Author: Dr Doris Frederick

National Liberation Movement

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

 “This country is headed into a major constitutional crisis.” Those were some of the words of the learned John Bayliss Frederick, my late father. Today, the National Liberation Movement (NLM) has read a number of opinions about our  Constitution. Are we headed to the first of its kind in the history of our nation state? We are reminded that the supreme law of the land is the Constitution and that parliament is not supreme in our ‘version’ of Westminster style democracy.  This is still not a “phantom democratic” state as some would try to persuade us to believe. Since acquiring its independence in 1979, the nation has seen its plethora of autochthonous leaders and leadership styles at the community and national levels. As a former colony of the then Great Britain, our nation continues to rewrite its history.

The NLM continues to advocate for integrity legislation, the reform of the prison and police services and associated legislation as well as legislation on revising the age of consent from fifteen years (15) to eighteen years (18). But of utmost importance is the need for leaders who understand the process of leadership itself. Leaders especially political leaders and those selected to serve are also expected to understand and deliberate on the basic tenets of law and legal advice to the citizenry of this nation. I want to resurrect the words of the late Professor Peter Briton of Guyana from the days of lectures at the University of Guyana where I was formally exposed to legal training.

Professor Peter Britton, S.C., A.A.,** used to say things like, “when you have passed your exams, you have only just begun. You are not yet a lawyer. You will go on to practice and hopefully you become the best in your field. Please do not sit in your towers alone and think that you know it all. Call one of your colleagues from right here or across the region and discuss a matter whenever you are in doubt.” These sentiments were also strongly supported by the Former Chancellor of the Judiciary (Guyana) and our beloved Head of Law Department (University of Guyana) Professor – Aubrey Bishop, O.R., C.C.H., B.Sc, L.L.M.*** I am compelled to mention these Professors simply because I believe that the tissue of fibre in my legal analysis has been implanted by these men whom I deemed excellent legal luminaries. May their souls rest in peace.

As I listened to current arguments (legal and non-legal) and read comments offered in the media with regards to the proposed amendments to the current Constitution of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, let us be reminded of a few facts. They are:-

1. In our country, the Constitution is Supreme. With minor exceptions, Supremacy of our Constitution simply means that it is so written and has; as of law and fact, the effect of limiting Parliament’s power. Parliament does have the power to make laws of course, but it certainly cannot act outside the authority that is granted to it by the Constitution. Herein lies the safeguards specific to issues like fundamental rights and yes, the structure of government/governance is outlined therein, and we shall return to the latter in due course. 

2. In the UK (which is part of the Commonwealth), Parliament is Sovereign and that means it has unlimited lawmaking powers. It is NOT so here in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

3. Please note that there are fundamental differences as to who has the final say on legal matters in this country, such as whether it is the judiciary (under the Constitution) or Parliament, and whether laws can be invalidated and what is their ultimate effect.

The teacher in me cannot let this opportunity ‘slip away’ since I must remind us as well as to the following:-

Constitutional Supremacy

Historically, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines evolved as a nation that has been bound by Constitutional Supremacy even though there may have been several divergent views and opinions expressed previously. Given that our country is under Constitutional Supremacy, the Constitution is supreme and NOT parliament. I repeat these statements for emphasis. Therefore, Parliament cannot expressly hold the ultimate legal authority in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

When it comes to judicial review, within our constitutional system, our courts can strike down laws that propose, seek to amend and which may conflict with our written constitution.  If Parliament was supreme (and it is NOT), then no court can declare a statute invalid.

When it comes to the lawmaking capabilities, since our Constitution is supreme, by its very nature, and substantively so, it is restrictive so that Parliament is constrained by that which it seeks to legislate. If Parliament was supreme here it would allow the legislature to pass any sort of law but Parliament is NOT supreme. Again, this is repeated for emphasis.

Based on the principles that govern amendment procedures, the supremacy of our Constitution dictates such things like special ‘entrenched’ procedures in order for it to be changed. It is not a situation where the Constitution can be amended with a simple majority.

The Constitution binds

The NLM is cognizant of these Constitutional bindings:-

1. That the Constitution is supreme so that it will hold supremacy over and above all other laws and any law amended, repealed or else that is inconsistent with the Constitution will be void to the extent of such inconsistencies.

• That Parliament can at times pass laws that may infringe upon our fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. Yes, we can argue back and forth on recent case law that attested to this very fact. Since our Constitution is Supreme, this document as our enabler outlines procedures whereby we can ‘pursue legal battles’ against what may be presumed (or in fact and law) unlawful, illegal and contrary to public opinion.

• As mentioned briefly earlier, only the Court has the legal authority to pursue judicial review; in so doing, the court will review laws passed by Parliament. The issue here is for the Court to determine whether those laws conform with the Constitution.

• That Parliament has to follow specific voting procedures as to how to alter the Constitution of our country. If there is outlined a two-thirds majority or else, Parliament has to follow through. It is NOT a law making body unto itself and it was never intended to be so according to texts written about constitutional law. Put another way, given that we have a constitutional democracy and the constitution is supreme, “Parliament is not sovereign, but is the supreme law-making body under” or subject to the “Constitution,  and is “restrained by its limits.” It is recognised as the key legislative actor  but subject to judicial review, and is “accountable for making laws that conform to the entrenched constitutional order.”

Constitutional exceptions and or limitations:-

The NLM hastens to add though, there are exceptions and limitations specific to the said Constitution. Parliament may seek to alter the Constitution but it still has to adhere to the written manner and form (two-third majority and so on).

Additionally, if there are public emergencies, the Constitution outlines in sections 14 – 17 and by the very nature of ‘emergencies’, it is Parliament that may derogate from certain fundamental rights such as declaring a public emergency once it is ‘reasonably justificable’ until the particular situation is handled properly or the emergency no longer exists.

Then, there are ‘saving laws’ so that, such laws that existed prior to independence (prior to the 1979 Constitution), coupled with those that were passed immediately after that time period, were protected from becoming immediately void and voidable. This is even if they were inconsistent with what we now know as new fundamental rights. This is known as a transitionary period and hence, transitional exceptions.

Also, there are limits that are known as ‘reasonably justifiable limits’ so that many of the rights are not absolute and therefore are subject to limitations but these are permitted by the Constitution itself. However, they are only permitted explicitly so, once they are ‘reasonably justifiable’ within our society that is built on principles of democracy.

