Submitted by Roland R Clarke PhD (UPenn 95), Caribbean Energy Consultant, Member of the Private Financing Advisory Network (PFAN), Barbados – www.linkedin.com/in/rolandclarke

A solution is only required when there is a problem for resolution.  It seems to me that the kernel “problem” in Barbados’ governance arrangements at this time, is the failure of the President to act with timeliness in using the power bestowed to that office under the current Constitution.  For me, this is not a problem per sec, but rather a potential lost opportunity.

In order to resolve that particular “problem”, all that needs to happen is that: 

(a) The President should reach out to those who are known to be in opposition to the Government within the context of our recent national general elections; or 

(b) Politically active “individuals” from the known non-government political parties could/should offer themselves to the President to serve as Opposition Senators. This notwithstanding that any “qualified person” can offer themselves to the President irrespective of party affiliation or otherwise; AND

(c) The President shall use her best judgement to make the final decision and selection of two Opposition Senators.  

One more thing, the Prime Minister (PM) must select one more “qualified” individual to be a Government Senator. The notion of “keeping a seat” for an unqualified individual is untenable.  That problem could easily be fixed after the fact.  It is also recognised that not all qualified individuals may be available right away to take the oath of office and sit in the Senate.  The key is for the PM to make the selection NOW. 

Once the Parliament is fully “constituted” as per the argument of at least one constitutional lawyer of national repute, then any and all constitutional changes could be properly laid before the Senate AFTER the fact. 

In sum, the current impasse is artificially and prematurely created. It only serves to potentially lay bare an intent to insert “political parties” into the Constitution of Barbados for the first time at least since 1966. So far, I have not heard any objections from any political party (as a corporate person in its own right) to the proposed change to the Constitution regarding the insertion of a role for political parties. The silence of the political parties speaks volumes.

Clearly, the solution has predated the problem!

I assert that the premature creation of the problem above also lays bare the potential for a qualified citizen and resident of Barbados to seek leave of the President to bring a Constitutional motion against the President, if such a motion cannot be brought immediately and directly before the High Court of Barbados. Surely all concerned citizens and residents of Barbados would wish for the most vaunted governance institutions of Barbados to be protected at all times. We must protect the King of our National Chest Board, should we not?

The constitutional basis for my analysis above is given in alphabetical listing as follows:

A. Choosing the Leader of the Opposition in the Lower House of Barbados:

Section 74(2) of the Barbados Constitution states in part:

“(2) Whenever the Governor-General has occasion to appoint a Leader of the Opposition he shall appoint the member of the House of Assembly who, in his judgment, is best able to command the support of a majority of those members who do not support the Government, or if there is no such person, the member of that House who, in his judgment, commands the support of the largest single group of such members who are prepared to support one leader:

Provided that this subsection shall have effect in relation to any period between a dissolution of Parliament and the day on which the next election of members of the House of Assembly is held as if Parliament had not been dissolved…” etc..

B. Two Senators to be Appointed by the Leader of the Opposition. I took the liberty of pre-supposing that these two Senators would be “in opposition” to the Government. However, the Constitution is silent on my supposition. See

Section 36 of the Barbados Constitution states:

“36. (1) The Senate shall consist of twenty-one persons who, being qualified for appointment as Senators in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, have been so appointed in accordance with the provisions of this section. 

(2) Twelve Senators shall be appointed by the Governor-General, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, by instrument under the Public Seal. 

(3) Two Senators shall be appointed by the Governor-General, acting in accordance with the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, by instrument under the Public Seal. 

(4) Seven Senators shall be appointed by the Governor-General, acting in his discretion, by instrument under the Public Seal, to represent religious, economic or social interests or such other interests as the Governor-General considers ought to be represented:

Provided that before appointing any person under this subsection the Governor-General shall consult such persons as, in his discretion, he considers can speak for those interests and ought to be consulted.”

C. The two Houses of Parliament “may” meet at the time for a limited purpose at the time of writing this article.

Section 50(1) of the Barbados Constitution states:

“50. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, each House may regulate its own procedure and for this purpose may make Standing Orders. 

