The candidacy of two representatives of the New Democratic Party (NDP) was challenged on the 7th of November 2025 by the Unity Labour Party (ULP). They were accused of being citizens of Canada and therefore should not be eligible to contest the upcoming general elections in St Vincent and the Grenadines (St. Vincent). Every candidate upon being nominated is required to sign a form which requires them to indicate whether they are under any acknowledgment of allegiance, adherence or obedience to a foreign state or power. The purpose of the challenge was to prevent the two representatives from being nominated as candidates for the Northern Grenadines and the East Kingstown Constituencies. Notwithstanding the challenges, the two representatives, namely, Dr Godwin Friday and Mr. Fitzgerald Bramble were, nonetheless, nominated as candidates to contest the general elections on 27th November 2025. This raises the question, will the ULP pursue its challenge through the court of law? If the ULP takes the matter to court and succeeds, both candidates will be disqualified and if they were victorious at the polls, will be required to vacate their seats. If, however, the ULP is not successful then the candidates will not be penalized and will maintain their seats.
This article will review the relevant laws to determine whether the ULP is likely to succeed in the court of law. At the outset, it is my opinion that the ULP has a very good chance of succeeding. The prevailing jurisprudence seems to be somewhat settled that by swearing an oath to become a citizen of another state amounts to being under an acknowledgment of allegiance, adherence or obedience to a foreign state or power. The ULP’s main challenge will be to establish whether Canada, being a commonwealth state, is considered to be a foreign state or power under the law. I have also concluded that Canada, (notwithstanding its membership of the commonwealth of nations and despite the unique privilege that is accorded to commonwealth citizens in the laws of St. Vincent, (is still a foreign state or power. I will therefore demonstrate how and why I came to my conclusions.
The Offending sections
Section 25 of the Constitution stipulates who can contest elections in St Vincent and the Grenadines. It provides as follows-
(1) Subject to the provisions of section 26 of this Constitution, a person shall be qualified to be elected as a Representative if, and shall not be so qualified unless, he—
(a) is a Commonwealth citizen of the age of twenty-one years or upwards.
(b) has resided in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines for a period of twelve months
immediately before the date of his nomination for election or is domiciled and
resident in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines at that date; and
(c) is able to speak and, unless incapacitated by blindness or other physical cause, to
read the English language with a degree of proficiency sufficient to enable him
to take an active part in the proceedings of the House.
(2) Subject to the provisions of section 26 of this Constitution, a person shall be qualified to be elected or appointed as a Senator if, and shall not be so qualified unless, he is a Commonwealth citizen of the age of twenty-one years or upwards.
It is noteworthy that a citizen of St Vincent is not treated any different to a citizen from a Commonwealth country in order to be qualified to contest the general elections. St Vincent is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, and its citizens are also referred to as Commonwealth citizens. Hence, once a Commonwealth citizen (including a Vincentian) is twenty-one years and older, is resident in St. Vincent for one year prior to the general elections, is not blind and can speak English Language satisfactorily, he/she will be eligible to contest as a candidate in the general elections of St Vincent. Any citizen of the 56 commonwealth countries who satisfies the requirements prescribed in Section 25 of the constitution is eligible to contest the general elections in St Vincent. Notwithstanding the inclusive nature of section 25 it is, nonetheless, qualified. It is subject to section 26 of the Constitution. This means that section 25 is subordinate to section 26. Section 25 creates a condition precedent which must be satisfied before the provisions of section 25 can be applied. To put it another way, section 25 depends on section 26 for its relevance and legitimacy. Therefore, if the requirements of section 26 are not satisfied, anyone who is able to meet the conditions outlined in section 25 will, nonetheless, be precluded or disqualified from becoming a Representative. We therefore need to review section 26 to appreciate the extent to which it can buttress or invalidate the candidacy of a Commonwealth citizen. Section 26 provides as follows-
(1) 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 acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state;