Structure of governance and section 26 (1) of the Constitution

We turn to the structure of governance and specifically to the intent of Section 26 (1) of the Constitution of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. That is the issue, the fundamental issue to which we must address our minds. We must ask ourselves whether this substantive matter has to do with ‘narrowing of the seats’ of parliamentarians currently in the house of Parliament.  To our minds, the issue MUST be this: from the time of internal / self governance through to a recognisable national independence then to the current constitutional “furor,” whether representatives and senators correctly interpreted the said provision (Sections 25 & 26 (1) of the Constitution (the Supreme law of the land) pre and post independence provisions specific to qualifications and disqualifications of Representatives and Senators. There were amendments to the 1969 Constitution so that in 1979 when the ‘umbilical chord’ was supposed to be cut from Great Britain, the following differences were:-

1.  An understanding of full political independence, that removed Great Britain as having control over our external affairs and our defense. A Governor – General was now established locally as head of state (a titular title) and the head of our government was now renamed Prime Minister instead of Premier. 
2. We were no longer labelled “Associated State” but a full sovereign state effective 27 October 1979.
3. The composition of 13 elected representatives was brought over from 1969 through to 1979 but that constitution formally introduced 6 Senators who were nominated. Four of them were nominated on the advice of the Prime Minister and the other two were chosen by the Leader of the Opposition. We now have slight changes to the aforementioned with 15 elected representatives. Leadership has always been pivotal to good governance.

• In 1979, the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty’s Privy Council was retained as the final court of appeal. Up to the current time, the Privy Council is still our final court of appeal even though we have the existence of the Caribbean Court of Justice. The Privy Council acts as the final appellate court for us since we have not yet “fully adopted the appellate jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Justice.”

• When it comes to citizenship of our country, and more specifically dual citizenship, there is a blurred line according to some critics. They questioned whether the 1979 constitution did not confer or provide for citizenship upon independence, which allowed dual citizenship – a sort of pre-requisite for certain leaders to hold office. The question one must ask is to what extent this can be inferred given the specific disqualifications outlined in Section 26 (1). There was no ambiguity there as far as I am aware.

Leadership

Further, the intent of the crafters and framers of this British/Commonwealth legacy, our Constitution and specifically Section 26 (1) was to place a prohibition, to disqualify individuals from being elected or appointed to the positions of Representative and Senators (leaders) if, they are,

 “by virtue of their own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state”.

Basically, those elected and selected members of Parliament owe their undivided loyalty, acknowledgement of allegiance, adherence and obedience ONLY to one nation – Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. That’s it! The court MUST give us an interpretation if, as politicians and citizens alike, we are not sure of this aspect of the Constitution and the value we should, we MUST place on leadership and good governance.

Here’s the thing, voluntary allegiance is pivotal to all this argument and or misinterpretation and interpretation of the Section in question. One would normally take a voluntary action for instance, an oath of citizenship and this would not be accidental or involuntary to their allegiances. But Section 26 is by intent exclusionary. It is and was crafted in ways so as to set specific boundaries on an aspiring leader’s eligibility. There must come a question as to why and surely the answer has always been geared towards the protection of the sovereignty of the legislative branch of government.

Some argue about commonwealth citizenship exceptions but these are subject to what others cite as allegiance to “foreign state”.  It boils down to facts and settled law that each commonwealth state is a foreign state to each other although they are within the same grouping labelled ‘Commonwealth’. Let the court decide whether there is any such ambiguity in the meaning of what constitutes “foreign state” and or “foreign power.”  The NLM is mindful that Parliament by itself cannot ‘remove’  perceived or actual (if it exists) legal ambiguity that is centuries old and settled law. Its “legal maneuverings” are still subject to the constitution of this country.

To reiterate, St. Vincent and the Grenadines is a Constitutional democracy. Parliament is NOT supreme. It is the Constitution that is foundational to all branches of government: the judiciary, the executive and the legislature. No way can Parliament unilaterally seek to remove any perceived ambiguity they think they may have found in a constitutional provision. Why now? Did this ambiguity exist in the 1979 Constitution? Can Parliament be allowed to do as it pleases? Have previous parliaments committed such acts? If so, why? Definitely, only the judiciary has that authority, that finality in its interpretation of the Constitution. This is done through a judicial review – Marbury v Madison (1803). This is indeed legal/constitutional history in the making here on our island.

Differences between the Constitutions of Saint Kitts (St. Christopher) & Nevis and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Of course there are differences as to be expected. Both are independent member nations of the Commonwealth of Nations! In 1983 and 1979 respectively both St. Kitts & Nevis (SKN) and St. Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG) became member nations. The major differences within the Constitutions of these nations are those with regards to eligibility of candidates for their respective elections. In SKN there is a restriction placed on parliamentary candidates to its very own citizens. However, here in SVG Commonwealth citizens can be nominated. But, within both Constitutions, one can read that they contain strict provisions against allegiance to foreign powers. Again, each state/member nation within the Commonwealth is foreign to each other.

What of Citizenship and Parliamentary Qualification

In St. Kitts & Nevis, that Constitution places restrictions on nominations for their National Assembly specific ONLY to citizens of (SKN)St. Christopher and Nevis. If a person is a national and is a dual citizen who has taken a foreign oath, they are definitely excluded. Recall that even though SKN allows for dual citizenship, Section 28(1)(a) of their Constitution, as reflected in 26 (1) (a), individuals are still disqualified from being elected or appointed as members of their National Assembly and our House of Assembly.

On the other hand, here in SVG, our  Constitution (Section 25) seems to suggest that there is an extension of nomination for the House of Assembly to Commonwealth citizens who are over 21 years of age. Once they are literate in English and have resided in SVG for at least one year they can do so. However, there is no perceived limitation on eligibility solely to nationals of SVG. Yet all of this is subject to Section 26.

Disqualification of Representatives/Senators from both member nations

It is of the truth that both countries have this provision on Foreign Allegiance. Both constitutions contain sections on disqualification of individuals who “by their own act” sworn allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a “foreign power or state”.

Is there a difference in interpretation of these provisions on Disqualification of Representatives/Senators?

Herein lies the question as to what really constitutes Disqualification of Representatives/Senators in SVG. The NLM awaits the ruling from the Courts. In addition to several ongoing debates, Commonwealth citizenship is allowed for candidacy by virtue of automatic historical, legal and constitutional legacies, so that Vincentians are Commonwealth citizens. Does this sound like a moot point? Unlike SKN, though, there was no known amendment made to eligibility on candidacy to our national elections in SVG. Didn’t we accept ‘whole sale’ the notion that there was no indivisibility between Commonwealth citizens and being Vincentian citizens? If on the other hand, one holds a non-Vincentian passport and or swears an oath to another country (e.g., Canada, Trinidad and Tobago or Nigeria – all member nations of the Commonwealth of Nations), shouldn’t this be interpreted as an act of allegiance to a “foreign power” given the reading of Section 26? Why are there legal debates regarding what constitutes “passive” dual citizenship? The NLM awaits the ruling from the Courts.