(2) Each House may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership and the presence or participation of any person not entitled to be present at or to participate in the proceedings of the House shall not invalidate those proceedings.”

D. The issue of a quorum is only relevant during the “sitting” of the Senate. It seems to me that a “sitting” can only occur after the initial establishment of the Senate. See –

Section (52) of the Barbados Constitution states:

52. (1) If at any time during a sitting of the Senate objection is taken by a member that there is not a quorum present and, after such interval as may be prescribed by the Standing Orders of the Senate, the person presiding ascertains that there is still not a quorum present, he shall thereupon adjourn the Senate. 

(2) For the purposes of this section a quorum of the Senate shall consist of eight Senators besides the person presiding.

E. The President is “required” to act in lieu of the Leader of the Opposition, “under the current circumstances in Barbados” at the time of writing this article (at least in my opinion given the use of the word “shall” below). 

Section 75 of the Barbados Constitution states:

“75. During any period in which there is a vacancy in the office of Leader of the Opposition by reason of the fact that no Leader of opposition. person is both qualified in accordance with this Constitution for, and willing to accept, appointment to that office, the Governor-General shall- 

(a) act in his discretion in the exercise of any function in respect of which it is provided in this Constitution that the Governor-General shall act in accordance with the advice of the Leader of the Opposition; and

(b) act on the recommendation of the Prime Minister in the exercise of any function in respect of which it is provided in this Constitution that the Governor-General shall act on the recommendation of the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.”

Reference: Do note that the quotes above are taken from the full text version of the Barbados Constitution, posted on the web site of the Organisation of American States (OAS). Since the posting of this full text document, the Barbados Parliament has recently documented thirty-six (36) instances of constitutional amendments in a piecemeal fashion on their website. My current understanding is that the thirty-six (36) documents speak to amendments having to do with the recent transition to republic status by Barbados. See the full text version of the Barbados Constitution at – https://www.oas.org/dil/the_constitution_of_barbados.pdf

My two bits,

172 responses to “Evidence of a Solution Seeking a Problem in the Current Governance Arrangements of Barbados!”


  1. Seems I have read this ‘solution’ before.
    CF is good choice. Ask the D’s to pick one. And bring back Rawdon until the age changes are done. He only served 3.5yrs after the last Constitutional change. No need for LoO til one crosses the floor.


  2. Here is some evidence any reasonable person could use in determining if a division was for real!!


  3. Anyway, the constitution says the GG/President has 90 days to issue a Writ for new elections.

    If the result is a nullity and she has to issue a second writ, time is tight.

    I reckon she has 41 days and counting!!

    … assuming the first writ is ignored.


  4. The court has to rule and any appeals will need to be heard.


  5. John
    The reality is that human beings reserve the right to CHANGE THEIR MINDS, and the President is not able to ‘ascribe motives’ in the same way that Bushie can.
    If Ralph Thorne decided tomorrow to drive up to government house and whisper a few words … How would the President be able to dispute his sincerity?
    Wuh Boss, who believes ANYTHING that politicians say anyway..? (OH WAIT!!! …Bajans do …LOL)

    Your otherwise logical postulation loses validity when confronted with the frailties of human predictability – especially politicians. You seem to think that there is some kind o ‘honor’ among the gang…. Bushie, – not so much.
    Same way that 16 of Mia’s crowd could have been planning to ‘rearrange some furniture’ before elections, two or three could call in the ‘movers’ tomorrow … or indeed anytime the they are so minded.


  6. Schools must have a Head Boy and a Head Girl.
    In an all boys school one boy will need to change sex.


  7. If Mia was a man she would be called a spectacular leader for 2 x 30 wins.

    She should be made an honorary man.


  8. The reality is one of leadership with deceptive motives
    That is the reality all must face for the next five years
    Another reality is a country so divided unable to see forest for the trees
    Yesterday the business community was falling over each other on business uptake
    Meanwhile thousands of Bajan households in isolation because of the continuing spread of Covid and govt and media sending out false narratives in pretentious fashion


  9. Opposition propagandists like Angela Cox are bitter losers in life spreading their shit for others to clean up and then moaning about all the shit everywhere.