(b) is a minister of religion;
(c) holds or is acting in the office of Judge of the Supreme Court
The effect of section 26
We will focus on the effect of Section 26(1)(a) since that provision has now become the focal point for public discussion and it is the provision that the ULP seeks to invoke against two NDP candidates. Section 26 is primarily exclusionary. It provides the circumstances under which a commonwealth citizen who is qualified to be a Representative or Senator under section 25 should not be permitted, authorized or eligible to contest the general elections. It sanctions any person who, by his own act, is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to any foreign power or state. To offend that requirement, the person must firstly have done something, secondly that something must have placed that person in a position of compromise and thirdly such a compromise will have the potential of fostering divided loyalties between his allegiance to St Vincent and a foreign power or state. The primary purpose of section 26 is to prevent divided loyalties between another state power and representatives and senators (Attorney General of St. Kitts v Douglas (2020) at para 29. It therefore seeks to ensure that representatives are not obligated to, influenced by or under the jurisdiction of a foreign state or power. Chief Justice De la Bastide in the Trinidad case of Chaitan v Attorney General (2001) stated that… the holding of dual citizenship in such circumstances may create split loyalties and the potential for a conflict of interests, which are better avoided in the case of a member of Parliament even though acceptable in the case of an ordinary citizen. In Australia, another commonwealth country, the court held in the case of Sykes v Cleary (1992) that a citizen of a foreign power owes allegiance or obedience to that foreign power’.
Acknowledgment of allegiance etc.
What is meant by under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power of state? That part of section 26 is written in its disjunctive, which means that the person can either offend the section by his allegiance or obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state. Essentially, the person seeking to become a member of parliament is not mandated to offend all three categories at the same time. Hence, the net cast by that provision is relatively wide. Several cases in the English-speaking Caribbean have decided or mentioned that acquiring citizenship of a foreign state disqualifies a person from holding a seat in parliament. For example, in Jamaica the case of Dabdoub v Vaz (2008). In the Eastern Caribbean States, the cases of Liburd v Hamilton (2010) para 5 and the Attorney General v Douglas (2020) para 54. In Guyana the CCJ case of Ram v Attorney General where Justice Wit stated, a person who holds dual citizenship is one “… who by virtue of [their] own act is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state.’ In support of Justice Wit’ conclusion, Justice Anderson considered such an act to be uncontroversial. In Spencer v Haywood (2003) the Antigua High Court did not have any trouble understanding the meaning of the words which were, clear. However, former Chief Justice Pereira in the case of Green v Saint Jean (2012) para 33 cautioned that a section in the Dominica constitution that is similar to section 26 in the Constitution of St Vincent ‘determines a key aspect of a country’s democratic process … not to mention a citizen’s democratic right’ and ‘can have a dire effect on the democratic process.’
Power is accorded to a state on the attainment of statehood under international law. A foreign power is any polity or state recognized under international law other than St Vincent. It has been argued that taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign power, accepting a foreign passport, seeking protection from another state, serving in the military of another state, seeking protection of a foreign state and mentioning in an official document that you are a citizen or subject of another state have all been characterized as acts of acknowledgment of allegiance. Accordingly, acknowledgment can mean that the person recognizes and accepts that he or she may, as a result of that recognition have become committed to, being associated with, subservient and/or loyal to a foreign power or state. A citizen of St. Vincent who is over 14 years of age and is eligible to become a citizen of Canada must take the oath of citizenship, unless that person is so mentally challenged that he or she does not understand the oath, which states as follows- “I swear(or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty the King Charles the third, King of Canada His heirs and successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada. Note that there may have been variations in the oath of allegiance at the time that both of the NDP candidates are alleged to have become Canadian citizens.