On this point, in SKN, wasn’t there precedent when it was ruled that if one holds a diplomatic passport for another country, minus taking an oath of allegiance, that this did not disqualify a member automatically?

Therefore, let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter. Introduction of an amendment to have retroactive effect, such amendment to Section 26(1) of the St. Vincent and the Grenadines Constitution is quite alarming! If it seeks to protect parliamentary members from “disqualification due to foreign allegiance, specifically aiming to override pending election petitions regarding dual citizenship”, this must be rejected by every citizen of this country. Why? The NLM reiterates that if this proposed retroactive amendment to Section 26 (1) is successful, it will set a dangerous precedent if Parliament is allowed to “get away with this” jurisprudential anomaly. If the intent is to make such a retroactive amendment “apply from the 1979 Constitution’s start” this is unprecedented in the history of our nation. The NLM stands firmly with those who continue to raise their voices as we scrutinise this move as a “potential abuse of power designed to alter the legal outcome of ongoing court cases” and to rewrite our constitutional and electoral history.

Why an amendment at this time to have a retroactive effect? Why would the governing New Democratic Party (NDP) propose such an amendment so that it excludes  “allegiance to Commonwealth countries”? Will this new proposed legal tactic in legal jurisprudence be allowed and if so, would it take effect retrospectively to cover past elections?” Should this re-writing of the law be a sort of benefit to those who once were in breach or violation of the Constitution of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines?

My father once said this to me as well, “before any reading of legal jargon, one must take a commonsense approach towards the law.” Remember that this provision (Section 26 1 (a) was designed to ensure that those charged with lawmaking in St. Vincent and the Grenadines must remain, during their tenure of office as – Representatives and Senators, entirely committed to the interests of this our beloved country.

**Professor Peter Britton, S.C., A.A., (1989 – 2009) was among distinguished Guyanese legal luminaries. He was a most beloved Professor of Law of the University of Guyana.

***Professor Aubrey Bishop (1931–2013) was a distinguished Guyanese jurist, former Chancellor of the Judiciary (1996), and a professor of law and Head of Department of law at the University of Guyana.

Having written on the matter of s. 25 and s. 26 Constitution of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, I find it rather fascinating to re-examine the words of “a de jure allegiance to a foreign power or state.” I teased at the phrase deliberately, previously. I assumed that it was not necessary at that time to elaborate on “de jure allegiance”. My late father John Bayliss Frederick had me do a complete research on this very matter about four years ago. At the time, I was reluctant, yes, very reluctant to be researching every single word. I complained. I spoke of the length of time I had to review and re-read the meanings of “a;” “de;” “jure;” and “allegiance.” 

Daddy spoke at length about the study of law and the years that I will have to take to understand legal language. He spoke of the many years that he had to do the same and the value of legal research, understanding and what was written and why it was written. I am in a pensive mood these days especially in these critical stages of our nation’s development. As such, I return to the case of AG St. Christopher and Nevis v Dr. Denzil Douglas (2020). It is not the only case that I have read with regards to getting a grasp of this matter of “de jure allegiance.” My father made sure that I reported to him on my progress. Now, I understand a little bit more about legal research. One cannot accept  words at face value when it comes to understanding the meaning behind those legal words, especially the constitutions of post colonial entities like St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

However, Douglas’s case is germane to the ongoing discussions. I must of necessity return to this matter of s. 25 and s. 26 of the Constitution of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Whether this should be settled in court has to be a matter in the interest of clarity of thought for all of us. Our people should not continue to be unsure of what these provisions mean nor should they make decisions on matters that may open the floodgates to allow for other arbitrary issues. We must be sure and if in doubt, we ask the court to interpret the matter. This is  profound in every sense. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. 

Even as I write, I am hearing my father’s voice. “Take that dictionary from the book shelf and look up the word, “de jure”. I didn’t doubt him when he said it was Latin in origin. I mumbled something under my breath about what Latin has to do with the law and that produced another hour of lecture. As time progressed, I found out soon enough during those five or so years prior to his death, just how important the study of Latin was to the law and legal reasoning. I came to the understanding that this legal phenomenon of Latin and law is pivotal to a greater appreciation of legal jurisprudence in more modern times.

This experience of referring to Latin words taught me that the study of Latin is connected to law through historical Roman law. I am first and foremost a student of history and reading comes second nature to getting a grasp of all things legal. There was continuity in usage in legal terminology, maxims, and concepts. These provided a common language for legal systems globally. The British have to be commended for the preservation and usage of terminologies that lend themselves to a greater appreciation of UK law. It is the precision, legal traditions, and historical legacies of Latin that are to be credited as to their significance as part of current and relevant legal practice and education. This study is critical although Latin is no longer spoken as a language in many nation states. I am still learning daily. What I found among those old almost moth eaten thesauri and dictionaries belonging to my father,  ‘coloured’ my own legal thinking about life issues. Pertinent to the constitution, I found the following so that:-

“In law, “de jure” means something that exists “by law” or “by right,” and is officially recognized by law, regardless of the reality on the ground.” In other words, there is that sense of inherent legitimacy and its defined role in statutes, constitutions or other formalised legal norms. The word/words “de jure” is/are legal concepts that speak specifically to what occurs according to the law. Let us for reasoning’s sake, say, when it comes to leadership, “a de jure” leader for instance is one that has the legal right to authority over a particular jurisdiction and a de jure leader exercises such authority according to law. 

De Jure allegiance: application 

We return again to the context of Douglas’s case: the judgment from Perriera, CJ are and were carefully read again.

 “Requirement (i) – A de jure allegiance to a foreign power or state” appears to be a criterion or condition from a specific legal or constitutional document, likely to be related to rules of eligibility for public office or citizenship within the context of the constitution of St. Vincent and the Grenadines as well as other constitutions that may be found within former colonies of Great Britain.  Such a concept of “de jure allegiance” could only mean,, “having an allegiance that is legally recognized by law or formally established by law and a right to exercise such allegiance.” Put another way, the phrase would point us in the direction of reference to that legal tie or obligation a particular person would acquire or have towards a foreign sovereign state or power. Such “de jure allegiance” would arise from being a citizen or subject of that particular state under its laws. 