    She is no good
    Bad Mind
    Grudgeful
    & Envious

    Begone Satan
    The Power of Christ Compels YOU


  10. Preamble: in the 2022 election no opposition won anything not even a button blah blah blah
    This confounded Bajan talking heads on the Bu who do not think very deeply
    John Knox sabotaged rationality again to lead the people up the garden path

    Hear Ye Hear Ye Hear Ye
    The best thinking mind on BU has now resolved the conundrum for the dumb with the following solution for implementation forthwith

    One seat will be allocated to the PM to assign to the best qualified person in their opinion to represent the opposition goals

    One seat will be allocated to the President to assign to the next best qualified person in their opinion to represent the opposition goals

    When it comes to heads
    2 out of 3 ain’t bad
    We don’t need another hero


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVPq-_t-ANw


  11. Do you know Citizen Brathwaite?

    I have since the age of six. He ain’t that devious!


  12. Lord have mercy! The crap that these bright boys come up with!

    Who are these people that they speak about?


  13. Bush TeaFebruary 14, 2022 10:42 PM

    If Ralph Thorne decided tomorrow to drive up to government house and whisper a few words … How would the President be able to dispute his sincerity?

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    This is the same Ralph Thorne who already crossed the floor when it used to be in existence without falling in the cellar?

    He is a lawyer.

    He knows once he acts his deeds are open to scrutiny by any citizen in a court of law.

    He may be persuaded to adopt the your esoteric idea and act but if he is hauled before the court there may be a more pragmatic approach.

    So what happens if the court decides he has acted dishonestly?

    “(2) (a) If circumstances such as are referred to in subsection (1) arise because a member is convicted of any criminal offence involving dishonesty, under sentence of death or imprisonment, adjudged to be of unsound mind, declared bankrupt or convicted or reported guilty of a corrupt or illegal practice at elections or of making a false declaration of qualification and if it is open to the member to appeal against the decision (either with the leave of a court or other authority or without such leave), he shall forthwith cease to perform his functions as a member but, subject to paragraph (b), he shall not vacate his seat until the expiration of a period of thirty days thereafter: Provided that the Speaker may, at the request of the member, from time to time extend that period for further periods of thirty days to enable the member to pursue an appeal against the decision, so, however, that extensions of time exceeding in the aggregate one hundred and fifty
    days shall not be given without the approval, signified by resolution, of the House of Assembly.”

    (b) If, on the determination of any appeal, such circumstances continue to exist and no further appeal is open to the member, or if, by reason of the expiration of any period for entering an appeal or notice thereof or the refusal of leave to appeal or for any other reason, it ceases to be open to the member to appeal, he shall forthwith vacate his seat.

    (c) If at any time before the member vacates his seat such circumstances as aforesaid cease to exist, his seat shall not become vacant on the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (a) and he may resume the performance of his functions as a member.”


  14. Because no member has been hauled before the court on any of the above charges does not mean that someone won’t decide to test the constitution.

    What never happened in a year could happen in a day.

    Why take the risk?

    For what, so Ms. Mockley can have a “constitutional” parliament despite the nullity any pragmatic adult would know requires another election?


  15. “Because no member has been hauled before the court on any of the above charges does not mean that someone won’t decide to test the constitution.”

    In theory you shall be inheriting large funds and can put your money where your mouth is and test your theory in a Court of Law

    you claim to be an expert in Courts
    and the Law Way like a Southern American Deputy Sheriff amongst the negroes who are profiled as menaces to society

    Put up or shut up Son of Knox c/o Kingsland Estate


  16. The crap that these bright boys come up with

    I presume when you say bright you mean non-bright
    boys is a generic term for 48% of the human population
    you need to be specific to individual beings as they’re separate entities
    you may inadvertently offend every man in the whole world


  17. I mean the bright boys of BU. They know who they are.


  18. So who are the dimwits?

    You know who they are and they do too!!