It is clear from the wording of the oath that by becoming citizens they are subjected to the jurisdiction of Canada and will be required to conduct their affairs in accordance with the laws of that state. For example, if a certain conduct is not in contravention of the laws in St Vincent but that very conduct will breach/break the laws in Canada, a Canadian citizen residing in St Vincent will be breaking the law of Canada by engaging in that conduct in St Vincent, whereas a Vincentian living in St Vincent who engages in the identical conduct will not be breaking the law in Canada. What this shows is that Canada has extraterritorial jurisdiction over its citizens living in any part of the world. A member of parliament who is also a Canadian citizen may be reluctant to support a law that will compromise his Canadian citizenship, even if that law is beneficial to St Vincent and the Grenadines. His loyalties will immediately become divided, especially if he wishes to remain a citizen of Canada. This is where the status of being a “commonwealth citizen” begins to disintegrate.
Commonwealth Citizenship
The domestic laws of a country do not generally define a state. Such a definition is within the province of international law. Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States 1933 provides that a State has four characteristics. Firstly, it should have a permanent population. Secondly, the territory that comprises the State must be defined. Thirdly, it should have a government and fourthly it must possess the capacity to enter into relations with other States. One of the most important confirmation of gaining international recognition as a state is becoming a member of the United Nations. In 1980 St Vincent became the 153rd member of the United Nations. Canada became a member of the United Nations in 1945. They are both recognized as separate and distinct polities/states, imbued with rights and obligations under international law. The 56 members of the commonwealth of Nations are also members of the United Nations. This makes each of them separate polities under international law.
How they organize their domestic affairs ought not to be challenged unless those affairs are inconsistent with the principles of international law. This means that St Vincent is free to introduce legislation to determine who is eligible to be its parliamentary representatives or Senators. According to section 25 of the constitution, any citizen of a member state of the Commonwealth of Nations is entitled to contest the general elections in St Vincent and the Grenadines once certain requirements are satisfied.
This privilege of being a parliamentary representative is not extended to citizens of nonmember states of the Commonwealth. It must, however, be noted that the term commonwealth citizen is a misnomer. There is no such citizenship in existence since the commonwealth of Nations is not a State but instead a grouping of 56 states, all of which are members of the United Nations and acknowledged by St. Vincent and the Grenadines, pursuant to the Commonwealth Countries Act. Section 26 of the Constitution did not distinguish between a state that is a member of the commonwealth or any other state and neither did it distinguish between a citizen of St. Vincent and a citizen of a commonwealth state. It simply refers to foreign power or state. This raises the question, is Canada considered to be a foreign power or state? The simple answer is yes if the Antigua case of Baldwin Spencer v Guy Haywood (2003) is followed.
Foreign power relates to the extent to which a citizen of a member state of the commonwealth is influenced by an entity or person residing in another state. The term foreign power or state distinguishes the influence imposed by a person who is under the jurisdiction of another state and the influence that is imposed by a state qua state. The word foreign was mentioned three times in the St Vincent Constitution but no definition was given. It mentioned foreign with respect to a declaration of emergency if a state of war between St Vincent and a foreign state is imminent. Secondly, it is mentioned under section 26, the subject of this discourse. Thirdly, it refers to foreign, in order to exclude from Vincentian citizenship a child born therein and whose parents are envoys of a foreign sovereign power. By that provision the strong inference is that a diplomat residing in St Vincent and the Grenadines whose child is born therein is not a citizen under that provision of the constitution. What is significant about that section is the provision that was made for a foreign sovereign power which was not qualified. Therefore, a child of commonwealth citizens who enjoyed immunities and privileges from suit and legal process appears not to be entitled to citizenship under that section. Section 95 of the Constitution excludes a commonwealth citizen from the definition of an alien. Although alien can sometimes be confused with foreign, alien simply signifies who is not a citizen of a country. On the other hand, foreign can also mean a different country.
The strong inference is that for the purposes of diplomatic relations commonwealth countries are foreign sovereign powers. St Vincent and Canada are members of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Those are Treaties between sovereign states, which confirm that they are two separate states. They accord immunities and privileges to members of staff of their respective High Commissions to enable them to carry out their consular activities freely and conduct their work as diplomats without the ordinary hindrances. By being a member and accorded those rights, privileges and immunities there is indeed an automatic recognition that they are both foreign states and the staff who are generally imbued with those privileges are also foreigners.