While it is true that one does not need a passport to be recognised as a citizen, it is imperative that if one pledges such by virtue of his/her own act, this throws the citizen into the realm of the question which confronts us. Could pledging allegiance to a foreign sovereign state remove one’s right to be qualified as a Representative or Senator? Why? Is this really the case?

But, upon closer analysis of the constitutional provision, it stands to reason that in the context of the post colonial ‘commonwealth’ constitutions like that of St.Vincent and the Grenadines and based on the guidance in the Douglas’s case, a person who is a subject or citizen of a foreign state or power is, by law, considered to owe “de jure allegiance” to a foreign state or power. St. Vincent and the Grenadines is a foreign sovereign state which belongs to the grouping of the Commonwealth nation states, the OECS and CARICOM to name a few of those groupings. One cannot avoid this, and that is, there remains a disqualifying factor, whether we like it or not, if one wishes to serve in the House of Parliament. Section 26(1) of the Vincentian Constitution still speaks. 

Justification

We return to the judgment of Pereira, CJ in the Douglas’s case (2020):

“Requirement (i) – A de jure (by law or by right) allegiance to a foreign power or state,

“That the Commonwealth of Dominica is a foreign power or state is not in issue in this appeal, though the point was taken in the court below. It is clear, in any event, that Dominica is a foreign state for the purposes of the Constitution, notwithstanding the fact that Dominica is a member of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, the Caribbean Community and the Commonwealth of Nations. As the learned judge found:

[21] The Constitution of Saint Kitts and Nevis declares in Chapter 1 that it is a sovereign democratic state. Both St. Kitts and Nevis and Dominica are vested with independent international legal personalities. They have 16 separate and distinct laws relating to citizenship and its citizens owe different allegiances. Their respective exercise of sovereignty is completely independent of each other. 

[22] The fact that for the limited purposes of the Citizenship Act, Dominica is not regarded as a foreign country does nothing to attenuate or negate its status as a sovereign, independent state and thus a foreign power or state within the meaning of section 28(1)(a).”

It seems to me that this legal argument ‘sits’ within circular reasoning. One begins and ends with the truth of the whole. A disqualification exists. Therefore, “a de jure allegiance” is one that is of right or by law. Put another way, any individual seeking the office of Representative or Senator is deemed to be disqualified if:-

• by virtue of his own act, (that individual applies and signs a document without force or manipulation) – he/she does so knowingly and with full knowledge as to what he/she is doing and will do…

• under any acknowledgement of allegiance, (that person who signed the particular document to obtain citizenship of a particular country and was issued a passport indicative of such citizenship, is under a “de jure allegiance” to that state that issued such a passport. Such allegiance is not just presumed but is in actual fact, a de jure allegiance or an allegiance by right or by law. In other words the person with that passport as proof of citizenship has a right of allegiance(and acknowledgement and obedience) to that state that issued the passport. Also, according to the law of that particular land, the person obtained such a right and it is by law so that a legal obligation arises upon him or her to submit to the citizenship laws and all other laws of the land in which he/she is now a citizen.

• To fulfill the last aspect of such a “de jure allegiance,” that individual agrees to be a citizen of that particular state and to render obedience or adherence to such a foreign power or state. That agreement is occurring as of right and by law. That agreement is reflecting and will continue to be reflected in the passport so that the citizen retains such rights and does so by law “ad infinitum” or until the passport holder renounces his citizenship or the issuing state recalls the right or the extended legal provision!

More questions, less answers

Why should this matter be so important to students of constitutional law? Or should it? Does it really matter at all given the political climate on the island of St. Vincent and the Grenadines at this stage of its development? Is this just a case of “political witch hunt?” Why is it that this matter was not dealt with before now? Why take the matter to court after two decades to try and oust the current Opposition Leader as was suggested? Is the current Opposition Leader correct to say that he is doubly qualified to serve in his capacity? Are all commonwealth citizens created equal? Does it really matter if we do have a Prime Minister who has dual citizenship? Will this take away from his/her ability to serve in that capacity? Where would his/her loyalties lie if there should be a situation of political tension between both states in which he/she holds citizenship?Does it really matter at all?

These are questions that our nation and others who are following this situation may wish to consider at some point. But, to be fair, legal reasoning at times can be interpreted and be styled, “judge made law.” The wisest man who ever lived as we have come to understand this, penned these words in Proverbs 29:9 which seems to suggest that “if a wise person takes another to court it may only lead to anger or ridicule, highlighting the futility of seeking justice with someone who lacks understanding.” Is Dr. Ralph Gonsalves correct in taking the Opposition Leader to court over this matter?

Is the Constitution a dilemma ?

However, in my humble opinion, the constitutions of these former colonies (in the case of St. Vincent and the Grenadines) were handed to administrators and politicians at a critical juncture confined within our post emancipated economic and social development agenda in the 1970s. The phases of our island’s development were characterised by times when acceptance of and compliance with instructions written and or otherwise, were the order of those days. These constitutions were accepted as normative post colonial mechanisms. True, from research material, there had been some questions asked and suggestions made by some of our esteemed citizens in the 1970s. Our constitution stands as accepted. 

Critical to note, the substantive and material objective were already decided, and that was to “hand” a constitution in a written format to a former colony. The agenda again was outlined and that was to give a rule book to indigenous people to order and structure their society, their political internal governance, and their overall economic and social lives for years to come. From 1979 to 2025, a mere 46 years have led us to this crucial point where we are still trying to dig deeper underneath the dried ink on fragile documents much older than forty six years and fashioned from antiquity.

The words, “Westminster – model” remain in our consciousness unless and until we change our views. Could there be anything else that could replace our identity as a Vincentian people who have riveted and anchored our souls on the belief in the Supremacy of God, first and foremost? We accepted the model and made it our own. Was this document reflective of the “will of all of our people”? Is there a need for constitutional amendments? The constitution in its current format is largely a model from which there could have been developed a more “autochthonous” (springing from the minds of our native peoples) version but we signed and accepted it wholesale and that our Westminster – model constitution is the Supreme law of our land. 

Unless and until such time when comprehensive amendments reflect what some may call the new “Vincentian realities,” we are bound by this Supreme law.  Reliance on this Supreme law will give rise to levels of legal precedence within case law about fundamental rights and other such matters of Commonwealth jurisprudence and elsewhere. It is this matter of binding and persuasive precedence which may lead us into dissecting both types of precedence to arrive at the reasoning behind the decision of Pereira, CJ who gave judgment in the Douglas case. It is a pivotal decision. If so, shouldn’t we continue to stand guided by this judgment even after five years? 