  19. NOBODY HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVE ANY RELIGION AND NOBODY HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD!


  20. There are millions and millions!!

    … all smarties!!


  21. Lotta shite!


  22. @ John
    Those that know not, and know not that they know not….


  23. The constitution does address this matter. There are provisions where the President can act in her own discretion to appoint the two senators in the absence of a leader of the opposition. There is no crisis -the President needs to act.


  24. The President is a former senior Justice of the Court, probably with greater legal acumen than sitting Justice Cicely Chase. No disrespect to the good lady of course.


  25. StalwartFebruary 15, 2022 2:45 PM

    The constitution does address this matter. There are provisions where the President can act in her own discretion to appoint the two senators in the absence of a leader of the opposition. There is no crisis -the President needs to act.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    There is no vacancy that would trigger 75.

    There is an absence of a presence.

    That’s why Reverent Joe stepped forward, not to fill a vacancy but to address the absence of a presence!!

    Listen to him and learn.

    That is what he was instructed to say last time by all the BLP lawyers.

    The code in Section 74 needs to be executed before moving to Section 75.

    We’ve been there done that.

    Amazed people are wasting time with the senate.


  26. The vacancy was created when the electorate in its wisdom and democratic right voted all the seats to a single party.


  27. Yeah! And those that feel they know everything and everyone else of other faiths know nothing….

    Lotta shite!


  28. Donna

    Perhaps “the bright boys of BU” are suggesting the January 18 elections should be ‘null and void’ because Barbadians coincidentally voted in such a manner that one political party won all the seats.

    All the BLP parliamentarians should resign and ‘fresh elections’ be held until such time an Opposition is ‘elected.’

    But, as you know, am tired, saw all of this unfolding years ago, so, yall on yuh own. Don’t have the time to warn you, spent almost a decade doing that already.

    Wuhloss….


  29. Imagine, John, a believer in Donald Trump, one who lies all day every day!

    And you link yourself with him wrt knowing God!

    Lotta shite!


  30. Artax,

    Nothing the bright boys predict ever comes to pass but… we must be so blind that we did not see when it happened.

    We were promised a Kraken release up in Amurka and up to now we en get it!

    But these are the bright boys of BU!

    There seems to be a fine line between brightness and dullness!

    Reminds me of Shilling’s March Monkey.

    🎵March Monkey, it serve you quite right
    For tellin’ uh lie for a stripe.
    Up tuh now he en get it…..

    Wuhlaus!


  31. David
    ‘a vacancy is an unoccupied position or job.’
    ~~~~~~
    In order therefore for a vacancy to exists, there must FIRST be a position or job CREATED that can then be ‘unoccupied’.
    When the parliament is dissolved, those positions cease to exist – until RE-CREATED by the President for the new session.

    The problem lies in the stipulated requirements for the CREATION of the new session that brings these positions into existence.
    It is STIPULATED that a designated LOTO must perform some preliminary tasks.
    no LOTO… means that these tasks cannot be performed.
    …no performance means that no new session can be LEGALLY created, so any talk of ‘vacancies’ is premature.
    it is a CATCH 22 situation.

    This is John’s (valid) argument. However, where he errs, is that nothing really stops a few (or even one) from forming an ‘opposition’ grouping and ending the impasse…. but everyone frightened to end up like Joe on the outside of the pork barrel.

    LOL … it is not like it is a serious institution anyway, the same way a school can divide their debate club into ‘proponents’ and ‘opponents’…
    cause all they do is talk shiite …and then vote for whatever Mia instructs them to anyway.


  32. @Bush Tea

    And the contention is that the President has leeway in the turgidly scribed Constitution to act. What cannot be trivialized is that voters gave one party the the lower house. This exposed what some point to the lacuna . We cannot ignore that in a fair general election the people spoke. What ever issue has been created must be fixed.


  33. Bush TeaFebruary 15, 2022 4:49 PM

    David
    ‘a vacancy is an unoccupied position or job.’
    ~~~~~~
    In order therefore for a vacancy to exists, there must FIRST be a position or job CREATED that can then be ‘unoccupied’.
    When the parliament is dissolved, those positions cease to exist – until RE-CREATED by the President for the new session.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The actual 30 seats become vacant on dissolution of Parliament!!