The St Vincent and the Grenadines Citizenship Act chap 117 defines foreign country to mean “…a country that is not a Commonwealth country; It also states that “the Commonwealth” means the Commonwealth of Nations, and “Commonwealth country” shall be construed; accordingly, The Act, treats the commonwealth of nations and foreign country as separate and distinct polities. Section 105 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to prescribe a meaning for commonwealth citizen. In the Deportation and Restriction of Commonwealth Citizens Act Chap 111, notwithstanding that a commonwealth citizen is considered as belonging to St. Vincent, a distinction is nonetheless made between commonwealth citizens and citizens of St Vincent. Similarly, a distinction is made in Section 4 of the Immigration Restriction Act where a commonwealth citizen can lose the status of belonging to St Vincent and the Grenadines under certain conditions. Yet, under section 6 of the said Act a commonwealth citizen is, nonetheless, treated as someone who belongs to St Vincent. It seems obvious to me that special privileges are given to citizens of commonwealth countries by virtue of St. Vincent being a member of the Commonwealth of Nations.
It is noteworthy, that, whereas a citizen of St Vincent is, by extension a commonwealth citizen, a commonwealth citizen is not automatically a citizen of St. Vincent. Section 93(1)(a) of the Constitution requires a commonwealth citizen to apply to be registered as a citizen of St Vincent after residing therein for at least seven years. This distinction is also evident where only certain commonwealth citizens have visa free access to St Vincent and no commonwealth citizen is imbued with the right to live in St Vincent. Those commonwealth citizens who are allowed to travel visa free to St. Vincent are required to demonstrate that they have sufficient funds to enter St Vincent and will generally be given about six months to remain therein. The power to impose those restrictions on commonwealth citizens is a demonstration of one of the functions and characteristics of the state, namely, the power to govern and manage the affairs of the state within the jurisdiction of the state. Yet pursuant to section 25 of the Constitution only commonwealth citizens are eligible to become parliamentary representatives. Whereas that conundrum on first blush appears to create a challenge to section 26 of the constitution, a closer look reveals something quite different. A commonwealth citizen and a commonwealth state are not the same. A commonwealth state functions with other states on the international plane with rights and obligations under international law, but a commonwealth citizen derives his or her status from the domestic law. It still leaves open the question, whether by conflating commonwealth citizens with citizens of St Vincent for the purposes of section 25 of the Constitution, no commonwealth state is considered as being foreign? Does this also mean that within the context of section 26, foreign power or state does not include member states of the commonwealth or commonwealth citizens?
