Brief reflections

AS I SIT IN FRONT of my computer, I am in the position I have found myself over the past weeks. My column is overdue and I am thinking about what my focus should be this week. I was thinking of Donald Trump and the war on Iran, a war he started out of the blue. He and his Israeli accomplice still have difficulty justifying the war; both leaders and countries have drawn condemnation from far and wide. But both leaders sicken me and I try to avoid listening to anything that comes from them. I have decided instead to reflect a bit on efforts to amend the constitution in order to clarify the situation re Commonwealth citizens and in particular, their right to participate in our parliamentary elections either as voters or representatives.

The constitutional amendment is something that should have been done a long time ago, that is, specifying clearly who has the right to vote and to be a candidate. The issue has become urgent and has commanded the attention of the people of this country. This emerged as a major issue with the legal challenge posed by the Unity Labour Party in their objection to the election of Prime Minister Dr. Godwin Friday of the Northern Grenadines, and Fitz Bramble of East Kingstown for them possessing dual citizenship, that is, of Canada and St. Vincent and the Grenadines; the matter having been taken to court. What is interesting about this is that Dr. Friday, the current Prime Minister, has been a member of parliament since 2001 and has never been challenged on this matter. In the last election for which he has been challenged he won his seat by over 1800 voters. In East Kingstown Bramble won his seat by 1002. He had already served from 2020. The court will decide on the validity of the challenge. Will the court overturn the overwhelming mandates given by the constituents in those areas and impose two persons who were defeated, in fact crushed?

I have not examined the constitutional issue in any great detail. I am no legal scholar but a Vincentian with the ability to look at a matter and come to my own conclusion, which, of course, might not necessarily be one that the court endorses. I am not ignorant of the history of our Constitution, having presented a paper to those who had undertaken revision of our Constitution some years ago. It was really a background paper tracing constitutional development up to 1951.

Our Constitution Order 1979 states in Clause 25(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 for a period of twelve months immediately before the date of his nomination for election or is domiciled and resident in St. Vincent at that date …“

Section 26 (1) states “No person shall be qualified to be elected or appointed to 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 acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state.”

The bone of contention is – Should Canada be considered a foreign state? Is the implication that all Commonwealth States are foreign? If so, why in (25) 1 (a) allows a Commonwealth citizen to vote. If a born Canadian citizen comes to live in St. Vincent, after a period of twelve months etc. he can vote. If he was born in Canada,

he is a Canadian citizen. One assumes that he acknowledges allegiance, obedience or adherence to Canada, which from the legal objection, is a foreign power. Can you be domiciled in St. Vincent for a period of twelve months without being a citizen? To be domiciled means the intention of making the place your home, but in any event, whatever it takes to determine when you can be considered domiciled you will certainly be a resident, who after 12 months can vote. To be domiciled means you have an intention of making the place your permanent home. But to repeat, you can in the meantime vote, not as a citizen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines but as a Commonwealth citizen. On the other hand, is it that a Vincentian who was born and bred, went to school here, represented his country denied that privilege if they lived in Canada, acquired Canadian citizenship and returned to live and serve the country of his birth?

King Charles III is Head of State of Canada and also of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. I quote from GOOGLE: “Canada holds a formal, constitutional allegiance to King Charles III, who is Canada’s head of state and legal “King of Canada”, distinct from his role in the UK. This allegiance is sworn by new citizens, parliamentarians, and military personnel to the Sovereign as a symbol of Canadian sovereignty, rather than to a foreign country.”

What has gotten us into this mess? Then Premier Milton Cato, had led his delegation to England to finalise the Constitution for the soon to be independent SVG. Little changes seemed to have been made to what had been handed them. The issue of Commonwealth citizenship status would not have met with any objection from him. Cato fought in the Canadian Army during WWII and was most likely a Canadian citizen. I cannot remember if Grafton Isaacs was part of the delegation, but he was a member of government and had lived and studied in Canada, and most likely become a citizen. He used to brag about his love for Canada that gave him everything he had.

A National Independence Committee based on the initiative of the SVG Teachers Union was set up with lawyer Henry Williams as Chairman. Its task was, among other things, to make constitution proposals. I am not sure what was the position of the NIC on the issue of Commonwealth citizenship, if it was at all discussed, but Attorney General Arthur Williams stated publicly that the Constitutional proposals would be done by him (Actually they were presented with a copy by the British negotiators. They were left to cross the t’s and dot the I’s but not in the sense in which it is known). The delegation admitted that there were very little changes to the draft document.

I have only touched briefly on the issue of the constitutional matter to clarify relevant aspects of the Constitution. As some people are suggesting, the matter should go much deeper, allowing Vincentians born here (and bred here) to be allowed to vote regardless of the country for which they have dual citizenship. We however await the verdict of the court. I am of the view that the legal challenge will be defeated.

• Dr Adrian Fraser is a social commentator and historian