    The position of PM and Leader of the Opposition cease to exist until they are created after the elections by the President/GG.

    Each is chosen by one of the two groups, the PM is chosen by the group who will form the government and the Leader of the Opposition by the group that will oppose the government.

    The post of the Leader of the Opposition is officially created when the selected Leader of the Opposition appears before the GG/President and the person is officially appointed and sworn in by her.

    Until that happens, it is impossible to fill a vacancy in a post that has not been created.

    Here is what the Constitution says about the 30 seats in Section 45 – Tenure of the Seats of members of the House of Assembly.

    (1) The seat of a member of the House of Assembly shall become vacant

    a) upon the next dissolution of Parliament after he has been appointed;

    b) … f).

    So Reverent Joe when he appeared on the GG’s doorstep on June 1 2018, appeared as a Member of the House of Assembly claiming to have been chosen the Leader of the Opposition by the group who opposed the Government in the House of Assembly.

    At that time Ms. Mockley had selected 29 ministers and in a gala fanfare on Bay Street on 27 May 2018 they had all been sworn in by the GG!!

    The GG in her judgment decided to believe the Right Reverent Joseph Atherly when he made his appearance on 1 June 2018 that the Group in Parliament that opposed the Government had selected him as their leader.

    Confirm the dates and you will see how exposed the GG is!!

    She had just sworn in 29 cabinet ministers and would have known no such group could possibly have existed.

    I don’t think she is going to believe it if any of the 10 non ministers now show up on her doorstep claiming to be the Leader of the Opposition.

    She would be mad!!

    Her neck is out already!!

    Once bitten, twice shy!!

    She has no choice but to issue a new Writ for elections and the clock may be running.

    40 days left?


  34. The BLP have checkmated themselves!!

    I am sure the DLP cannot believe what is unfolding although I have an inkling they may helped it happen with their secret weapon, Froon.

    By accident or design … who knows!!


  35. This is a screw up of monumental proportions only possible with those at the highest pay grade.


  36. Creation of a post comes before it can become vacant.

    Section 74 comes before Section 75

    May 27th comes before June 1st!!

    The GG is on her own.

    Whatever advice she took could only have been from the PM, the AG or the other 27 ministers all of whom swore an oath to advise her to the best of their ability.

    However, in the matter of the choice of the Leader of the Opposition, all of the 29 ministers are irrelevant and their advice is not called for in the constitution.

    She is required solely to use her judgment.

    She is on her own and her conduct seems as though it can be enquired into by a court.

    The evidence is readily available and pretty conclusive.

  37. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @David, your buddy @Bush Tea…. comments are totally inaccurate that “The problem lies in the stipulated requirements for the CREATION of the new session that brings these positions into existence.[…] It is STIPULATED that a designated LOTO must perform some preliminary tasks.” …. The remarks make no sense in simple reasonable reading of the constitution nor in any sense of the functional aspects of governance.

    –How was Jamaica governed after Manley refused to contest the mid 80’s election that gave Seaga ALL 60 seats !
    –Did Dr Mitchell in Grenada shutter his government or Parliament after he won ALL seat victories in 2013 and the following election cycle!

    No need to go over again the facts which disprove these repeated illogical claims … Simply stated the folks who wrote the constitution did NOT confine us to an illegal govt nor did they even hint that governance could NOT proceed WITHOUT a LotO…

    They could have if they so INTENDED ….but they sensibly gave the Pres AUTHORITY to act when there was no qualified LotO!

    And moreover Jamaica and Grenada would never has been able to govern themselves if his and @John Fellow’s interpretation had ANY legal weight..

    .. the conundrum catch-22 appears to be whether it’s a foreboding of early onset mental ‘vacancy’ or an absence of personal performance causing these crazy and wacky interpretations from these guys. Ah well, I hope they stay safe either way!


