The Friday administration may be on the verge of delivering its first major political and legislative masterstroke in the form of a constitutional amendment at the next sitting of Parliament on April 21. With a clear majority in the House, the government is strongly positioned to carry the amendment, which supporters argue is less about altering the law and more about clarifying it. At the centre of the move is one simple but important issue: the Constitution does not define what “foreign power or state” means, and this amendment seeks to remove that uncertainty by putting an express definition into law.
The draft amendment to the Constitution would insert a definition stating that “foreign power or state” does not include any state or country that is, for the time being, a Commonwealth country. A parallel amendment to the Representation of the People Act carries the same clarification. In effect, the legislation is designed to eliminate ambiguity around a phrase that has long existed in the law without any direct constitutional definition. Supporters of the amendment say that is precisely why the measure is so important: it does not invent a new principle, but rather gives clear legal meaning to a term that should never have been left drifting.
Equally significant is the proposed “Savings” provision contained in both drafts. The Constitution amendment would add a new section 26A, while the Representation of the People Act amendment would add section 35A. These provisions are intended to ensure that no nomination, election, return, or appointment of a Representative or Senator would be invalidated simply because that person owed allegiance, obedience or adherence to a Commonwealth country. That drafting is deliberate. It seeks to make Parliament’s intention unmistakably clear, including in relation to Senators, who are appointed rather than elected.
That clarity is especially important in light of the legal thinking surrounding retrospective effect. A “Savings” clause is the ideal pathway for addressing retrospectivity, but only if Parliament’s intention is stated in sufficiently clear terms. In other words, if the law is to apply in a way that confirms what had always been understood to be the position, the language must leave no room for doubt. The proposed drafting appears aimed at meeting exactly that threshold, making plain that the amendment is intended not as a legal gimmick, but as a clarifying intervention grounded in Parliament’s authority.
Politically, the government’s advantage is obvious. With the votes to pass the amendment and a clear message that the Constitution is merely being clarified, instead of drifting, dodging, or leaving the country trapped in endless fog, it is moving with parliamentary muscle to define and clarify where previous uncertainty was allowed to fester. On that basis, the amendment is shaping up not simply as another bill, but as a calculated and confident assertion of legislative leadership, one that may well be remembered as the Friday administration’s first major masterstroke.
Full Text of the Proposed Bill
“AN ACT to amend the Constitution of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines set out in the First Schedule to the Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Constitution Order 1979, (United Kingdom S.I. No. 916 of 1979) to clarify and expressly provide for the interpretation of certain provisions, and for related matters.
THE PARLIAMENT of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines enacts as follows
Short title
This Act may be cited as the Constitution of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (Amendment) Act 2026 and shall be read and construed as one with the Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Constitution Order.
Amendment of First Schedule
The First Schedule to the Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Constitution Order is amended
(a) in section 26(5) by inserting the following definition in the appropriate alphabetical position,
“foreign power or state” shall, as from the commencement of this Constitution, have a meaning that does not include any state or country that is for the time being a Commonwealth country.
(b) by inserting the following new section after section 26 –
Savings
26A. Nothing in section 26(1)(a) shall be construed as rendering invalid, at any time on or after the commencement of this Constitution, the nomination, election, return or appointment of any person as a Representative or Senator by reason only that such person, at the time of nomination, election, return or appointment, was by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a Commonwealth country.”
Certain provisions of the 1979 Constitution require a two-thirds parliamentary majority and a referendum for amendment. It remains unclear whether this bill falls into that category.