Part 2: The Vaccine Mandate

The series offers a balanced and thought-provoking reflection on key issues shaping the upcoming general elections- from the achievements and shortcomings of the Unity Labour Party to the public response to the vaccine mandate, and the growing debate over whether Dr. Godwin Friday represents the change our democracy needs.

For many public servants, the question of whether the ULP deserves another term is complicated by actions that have caused deep pain and frustration.

A teacher who once supported the Unity Labour Party told me recently that they can no longer vote for a government that placed so many Vincentians on the breadline simply because they refused the COVID-19 vaccine — and then chose to appeal the High Court’s decision rather than reinstate the displaced workers with full benefits and compensation.

This teacher had taken the vaccine and remained employed throughout the ordeal. Yet their disappointment reflects a sentiment shared by many public servants.

The COVID-19 pandemic was a period of global fear and uncertainty. Information was limited, the perceived threat immense, and governments worldwide faced enormous pressure to protect their people. In that context, a vaccine mandate was understandable.

As an attorney-at-law, I also appreciate why the government may have appealed the High Court’s ruling, likely out of concern for precedent or broader policy implications.

However, good governance requires more than legal justification. It demands empathy — a willingness to consider how decisions affect people’s lives. When enforcement of the mandate led to job losses, disrupted livelihoods, and prolonged legal battles, the government’s approach should have been tempered. Accepting the High Court’s decision with humility, while compensating and reinstating workers, would have reflected true leadership.

Unfortunately, humility has never been a hallmark of the ULP. Its competitive political culture often overshadows compassion, raising an uncomfortable question: Is the ULP truly a government for the people of SVG?

Some argue that a government “for the people” would never have imposed a mandate that placed so many public servants out of work.

Other countries managed the pandemic differently. In Barbados, there was no vaccine mandate;

healthcare workers who declined vaccination were simply tested regularly. In Italy and in British Columbia, Canada, workers who fell under mandates were suspended rather than terminated — and were reinstated when restrictions eased. These examples show that public health could have been protected without punishing employees.

For some Vincentians, the vaccine mandate, was not a one-off case of injustice but one that reignited older grievances. Consider the case of teachers Addison “Bash” Thomas, Kenroy Johnson, and Elsa Daniel.

Under a 2005 collective bargaining agreement, teachers with at least three years’ service were entitled to six months’ no-pay leave to contest general elections. If unsuccessful, they were to be  reinstated. After the 2010 general election, these teachers were not rehired, prompting a union lawsuit. The High Court dismissed the case as “entirely hopeless,” but the Court of Appeal affirmed that the agreement had given the teachers a legitimate expectation of reinstatement.

I recall hearing the Court of Appeal arguments as a law student. I immediately sided with the teachers. Ironically, the government claimed its own agreement was unconstitutional — a stance that felt both astonishing and disconcerting.

More than a decade later, the law has been amended to allow public servants to contest elections without resigning or losing accrued benefits if unsuccessful. On the surface, this is progress.

But some have questioned its timing, suggesting it may have conveniently benefited certain ULP candidates who are public servants. And even in its application, questions of fairness persist.

Take the case of Grace Walters, the hospital administrator at the Milton Cato Memorial Hospital.

She was required to take leave without pay to contest the upcoming general elections. Yet she publicly acknowledged receiving a consultancy contract worth over EC $140,000 per year — an arrangement that undermines the very spirit of the reform. It highlights how inconsistently government policies can be applied, and why allegations of preferential treatment continue to haunt the ULP.

To the government’s credit, employees affected by the vaccine mandate can now reapply for their positions. But reapplication alone cannot erase lost income, years of service, or the emotional hardship endured. Even though the government has said returning employees will regain full benefits, they have not addressed the humiliation of being dismissed in the first place — nor the degradation many feel in being asked to “reapply” for jobs they never voluntarily left. More importantly, reapplying suggests that their dismissal was justified, when in truth, it was the policy that was flawed.

Some believe the mandate will have little impact on the upcoming elections. Perhaps that is true.

But only time will tell.

What is clear is that a pattern of perceived injustices under the ULP has slowly eroded public confidence. Many Vincentians who remain publicly silent have already resolved privately to vote against the party. For these voters, the vaccine mandate is not an isolated grievance. It is part of a broader story — one in which power has sometimes been used to punish rather than uplift, and ordinary public servants have borne the cost.

The truth is this: good leadership is measured not only by policy outcomes, but by the humanity, fairness, and integrity with which those policies are implemented.

And perhaps this is where the ULP has fallen short.