  38. Were the President/GG to resign in shame, it would not be possible to replace her because if I read the amendment from last year right, it requires the PM and the Leader of the Opposition to act and of course we have no Leader of the Opposition.

    To create the post of Leader of the Opposition of course requires the President/GG!

    They really should have passed them by a person with experience implementing algorithms in hardware and software!!.


  39. So she has to hang on, bite her lip and wade through.

    She needs to issue the new writ.


  40. … and she better not die or our goose is cooked.


  41. Have you not heard? These are the bright boys of BU, the sages, the “maguffies” at whose feet we must sit to feast on the crumbs of knowledge our puny brains struggle to digest.

    I wish I found it funny but it worries me so.


  42. Dribbler…
    Is Jamaica and Grenade subject to Barbados’ Constitution…? How is our problem related to your references?

    John
    The Constitution has a clear loophole – granted.
    But you make a HUGE leap when you conclude that an action such as that made by the Bishop is somehow open to legal question.
    Boss, a politician can decide to ‘cross the floor’ anytime that he or she wish to; or feel like; or can be enticed to.
    What better time than when there is a vacant LOTO seat (and salary) waiting to be filled?

    But perhaps you have a point.
    How else can we explain the ongoing nonsense of the past three months of fiddling while Bridgetown burns….


  43. Early onset senility! Worse than menopause!

  44. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    @Mr BushTea I remain guided by your apparent more adept understanding of the processes and procedures of our neighbors and thus accept that your interpretations thereof are likely as astute as those you offer here re our beloved homeland!

    However, from where I sit I would say that Jamaica and Grenada are definitely subject to similiar conditions as seen in the Barbados Constitution …. ipso facto our issues are absolutely related!

    Again with no Constitution quotes or prolix, I cite the model of fact and reality: It is a FACT that most of the regional CONSTITUTIONS were prepared out of England by the Commonwealth Office… It is a fact that the language and directions were very similiar if not almost verbatim alike (apart from those like TnT) …. It is a fact the Jamaica and Grenada constitutions mirrored ours in keys areas like that re the LoO and that they both legally survived electoral results of 60-0 and 15-0!

    If you want to say otherwise to validate your illogic then proceed apace.

    Alas, with the incongruous behavior of our PM and President re this constitutional contrivance it is absolutely understandable that other scholarly Bajan choose to act incongruously also!

    Stay safe, bro.


  45. Here is Grenada

    http://www.oas.org/juridico/PDFs/mesicic4_grd_const.pdf

    They’ve been operating a Government which is unconstitutional for the longest while!!

    66.-(1) There shall be a Leader of the Opposition who shall be Appointed by the Governor-General.
    (2) Whenever there shall be occasion for the appointment of a Leader of the Opposition, the GovernorGeneral, acting in his own deliberate judgment, shall appoint the member of the House of Representatives
    who appears to him to command the support of the largest number of members of the House in opposition
    to the Government.
    (3) The Leader of the Opposition shall vacate his office-
    a. if for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament he ceases to be a member of the
    House of Representatives ;
    b. if when the House of Representatives first meets after any dissolution of Parliament he is
    not then a member of the House ;
    c. if by virtue of the provisions of section 33(3) of this Constitution he is required to cease to
    perform his functions as a member of the House of Representatives ; or
    d. if he is removed from office under the provisions of subsection (4) of this section.


  46. (3) The Leader of the Opposition shall vacate his office-

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I assume that no one has brought a constitutional motion in Grenada.

    Notice the difference between the leader of the opposition and the office of the leader of the opposition.


  47. Barbados the same

    (3) The office of Leader of the Opposition shall become vacant-

    Both are supposed to be Parliamentary Democracies and MUST or SHALL have an opposition.

  48. de pedantic Dribbler Avatar
    de pedantic Dribbler

    I rest my case…. 😂 @Mr Bush Tea continue to have your wonderful chatter with the ‘ghosts of Alice’s Wonderland past and present’!

    And you @John Fellow happy ghosting!


  49. Here’s Grenada.

    Sounds like something to which the Welcome Stamp can graduate!!

    Is this how Grenada got rid of its opposition?

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading