in the crosshairs

by COLVILLE MOUNSEY colvillemounsey@nationnews.com

SOME MEMBERS of the legal fraternity are raising red flags over Government’s anti-defection amendment, warning that while the principle of discouraging floor-crossing may be defensible, the mechanism adopted could have far-reaching constitutional consequences and could ultimately face a court challenge.

A senior counsel who specialises in constitutional law, deputy dean and senior lecturer in law Dr Ronnie Yearwood and attorney Corey Greenidge have all questioned aspects of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which was passed 29-1 in the House of Assembly earlier this week. Backbencher Dr Sonia Browne was not present in the Chamber for the vote on the bill.

The Bill proposes that a Member of Parliament (MP) would lose his or her seat immediately upon formally crossing the floor, or within 14 days if they resigned from or were expelled by the political party under whose banner they were elected.

In a detailed legal analysis, Yearwood argued that although there was “an obvious philosophical attractiveness” to requiring an MP who switches allegiance to return to the electorate, the issue “goes well beyond just the question of freedom of association”.

The opinion underscored that the Constitution does not formally recognise political parties and that Section 45 outlines specific circumstances in which a seat becomes vacant, such as resignation, absence or disqualification but not party defection.

“In that capacity, a member’s mandate is constitutional, not partisan,” the analysis stated, adding that MPs “hold the seat in their own right” and are required to represent the interests of the entire constituency.

Dissent

It further warned that anti-defection provisions could have a “chilling effect” on dissent, forcing members to choose “between their seat and their conscience”.

The constitutional attorney noted that such an amendment was considered by Barbados’ Constitutional Reform Commission, which ultimately rejected the idea, “reasoning that in our system, formally speaking, it is individuals who are elected as MPs, not party representatives. Those individuals have a freedom of association, which includes the right to belong to a political party of their choice”.

The analysis noted that while that may be a perfectly valid basis for declining to incorporate anti-defection provisions in the Constitution, the issue goes well beyond just the question of freedom of association.

“Anti-defection provisions could, effectively, nullify the ability of members to express a vote of no-confidence, if doing so could be construed as a withdrawal of support from the political party under whose banner they were elected.

“In such circumstances, the constitutional mechanism of no-confidence, designed as a safeguard against executive overreach and loss of parliamentary legitimacy, would be rendered illusory, because members would be compelled to choose between their seat and their conscience,” the attorney contended.

Adding his voice to the issue, Yearwood said the controversy did not rest in banning opportunistic floor-crossing but in the fact that resignation from or expulsion by a political party would trigger the

Continued on Page 3.

loss of a parliamentary seat.

“What it is doing therefore, it is putting the party at the centre of our constitutional setup,” he said. He argued that internal party constitutions – not the Constitution of Barbados – would effectively determine whether an MP must face a by-election.

“You’re not facing the electorate on the basis of the Constitution. You’re facing the electorate because the executive of your political party . . . decide to expel you, and that’s problematic.”

Yearwood said there were “grounds to challenge” the amendment, noting that similar legislation was tested in other Commonwealth jurisdictions.

“There are grounds to challenge it. These sorts of legislations have been challenged in other Commonwealth jurisdictions,” he said, while cautioning that governance should not be premised on inviting citizens to litigate legislation they find objectionable.

He also questioned whether the 14-day period allowed for an MP to challenge expulsion in court was adequate.

“That cannot be enough of a window for you to be challenging expulsion,” he said, warning that the measure could compromise the independence of Parliament.

“MPs are supposed to be lawmakers. That means that they’re independent.”

Meanwhile, Greenidge, who contested the recent General Election as a Democratic Labour Party candidate, warned that the amendment risked creating constitutional incoherence.

“Our law does not elect ‘political parties’,” he explained, pointing out that under the Representation of the People Act, candidates were nominated in their individual capacity and not as the property of a political party.

“To insert this concept into the Constitution without comprehensive reform . . . risks creating legal inconsistency and constitutional confusion,” he argued.

He described the measure as “a dangerous shift of power”, warning that an internal party decision “could result in the immediate loss of a parliamentary seat”.

“That means the voice of thousands of voters could be silenced . . . through an internal party process,” he said.

During the debate in the House on Tuesday, Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley defended the amendment as a safeguard rooted in “mandate integrity”.

“This is not about how a member votes . . . It addresses only a formal change in political allegiance after an election,” she told the House.

She maintained that if political alignment changes fundamentally, “the democratic response is to go back to the voter”, and rejected suggestions that the Bill would muzzle dissent.

The DAILY NATION also reached out to Larry Smith KC, president of the Barbados Bar Association, for comment on the issue.

Smith said he would comment after first seeking consensus within the association.

(FP)