Both constitutions of Dominica section 32 1. (a) and section 26 1. (a) St. Vincent and the Grenadines have the same wording with regards to: Disqualifications for Representatives and Senators. In St. Christopher/Nevis, section 28 1 (a) with the same words crafted by the framers of these colonial constitutions are also noted. These constitutions were our gifts!

Foreign sovereign state

What is a foreign state or a foreign sovereign state? One source puts it this way: “ “The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states.” But it is to the more simple but scholarly and legal reasoning within case law that I rest my case specifically. The learned judges have spoken but we may wish to seek their legal guidance again. 

To summarise my point here is that, each state within the Commonwealth, the OECS, CARICOM or other groupings is foreign to each other. Each of our island states are held out within the international sphere as foreign sovereign states, as foreign sovereign states to each other with different laws specific to citizenship, immigration, investment and other areas. 

What the current state of legal reasoning says is that we accept that anyone with dual citizenship who aspires to the role of Representative and Senator within the House of Parliament within commonwealth countries and other countries whose constitutions detail the disqualifying sections are indeed disqualified for holding such posts.

I am mindful that from all the discussions so far, it does seem that the relevant courts will have the final say on constitutional questions, they being the ultimate authority on constitutional issues. The court’s decisions interpret the constitution and its rulings are considered virtually final, and or may be altered only through a constitutional amendment or a new court decision.This depends on the nature of the constitutional issue.

On the other hand, while taking a deep breath, I am telling myself how blessed I am to be committed to learning the law. It is in my DNA.

Why was it necessary for a ratification of a lease between the government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines and the Canouan Resorts? Could such an act on the part of the then government embolden subsequent administrations to sell Canouan outright? Is there any danger of Canouan being allowed to secede from the governance of St. Vincent and the Grenadines? True, in October 2025, a Canadian firm proposed a new governance structure for the island. Internal governance of Canouan is critical to this entire process. Will the governance of Canouan remain under the national government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines where the whole of thirty two islands are part of that constitutional monarchy? What kind of relationship would exist between Canouan and our sovereign nation? Is this a proposal for a foreign entity to seek a sort of separate governance? How will this function? Our history tells us that once upon a time, a certain minister of government went to Canouan and the rest is history. 

Did that certain government of that day in the 1900s acquire lands in Canouan through unauthorized acts? If so, what are those unauthorized acts? Could any government of today give permission to another foreign entity and allow them to provide a new form of governance structure on Canouan? Is this a new constitutional route to be pursued and or encouraged by leaders who are not too keen on holding on to our patrimony? Why allow others to participate in the governance of an island like Canouan? What exactly could be the driving force behind all of these new maneuverings? There are other voices from Canouan that need to be heard even more loudly. Those voices should say things like, “Canouan is NOT FOR SALE.”

Again, the question is, are we being slowly guided to part with our patrimony? Who was responsible in the first place to sell lands in Canouan for purposes other than public use? Was the sale initiated/ done for public interests? Was there some sort of trickery or manipulation of islanders to part with Canouan? If so, why? Did the ratification of the leases in Canouan on 31 October 1990, or sometime prior, open the floodgates for any one to navigate their way inwards into our islands, into the minds and the lives of our people? In so doing, was there an offering of their own form of a governance structure?Is this what the newest Canadian entrepreneur is about? Isn’t it true that gentrification is possible within the island of Canouan or for that matter, any other segment of the islands of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines? Are some of our leaders only keen on the sale of lands (within the Grenadines, our coastal areas on the mainland or wherever) no matter what the cost? Are we as a people afraid to hold our elected representatives accountable on this score?

To begin with, and yes, we must begin from the beginning, again. Is it somewhat a moot point in the context of the current issue of raising awareness about internal governance of the same island of Canouan? We begin, anyway. When one of our former Prime Ministers of this country, the late Sir James Mitchell made a public statement reported in the Searchlight newspaper, April 29, 2016, many among us like myself was not particularly interested in the arguments but there was one aspiring representative who raised “significant discussions” as to the economic viability of land acquisition in the Grenadines. Can anyone recall? The newspapers were littered with numerous utterances against the idea of the sale of lands in Canouan. But as soon as that particular gentleman gained a foothold in parliament, all went quiet. Sir James Mitchell’s words were reported and this is what was said,

“The former prime minister explained that during British colonial rule, the island of Canouan was ceded to the Snagg family, who then, in later years, sold it to the imperial government of SVG, a sale that is well-documented within the national records.” 

Up to the present time, there have been several individuals locally and abroad who were left with unanswered questions. What did Sir James Mitchell mean when he said that the whole island was “ceded” to the Snagg family? Was this term “ceded” to be interpreted within the context of a sort of Treaty arrangement that may have been made with the monarch and the island of Canouan itself, separate and apart from the mainland St. Vincent?

This other information on ownership of Canouan according to Sir James Mitchell goes contrary to the following extracted from the website of Discover SVG,

“In 1770 King George III “gifted” Canouan to 5 families: Brisbane, Decato, De Gazeau, Patrice and Snagg. The Snagg brothers eventually accumulated 1,700 of the 1,830 acres available which they mostly used for the cultivation of sugar. When sugar became less profitable they switched to cultivation of cotton and wind-powered cotton gins were built at Carenage, Barbruce and Rameau.”

Whether the island was “ceded” to the Snagg family or “gifted” to several families, there must come a question to the minds of the reasonable person as to the nature of ownership and or co-ownership both at law and in equity and how that legal and equitable ownership changed between the 1770s (date of acquisition of Canouan by the Snagg family) up to and including the 1990s when it was reportedly bought by the then led James Mitchell administration of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. You see, if “ceded” or “gifted” one wonders whether a new proposed construct on internal governance was also part of a scheme of things. Who actually is behind such a scheme to allow other foreigners to dictate normal administration on the lives and livelihoods of all who live on Canouan?

Also, one wonders whether Canouan was ever designated as land for sale in the manner in which such sale was undertaken. Did the government have a proprietary interest at all, having become “purchaser”, and if so, can the government use this to force a sale of lands in Canouan through a construct called the Ratification of Lease against the presumed original wishes of King George III and the descendants of the Snagg family? Of course, caution must be advised here because there are so many questions and very little answers. My belly burns. I feel deep within me that something strange happened. I am my father’s child indeed.

Canouan is extremely special to the Snagg family originally and to other families who now live on the island. No one I am sure is against investment opportunities that may exist. But it is the sale of our patrimony which can amount to another whole ‘new game’. While many sleep (slept) and or smiled at those who pretended it (whatever that ‘it’ represents/represented) is (was) for our good, there may have been another agenda and very often the situation plays out in subsequent years. Gentrification is also a real and present danger anywhere and at the heart of our civilisation, our Vincentian experiences, we cannot continue to be asleep in this way. We must remain vigilant as to whatever else is being sold right under our noses.

