Jomo Thomas: “They Are Looking for Security, Not Clarity” 

By Val Matthias. Updated 8:12 a.m., Thursday, April 16, 2026, Atlantic Standard Time (GMT-4). 

Lawyer Jomo Thomas has spoken out on the proposed constitutional amendments before Parliament, questioning both their intent and timing saying that the move is less about clarity and more about political security.

Speaking to One News SVG on Wednesday (April 15), Thomas said, “I don’t think they’re looking for clarity. I think they’re looking for security. And the security that they’re looking for is coming after the fact.” He argued that if there were no legal problem, “why try to cover this up by making a change to the constitution?”  

He recalled the handling of a vote of no confidence, noting, “Silly me at the time, didn’t have the focus to understand that the standing order was a subsidiary legislation. And a subsidiary legislation couldn’t in any way trump the constitution, which calls for a vote of no confidence.”  

Thomas criticized the speed of the process, saying, “You’re bringing a bill to the parliament and from indications, you’re doing this, reading the three readings in one sitting. So, by the end of the day, this would become law without any real discussion, public discussion on a constitutional change.”  

On the issue of dual citizenship, he asked, “What is this big thing about holding on to a Canadian passport or Canadian citizenship?

Thomas described the move as opportunistic: “So there’s a certain amount of opportunism in this, as I said, to protect Dr. Friday and the foreign minister Bramble.” He added, “It was said that, you know, there may be social security issues, health benefit issues that may arise as you get older.” We know that in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, somebody who was served as a prime minister has provisions to allow him or her to get the best healthcare money can buy and that tax payers money.”  

Thomas also raised concerns about retroactivity: “Why make this change retroactive to 1979? Is more than troubling to me. I don’t think that it is necessary. I think that we should be looking forward rather than looking backwards.”  

He concluded, “I would love to see the case decided on its merits because it’s going to quiet all of the talk that is swirling around who can be elected and who cannot be elected.”  

END