Browne denies protest over missed anti-defection vote, cites ‘lack of information’

MP for St Philip North Dr Sonia Browne on Thursday rejected claims that her absence from the House of Assembly for the vote on the constitutional amendment against MPs defecting was an act of protest, but said she stayed away because she lacked sufficient information and still had reservations about the legislation.

The backbencher did not give Barbados TODAY reasons for her absence when 29 MPs voted in support of the bill to amend the constitution, days after breaking from the party line in debate on the bill.

“It wasn’t a form of protest,” the MP declared, dismissing suggestions that her departure from the floor was a symbolic gesture. “The truth is I could not say, looking at the pros and cons… I could not say for certain with the little information I had on how to vote.”

While admitting her reservations about the legislation played a role in being away from the chamber at the time of the call, the MP emphasised a “good conscience” need for more research and time to assess the impact of the proposal.

Dr Browne also addressed discrepancies appearing on social media regarding the final tally. Multiple reports suggest that the final count tallied 29 in favour of the bill while one was a dissenting vote.

“I don’t know how they counted it because I wasn’t there,” the MP remarked. “As far as I know, I don’t know that the Parliament would record it that way. I would have to ask the Clerk how they actually frame it.”

Clerk of Parliament Pedro Eastmond confirmed to Barbados TODAY that the vote was 29 in favour of the bill and one absentee — the St Philip North MP.

“I still have reservations on it. I still think it was not necessary,” she said, while remaining open to further dialogue. “If somebody could tell me the reasons and make it sound better, I am willing to listen. But from my point of view, I am not seeing it.”

All eyes will now turn to the Senate, where the bill is likely to face broader and more diverse debate from the independent bench and the opposition members newly appointed by the President. The discussion is expected to centre on whether the amendment strengthens the will of the people or merely tightens the grip of the party.

The prime minister earlier framed the legislation as an “early order of business” for the new parliamentary term, defending it as a tool for political stability and voter protection.

She insisted that if an MP truly feels they can no longer support their party, the most democratic move is to return to the people for approval. The bill was one of the first major legislative moves of the new parliamentary term following the February 11 general election.

Since the government holds a supermajority, the constitutional amendment is widely expected to pass in the Senate.