For the avoidance of doubt, Black’ Law Dictionary describes foreign as, “of or relating to another country…or jurisdiction. If state is given its proper meaning under international law, then Canada will be included as a state. Jurisdiction is defined by Michael Byers as, “…the authority to engage in activities of control or regulation within a certain geographic area.” This essentially means that a State can create, implement and enforce rules within that geographic area to regulate the activities of its subjects or any person operating within that area. This includes determining who ever it considers suitable to be representatives irrespective of their nationality once they are commonwealth citizens. The government of St Vincent is free at any time to amend or modify that section since it is not an entrenched provision of the constitution. It is noteworthy that state is not defined in the constitution but will nonetheless bear its natural and ordinary meaning. To exclude a separate polity or separate polities from the definition of state either expressly or by implication does not achieve the purpose of section 26 of the Constitution. The clear intent and purpose of that section is to ensure that representatives and Senators do not have “…split loyalties which render them incapable of acting in the interest of [St. Vincent] in circumstances where such acts are diametric to the interest of the state to which they possess a competing loyalty. This, rather, undesirably will handicap the ability of elected member to effectively carry out their parliamentary functions in the interests of the state and is counterintuitive to the administration of a sovereign democratic state (emphasis added Attorney General of St. Kitts v Denzil Douglas (2020) at para 29)
The word state is an international nomenclature that signifies recognition on the international plane, and which will not have international acceptability where it is determined by domestic law. Hence, unless section 26 expressly excluded the state of Canada, it is highly likely that Canada will be included as a state. Similarly, there is no expressed exclusion of Canada or any commonwealth state from being categorized as a foreign power. The Constitution itself did not expressly exclude commonwealth countries from being categorized as foreign. The only inference that can be drawn from the use of the phrase commonwealth citizen is that any person who is not a citizen of a commonwealth state will not be eligible to contest an election in St. Vincent. The Constitution acknowledges the close relationship between member countries of the commonwealth and provides their citizens with an opportunity to participate in electoral politics. However, that is not the same thing as automatically according Vincentian citizenship to citizens of other Commonwealth countries or subjecting Vincentians to the jurisdictional powers of commonwealth states or their citizens. Such an interpretation will lead to an absurdity and undermine the very essence of statehood. In the case of Attorney General v Douglas (2020) at para 32 of the judgment the court stated as follows; 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). With that rationale being applied to a country that is a member of the OECS and CARICOM it seems crystal clear that a similar rationale will be applied to Canada.
To determine whether a person is disqualified from being a representative under section 26 of the constitution, it is necessary to review the laws of that other state to ascertain whether there is any evidence of acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state. (Attorney General v Douglas (2020) para 10). Having noted the oath of citizenship which subjects a Canadian citizen to the laws of Canada, no matter where in the world they reside, can it be said that the two NDP candidates have violated section 26 of the St. Vincent and the Grenadines Constitution?
When St Vincent became independent on 27th October 1979 it severed its umbilical cord with the United Kingdom and became responsible for its own affairs. The mere fact that St Vincent and the Grenadines is a member of the Commonwealth and may, prior to 2017 swear allegiance to the monarchy of England in the same way that Canada does in its oath of Citizenship, did not make Canada and St Vincent one and the same country. Even though prior to 2017 they swore allegiance to the same monarch, since 1979 the monarchy existed as the Crown in Right of St Vincent, which means that decisions are made by the state in the name of the crown, although the crown only has power to act on the advice of the state which means that the King of Canada is restricted to the laws and jurisdiction of Canada and the King of St Vincent and the Grenadines, though they are the same, is restricted to the laws and jurisdiction of St Vincent and the Grenadines. The same King but separate and distinct oversight and polities. Canada and St Vincent are two different jurisdictions under international law.
Therefore, within the context of St Vincent, Canada is a foreign power and a foreign state. The case of Sue v Hill is most instructive. In that case an Australian who was elected as a Senator to serve in the Parliament of Australia had to vacate her seat because she also held British Citizenship, the court held that …it was evident that even a member of the commonwealth of nations could be considered to be a foreign power for the purpose of constitutional eligibility. Any act that subjects a Vincentian to the laws of Canada will offend section 26 of the Constitution. Becoming a citizen of Canada by virtue of the oath of citizenship and, without more, is offensive to section 26. Canada is a sovereign foreign power in the sense that it was described in the House of Lords case of Spain v Owners of the Arantzazu Mendi [1939] which enumerated the activities that amount to the functions of a sovereign foreign power.
Effect of Disqualification
If the two candidates won their seats but lose the case and are made to vacate the house, what will be the position of the votes cast in their respective constituencies? The striking possibility is that the person who got the second most votes may emerge as the representatives of those two constituencies. There are authorities to support such a conclusion (e.g. Nedd v Simon (1972) 19 WIR 347). NDP be warned!!! The votes of the NDP supporters in those two constituencies can, by law, be “votes thrown away.” It would therefore mean that for NDP’ to win the elections, form and maintain government, they must win at least 10 seats on 27th November 2025.