In the absence of more ‘concrete evidence’ besides mere words, the conclusion of the matter is that at some point in the 1700s, the reigning monarch King George III had reason enough to either make a ‘gift’ of Canouan to the Snagg family and others or the entire island itself was “ceded” to the Snagg family alone. I have this inner something that tells me, the entire island was under the administration of the Snagg family at one point in this island’s history. 

It was from this beginning that Sir James Mitchell’s administration would have allegedly bought those lands which have been the focus of much controversy over the years. It is about sovereignty, ownership and what belongs to us as a people must never be taken from us. This sort of ‘melee’ set the pace for land acquisition by foreign direct investors, it raised the issue as to whether there should be an amendment to the Alien Land Holding License, and the sale of our patrimony. This issue of the ratification of the lease on Canouan may be seen as laying the foundation on which several other robust discussions emerged and are emerging. Land is everything in our small island developing states. Let us never forget this. Land is everything. 

Were the lands bought legally from the Snagg family by the then Mitchell led administration and if so, why proceed to ratify the lease arrangements with foreign direct investors additionally, through which ‘ownership’ of the said lands were (are) held? If a ratification of a lease was done, and it was done and became part of the laws of this nation, was it not to somehow provide a strategically strategic “cure” to possible prior defects within the purchase agreement/lease arrangement or contract for sale of land or to “cure” some unauthorized acts on the part of the government of the day?

Did the Mitchell led administration exceed its actual legal authority but acted within so called ‘apparent authority’ and the government of that day wanted to honor their actions? Why a Lease Ratification Act? We remind ourselves of what the narrative says,

“Ratification is a later, intentional adoption of an act that was unauthorized or defective when taken. If valid, it relates back to the original date and makes the act enforceable as if authorized from the start, subject to third-party rights and mandatory law.”

So what was that act or actions that were unauthorised or defective by the then government? Was the Lease Ratification Act an intentional adoption of such acts or actions taken to make the acquisition of lands in Canouan enforceable so that the unauthorized or defective action in the first place was now seen as authorised or non-defective in any which way? Where are the documents to substantiate the claim as to whether Canouan as a whole was ‘ceded’ to the Snagg family or ‘gifted’ to them? What is it that is so important that we have to look again at this scenario? 

Let us digress a bit. In the absence of the ‘instruments that originally outlined the specifications associated with the ‘gift’ of such lands in Canouan, or the “ceded” status of Canouan, I came across an issue on mainland SVG.

A Petition from the Caribs of Morne Ronde following the 1902 Volcanic Eruption among other things, detailed that when lands were also “gifted” to the Caribs in Morne Ronde they were” to possess without individual freehold rights and to work as a community”. True, this was nearly two hundred years on but the principles embedded within Land Law takes a considerable time to “churn”. 

My point?

I am going out on a limb here and hopefully I hold tight to the ancestral branch of the Snagg family. My DNA findings are sufficiently established, undisputed, I am a descendant of that same Snagg family. Yes, I can prove it. Therefore, is it likely that lands held by the Snagg family of Canouan were “gifted” in this customary manner so that the Snagg family were to “possess without individual freehold rights and to work as a community?” Canouan was likely to be a freehold property but not held for the benefits of individual freehold rights/interests. If so, isn’t it reasonable to assume that the entire Snagg family held those lands without individual freehold rights? The Snagg family is the Snagg family and is still the Snagg family. 

A few years ago, (2016) while working on another project during my tenure in the UK, I responded reluctantly to a request for my DNA. To my utter amazement, notifications to me are still active and more recently I was matched at the confidence level to that same Snagg family (an aged descendant who still lives in the USA) with over 150 centimorgans. I am a member/descendant of that same Snagg family to whom Canouan was “gifted”. I am making the point loud and clear.  

No, I am not interested in ancestral lands as I am well endowed with other God given gifts and blessings too numerous to mention. But I am one who seeks justice for all! If those lands were taken illegally, they should be returned to the Snagg family.  I believe that Canouan was a freehold estate/freehold property. There should be beneficiaries of the leasehold arrangements that currently exist. No leasehold should be sold because at law, they cannot be sold. 

I have to ask questions again. For emphasis. Could there have been an unauthorised or defective act/acts done in acquiring the lands “gifted” to the Snagg family? Did the state under the leadership of the former Prime Minister Sir James Mitchell acquire/purchase lands in Canouan and that the process was illegal and unlawful? Could this have been the reason for the ratification of the lease arrangements on lands that were legally owned by the Snagg family and an illegal and unlawful sale took place? Was this part of the reasons why descendants of the Snagg family demonstrated for years as they sought clarification on ownership rights to their ancestral lands? Why those lands in Canouan? Why sell and or purchase those specific parcels of lands in Canouan? Is there a plan to move out all indigenous persons on that island? Why is there another bid to discuss and accept foreign administration of the said Canouan?

Now, a freehold property or estate is one that possesses what is known as a “fee simple absolute in possession.” From the little I have gleaned over the years, I am still learning. However, according to the Oxford Reference,

“The freehold estate: one of only two forms of ownership of land that, under the Law of Property Act 1925, can exist as a legal estate. All others take effect as equitable interests. The “fee simple” indicates ownership that is not liable to end upon any person’s death, with the expiration of time, or on the failure of a particular line of heirs. “Absolute” means that the owner’s rights are not conditional or liable to terminate on the occurrence of any event (except the exercise of a right of re-entry – Law of Property (Amendment) Act 1926). “In possession” means that the owner’s rights are immediate, thus future interests do not qualify, but possession need not imply actual physical occupation (for instance, a person in receipt of rents and profits can be said to be in possession).” 

The above is legal language as much as it will take a common sense approach to understand what is common to all mankind of reasonable understanding. Could it be that ratification of the lease on Canouan was to defeat the legality of the “Fee simple” ? Can the “fee simple absolute in possession” be defeated by a Lease Ratification Act? Is Parliament supreme within our constitutional monarchy – a small island developing state that is still learning so many things within a global context? Why a Lease Ratification Act that touches and concerns lands that were granted/gifted/ceded to a family – in this case, the Snagg family? Why? It must be noted that Parliament is not supreme but it is the constitution of our country that is the Supreme law. One of the fundamental rights that is protected is that of deprivation of property. This to my mind ‘speaks’ volumes.

