Retroactive Law Could Pre-empt Court Ruling on Election Petitions 

By Val Matthias. Updated 2:32 p.m., Monday, April 20, 2026, Atlantic Standard Time (GMT-4).

Opposition Leader Ralph E. Gonsalves has warned that Saint Vincent and the Grenadines faces a constitutional crisis after the Government tabled a retroactive amendment while election petitions are before the Court. In a letter dated April 19, 2026, and addressed to media houses, Gonsalves said the move threatens the rule of law, judicial independence, and public confidence in the electoral process. 

The petitions challenge the eligibility of Dr. Godwin L. Friday and Mr. D. Fitzgerald Bramble under Section 26 of the Constitution, which bars individuals who have sworn allegiance to a foreign power from being elected. Gonsalves noted that after dismissing the petitions as “frivolous,” the Government has now sought to change the law mid-litigation, a step he described as unprecedented in the nation’s history. 

Government Senator Jemalie John, however, has rejected claims that the amendment is designed to interfere with the petitions. Speaking on Hot 97 FM on April 15, John said the proposed change is meant to clarify the meaning of “foreign power” in the Constitution and insisted that “the case remains before the court” and judges will still determine whether the amendment applies retroactively. He argued that Parliament has the responsibility to resolve ambiguities in law, not the judiciary, and framed the move as protecting the democratic franchise of Vincentians who voted for Prime Minister Friday and Foreign Minister Bramble. 

Gonsalves, in contrast, warned that retroactive amendments risk interfering with the administration of justice by dictating the outcome of proceedings. He stressed that constitutional amendments must be prospective and not used to resolve specific disputes already before the courts. “Election petitions are not ordinary litigation,” he wrote. “They exist to ensure that elections are conducted in accordance with the law as it stood at the time. To alter that legal framework after the fact undermines legal certainty and public confidence in the electoral process.”

END