitutional amendment bills were submitted to Parliament without prior review or approval from the Cabinet.
The revelation emerged during cross-examination in the ongoing election petition trial challenging the eligibility of Bramble and Prime Minister Dr. Godwin Friday over their voluntary acquisition and holding of Canadian citizenship and passports.
According to Gonsalves, Bramble revealed from the witness box that two critical legislative measures—meant to amend the Constitution of St. Vincent and the Grenadines and the Representation of the People Act never came before Cabinet for deliberation or sign-off.
Bramble admitted under oath that despite being a member of the Cabinet and an affected party in the litigation, the very first time he saw the proposed constitutional legislation was when it arrived in his standard bundle of House of Assembly papers distributed seven days prior to the August 27 parliamentary sitting.
Gonsalves stressed the gravity of a Cabinet minister receiving earth-shaking constitutional amendments through general parliamentary mailings rather than executive consultation:
“This is a man whom the case affects… Bramble said it never came to Cabinet. He got it in his bundle like everybody else. I want that [to] sink in. I want you to ponder on that… You’re bringing bills to Parliament which the members of Cabinet have not approved beforehand… That is incredible bad governance.”
Gonsalves explained that the two controversial bills were drafted to retroactively amend national electoral laws back to the date of independence. The amendments sought to declare that citizenship in Commonwealth countries like Canada does not constitute allegiance to a foreign power or disqualify candidates from parliamentary nomination or election.
Calling the proposed legislation as a self-serving “insurance policy” designed to protect Friday and Bramble against an adverse court judgment, Gonsalves noted that the government was forced to defer the bills following intense public outcry led by the opposition.
He questioned how such far-reaching constitutional alterations could originate in the Attorney General’s office and bypass executive scrutiny entirely:
Bypassing Cabinet: Gonsalves raised the question of whether Prime Minister Friday relied on advice from private legal counsel and directly instructed the Attorney General to draft retroactive legislation without informing or seeking consensus from his Cabinet colleagues.
Misled Government Defenders: He pointed out that even government representatives, including a junior senator who publicly defended the bills, were seemingly unaware that the measures had never received Cabinet sanction.
Calling the procedure “unheard of,” Gonsalves contrasted the current administration’s actions with established legislative protocols practiced under his administration.
He detailed that during his tenure as Prime Minister, every piece of government legislation was systematically scrutinized by a dedicated Cabinet Legislation Subcommittee—comprising himself as chairman, the Attorney General, relevant line ministers, and official legal draftspersons—before being formally submitted to the full Cabinet for final approval prior to parliamentary introduction.
Gonsalves says that Bramble’s sworn court admission constitutes a troubling revelation for the public regarding how lawmaking and state governance are currently being conducted.