PART TWO

The Snagg family owned Canouan, that ownership of Canouan was/is not liable to end upon any of the deaths of the original owners nor the descendants of the said original Snagg owners, those to whom Canouan was either “ceded” or “gifted” in the first place. Put another way, I will ask the question. Did ownership of a “fee simple in absolute possession” end in this case? Could it end? If so, please help me, help us to understand this so-called legal construct, known to us as the Canouan Lease Ratification Act that was pushed through parliament.

I am repeating myself for emphasis sake. Could it be that ratification of the Canouan lease also meant that even if there was expiration of the time of the persons who owned Canouan, that the legal estate – the remainder in the  “fee simple in absolute possession” – still indicated ownership by the Snagg family up to today’s date? If so, why rob the family of what was legally inheritable and rightfully theirs? Could it be that the ratification of the Canouan lease meant that it was to defeat the current claims by surviving family members, that even if there was failure of a particular line of heirs, that the land still belonged to the Snagg family? The Snagg family line runs deep. The original Snagg family descendants, such a rich ancestral lineage, still writes, speaks, moves and so on.

Again, the question remains as to whether Canouan was held by the Snagg family as a “fee simple absolute in possession”. I am making the bold statement that something is not quite right with the ratification of the lease arrangement in Canouan. It is indeed high time for the remaining family members who are descendants of those original Snagg family to do some more investigation as to what really belongs to them. Only when one dies that one cannot be and do! Canouan is home to the Snagg family no matter what others may have us think.  

Further, I return to this issue, as to Canouan being held by the Snagg family and was this without individual freehold rights attached as it appeared to be the customary practice in those many centuries ago? Was Canouan conveyed to the Snagg family in similar fashion as lands conveyed as a practice to indigenous families in the days of the Imperial government of St. Vincent by reigning monarchs?

What does it mean to hold land as “absolute” within the meaning of “fee simple absolute” ? This refers to, in this context, that the Snagg family as owners of Canouan according to the research, held those lands as owners whose rights were not conditional or liable to be terminated on the occurrence of any event save and except if there was a right of re-entry by the monarch according to the Law of Property (Amendment) Act 1926. We are now in the year 2025. King George III has passed into the great beyond. By the way, where is the original documentation on that “gift” of land?

Also, note that the word “fee” is reflective of the owner of the land having an estate that is a “vested, heritable and present possessory interest” in land. A fee simple absolute is said to be the highest estate permitted by law, and therefore it gives the holder the full possessory rights and obligations now and in the future. The land is “fee simple” and is held indefinitely so that is why it is called a freehold. Yet, there might be limitations of course as to how the land may be used or it may be subject to the matter as to whether the state should acquire such lands  to be used for public purposes (compulsory purchase). But Canouan is being used as the bedrock of private investors. The record shows!

So, why were lands sold in Canouan? Could it be that someone (a family member with other intentions) wanted Canouan for themselves and because they couldn’t own it, they sold it? Forgive me, I am presumptuous in my thoughts. I am many generations down from Dr. Henry Snagg and William Snagg and others. Their names came up in several of my maternal DNA searches as well as so many others from the Grenadines. 

I digress again. Anyhow, I keep coming back to this point. Why sell lands in Canouan to foreigners? Why? Why create a legal “anomaly” – A lease Ratification Act? Someone did ask whether it was necessary to create such an Act. There was silence in that particular conversation and that is what set me to thinking all those years. Leaseholds according to law cannot be sold as freehold property. While my father John Bayliss Frederick lived, he was passionate about understanding this new legal construct of a Lease Ratification Act that he claimed was contrary to the settled black letter law of the Law of Property Acts. 

True, I am new to the legal profession and have sat at his feet many months. Studying law for the past more than years still doesn’t qualify me to get to the root of the matter like my Dad. His question I wish to echo here as he once asked: “who was so determined to sell Canouan as to rob other family members of their patrimony and parliament is not supreme in our islands. Something is definitely wrong there?” See, Dad was questioning the legality of sale and the powers of Parliament to enact legislation such as a Ratification of Lease Act just specific to Canouan.

Nonetheless, we get back to that part about private property and “freehold” property that were classified as “leasehold” and it does appear, such leasehold is allowable for sale. True, amendments to legislation over time become necessary. Could there be something “amiss” when it comes to property law specifically applicable to Canouan? The lands as far as is known were not held as fee simple conditional but let me add, maybe they were! You see, it is that Lease Ratification Act that fails to satisfy this gut feeling my father expressed back then. As I read, he was correct. Why ratify leases and make it law?

I am back to this reasoning. When it comes to the term “in possession”, specific to Canouan, one must now question whether this issue meant that those first members of the Snagg family’s rights were immediate and that those future interests in the same land do not qualify to take! Repeating, it means that those in the future (up to present time – the future interests manifesting now), do not qualify to possess the land. 

Could it be that ratification of the current lease was an attempt to defeat these ‘future interests’ of lands held originally by the Snagg family to whom Canouan was “gifted”? Could it also mean that even though “possession need not imply actual physical occupation”, that a person in receipt of rents and profits can be said to be in possession of lands belonging to the Snagg family and that a Lease Ratification Act would defeat such claims?

Is it therefore true to say that all leased property (in the possession of the Canouan Resorts et al) are deemed to be considered or treated at law as freehold property within the meaning of the domestic Ratification of Lease Act? If so, how is this allowable? Is the Ratification of the Canouan Lease Act be considered lawful but not legal? So, as far as I am aware, according to black letter law, rights of ownership to land can only be held in two ways which are freehold and leasehold.  If lands owned by the Snagg family were on a freehold basis, then those lands are still owned by the Snagg family given the operation of settled law. Those lands were held as freehold as “gifted” and or “ceded” by King George III and were held and are still being held as “fee simple absolute in possession” according to settled law. Isn’t it the law that freehold property has no limit and can go on indefinitely? 

We must get it clear. Otherwise, these questions are to be repeated:

• Could it be that if these lands in Canouan were bought by the government of the day, then this was an illegal transaction according to settled law and this may very well be the singular reason why there was a Lease Ratification Act and an attempt to ‘treat’ leasehold property as freehold?
• Was the Canouan Lease Ratification Act an attempt to “cure” the injustice done? 
• Couldn’t it therefore be concluded that the lands in Canouan are still held by the Snagg family to whom they were “ceded” and or “gifted” by King George III in the 1700s and descendants have a claim against the government ?

