The high-stakes constitutional challenge regarding the eligibility of Prime Minister Dr. Godwin Friday and Member of Parliament Fitzgerald Bramble entered its second day of hearings on Wednesday, marked by sharp legal disagreements over the validity of expert testimony.
The proceedings, presided over by High Court Judge Justice Gertel Thom, center on petitions filed by Unity Labour Party (ULP) candidates Carlos Williams and Luke Browne. The petitioners contend that Dr. Friday and Mr. Bramble are disqualified from serving in Parliament due to their dual citizenship status, which raises questions regarding their allegiance to a foreign state under the constitution. Both respondents have denied these allegations.
Following the conclusion of evidence on fact, the court transitioned to hearing from the petitioners’ expert witness. However, the introduction of this evidence sparked immediate pushback from the defense.
Senior Counsel Anand Ramlogan, lead attorney for the respondents, launched a vigorous challenge against the witness’s testimony. Ramlogan argued that the witness failed to provide a legitimate expert opinion, asserting that the evidence presented was largely a compilation of publicly available information from Canadian immigration websites concerning passports and citizenship procedures.
Furthermore, Ramlogan submitted that the testimony failed to address the central legal question: whether either respondent actually owes allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power.
The petitioners’ legal team characterized the defense’s objections as a standard tactical maneuver. Lead counsel Stuart Young stated that the team has successfully presented their evidence based on facts and remains “confident in their case”.
Reflecting on the day’s friction, a representative for the petitioners noted that the court spent the majority of the evening reviewing written submissions following the respondents’ objections. They suggested these maneuvers appeared to be an attempt to “prevent a matter from being heard”.
As the second day of evidence drew to a close, the focus shifted to the upcoming judicial decision. Justice Gertel Thom is expected to rule on the admissibility of the expert evidence and the objections raised by the defense when the court reconvenes.
The ruling will be a critical juncture in the case, determining how the expert testimony will—or will not—proceed as the court continues to weigh the constitutional eligibility of the two high-profile officials.