On the other hand, this thing about leasehold property, it is also known as a term of years absolute. A leasehold is derived from freehold property or another leasehold interests which has two major elements:

1. There could be a fixed duration – a term that the freeholder and the leaseholder agreed upon. This length of a lease arrangement could be quite flexible. A freehold and a leasehold are completely different. There could be a residential assured short term tenancy like six months or so or longer lease arrangements to cover periods of five or more years. If there is a business, residential purpose or a resort/commercial purpose, the arrangement could be 99 years plus!
2. Exclusive possession given under this lease arrangement would allow the leaseholder to exclude every other from the premises, including the freeholder but for the duration of the lease once they comply with the terms of the lease.

The research also mentioned commonholds where this system makes allowances for a number of units to share a freehold so that a development of flats are accommodated. It was noted that previously such units/flats needed to have leasehold units. 

The questions we must now ask ourselves as citizens of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines are:-

1. Whether additional arrangements are being made for other leasehold arrangements to capitalise on the existing Canouan Lease Ratification Act and if so, why?

2.  Could gentrification of Canouan as well as other designated parts of the mainland become a real possibility?

3. Is there a case to be made for the amendment of the Canouan Lease Ratification Act and if so, is there the political will to address this matter with utmost urgency?

4. What are the implications for sale of other such indigenous lands to foreigners?

5. Should there be a debate on the merits of foreign direct investment and ownership of lands by foreigners or other nationals as freehold as opposed to leasehold?

Shouldn’t there be a request for the original copy of the “gift of lands” to the Snagg family and or the instrument that detailed “ceded” to the Snagg family? Could this matter of understanding and debating the Ratification of Canouan Lease hold the secrets to making sure that a similar undertaking about our patrimony is NEVER allowed?  

I often hear my grandmother say things like, “Child, donkey say, the world is not level at all.”

I conclude with this final question and a comment:-

Are there other Snagg family members who wish to pursue this matter of the sale of lands in Canouan that once belonged to the Snagg family? 

“Justice must not only be done, but it must be seen to be done”. This is a famous legal maxim from a 1924 case: R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McMarthy. The public must continue to have confidence in the legal process each day. There ought to be fairness but also transparency and impartiality. In the interest of justice, you the members of the public must see justice as being fair and unbiased. 

Continuing from our previous conversations on …

Any citizen has the right to hold dual citizenship. But based on my findings here are some observations:

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;

It is more than a presumption outright that once a person is …

“under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state…” that he/she has applied for and will normally obtain (by or through his/her act) a passport during this segment of the application process. Upon receipt of that passport, the individual would be in possession of two passports and effectively hold dual citizenship. He can renew that passport and or travel on it and so on.

My research informs me that when it comes to an individual’s right to hold two such passports even before nomination day with the intent to seek representative office and or holding an elected office in the House of Assembly this is cause for his/her disqualification. Again, may I remind us that the process for disqualification is outlined in the constitution of St. Vincent and the Grenadines as well as the Representation of the People Act.

Let us assume that a person was born in another country and his/her parents can obtain a passport for them in that country, from this foreign state while they were still a minor of course. Thereafter, the presumption arises though, as to whether that person on becoming an adult, if they renewed that passport, whether they would now participate in an act of their own free will, voluntarily that amounts to triggering the interpretation of, “any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state,” should they wish to participate in the electoral process. It could very well be so and if in doubt,  the court could guide us all on this. You see, when the child was a child, he/she had no awareness of what was happening to him/her since he/she did not ask to be born in that foreign state. He/she could not be considered under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state as a child, and neither by virtue of his own act. As an adult, yes, he/she can!

Let us repeat for emphasis. When one engages in an acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state, that individual must do so with full awareness. So, by virtue of his own act he/she having reached the age of ‘maturity’, with full capacity and capability to vote, knowingly, he/she would have participated in an acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign state or power. There may be subjectivity on interpretation and that is acceptable within this context. Also, on the other hand, one could argue that if a person was born in a foreign state, the individual cannot give up his “birthright” to citizenship since he could not confer such citizenship on himself.

If on the reading of the spirit of the law, the framers of the constitution could have looked beyond this singular interpretation, so that a minor is not expected to remain a minor but upon maturing to the adult stage; with every likelihood that he/she may wish to exercise his/her right to vote; both the status of the individual and his relationship to the voting process/electoral law, also changes. For additional reading a case of Joyce v DPP [1946] AC 347 provides much ‘food’ for thought.

It is the possession of a foreign passport that was the only evidence to prove the basis of an acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state. Mind you in the aforementioned case other considerations on nationality and other matters were also raised. Now, the allegiance of such persons to a foreign state is derived from his/her nationality and the passport was enough evidence that nationality was merely incidental. If one applied for the passport, the mere act would not add a new type of ‘allegiance’ because the allegiance already exists.

What bothers me is that a clearer understanding of this matter could have been arrived at, many years ago, through the courts and it was not done. I wrote about this matter in 2020 and to date, I am writing again on behalf of the National Liberation Movement because it has significant constitutional weight. We are a people who understand right from wrong. Those who refused to give up their passports and held office in this country must consider whether they can continue to do so and if in doubt, seek the court’s interpretation of this matter. IN my humble opinion, we have gone on too long with a legal debate of this nature.

If a leader anywhere does not understand his role within the context of his own ‘constitutional latitude’ and the enabling provisions, it says a lot about the leader and the very system itself that permitted such a high office to be held for so long without a legal challenge on its interpretation. It is not good enough for us to just raise the issue in a debate and leave it there, hanging! We must right the wrong. It is also good for us to admit when we were wrong in our interpretations of any matter generally as to err is human. Besides this, the Attorney General who is the people’s lawyer should also have guidance on this matter for us if we don’t wish to pursue the route of going straight to court.

Briefly, the Attorney General is the legal representative of the state and also has the responsibility that includes and is not limited to protecting the public’s interests. He/she is there to advocate for the legal rights of residents and so on within our small island developing state.

Besides that he can represent the public in all legal matters and if needs be, bring lawsuits to protect our interests. It is in the public’s interests that we need clarification on the constitutional latitude of elected members who hold two passports or dual citizenship. Indeed the Attorney General serves as legal advisor to agencies within our state and to government officials.

The major question now is whether the Attorney General would advise government officials who hold dual citizenship on such constitutional provisions as to their disqualification as members of the House of Assembly. If done properly, if the procedure is correctly followed, vacancies will be the inevitable outcome, some members may be fined and or imprisoned and barred from becoming area representatives for years to come and general elections could be held sooner rather than later. It is this serious!! We must do things right and in keeping with the constitution which is the supreme law of our land. Otherwise, what is the point of having a constitution! If you don’t believe me, then let’s go to court or seek the advice of the Attorney General.

A message from the National Liberation Movement of St. Vincent and the Grenadines.