The demeanor and declarations displayed by constitutional attorney, Dr. Francis Alexis KC., on the 06 July 2025 episode of The Bubb Report, justifies and reaffirms the need for a more ‘democratic and holistic’ approach towards reforming Grenada’s 1974 Independence Constitution.
That is, there should be the ‘positive and honest’ intent by the powers-that-be to have active involvement of the sovereign people, despite whatever fashion and extent that the nature and process of reforming the constitution takes.
The Sunday morning programme hosted by Dr. Kellon Joramu Bubb, media and communications consultant, via the social media avenues, had Alexis, lead founding member of the May 2024 Citizens for Constitution Reform (CCR), “debating the constitutionality of the Oath of Allegiance Amendment” with Mr. Dave Nedd, a social activist and member of the 2018 Independent Caucus for Constitution Reform (ICCR).
As usual, Alexis emits much ‘pride and boast’ of the ‘professional and experienced’ status of CCR’s membership. Along with himself, the CCR consists of attorneys Mr. Ruggles Ferguson KC., Mrs. A. Anande Trotman-Joseph, Mr. Jerry Edwin, and Mr. Joseph Ewart Layne.
It also has as main founding members, Mr. Paul Roberts, a veteran journalist and Dr. Wendy Grenade, university professor and political scientist.
Alexis has also been expressing confidence in gaining favour by the Grenadian people and by the ruling and opposing political parties for a draft legislation(s) which was developed and submitted to Dickon Mitchell’s government of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) for parliamentary approval.
The substance of the legislation(s) is to have no more swearing allegiance to His Majesty King Charles The Third, His Heirs and Successors, but instead to Grenada, with the argument that this amendment does not require a referendum by the people, within the authority and provisions of the constitutional frame.
It is worth mentioning that Dickon Mitchell has not caused to be included in the NDC’s 2022 Elections Manifesto, anything to do with Constitution Reform and that after taking Prime Ministership on 23 June 2022 he demonstrated on different occasions, no interest in sanctioning a constitutional reform by a referendum.
The ICCR was initiated and assembled by Mr. Joseph K. Roberts following the outrageous ‘attitude and process’ which featured the constitutional referenda of November 2016 and November 2018.
Some of the other founding members of ICCR include Sisters Sandra Fergusion, Cassandra Mitchell and Beverley Sinclair (deceased), and Brothers Dave Nedd, John Rullow, Martin W. Edwards, Jude Bernard and Mickey Munroe.
Presently, Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Nedd are the main ‘movers and shakers’ of ICCR, as Mr. Rullow and Mr. Roberts articulate accordingly.
Over the years the ICCR openly challenged the Government, the Supervisor of Elections and the Governor-General on pertinent issues; as an instance, it has been the predominant objector on the controversial Covid-19 issue.
Unfortunately, the lack of pertinent resources and sponsorships has hampered the plans and activities of the ICCR, including the non-continuation of a weekly programme on the Grenada Broadcasting Network (GBN) as example.
However, ICCR has been holding Zoom-sessions, though not able to be consistent, with a focus to engender and to accommodate the interest of young individuals in understanding the Constitution; and this attracts diverse participants.
The February 2024 internet-circulated article, Must Alexis Cool Down On Grenada Oath Of Allegiance At Golden Jubilee?, points to various releases by Alexis about the ‘legal, political and nationalistic’ basis to have the change in the Oath of Allegiance taking effect on the celebration of Grenada’s fiftieth anniversary on 07 February 2024.
Alexis’ drive for the constitutional reform, even if for mere ‘vain and symbolic’ purposes, took a beating by primarily the ICCR and a 2024 formed Grenada Monarchist League, as the past article, Monarchist League Boosts Open University On Grenada Constitution, But!, explains.
With Alexis’ drive for “Constitution Reform For Grenada At Fifty” not materialised, imperative attention was placed for having the related article, Stage Set For Alexis To Revitalise Open University On Grenada Constitution, passionately calling for meaningful engagement and education of the sovereign people on constitutional reforms.
It is not certain whether or not the birth of Alexis’ CCR is in response to the Call but after a year and counting months, the CCR with its ‘leverage of institutional network’ cannot show a strategic format to reach and liaise with the communities and stakeholders.
Recognizing the ‘absence or silence’ of CCR in the public space, prompted the November 2024 article, Can Alexis Committee Rise To The Challenges About Grenada Constitution?, which reiterates some of the pressing issues to be tackled.
Anyhow, Alexis seems to have the aspiration of capitalising on the national ‘elite’ profile of the members of CCR, which would cause the Grenadian people to render full and unreserved ‘credence and obedience’ for whatever ‘stance, proposal and decision’ taken; the now case being two Bills in relation to the changing of the Oath of Allegiance.
Moreover, by formulating and coding the CCR with the word “Citizens”, Alexis seems to be conveying that it (CCR) is providing ‘sound representation’ for the people on constitutional matters. However, the evidence is that the CCR is remote from the ordinary people.
The present orientation of Alexis and team CCR, is to have the change to the Oath of Allegiance be in time for ‘harmony and meaning’ with the celebration of Emancipation Day on 01 August 2025.
This day replaces the first Monday in August, which Grenada had traditionally upheld or used, to signify the occasion of the 01 August 1834 commencement of the Slavery Abolition Act about British colonial rule.
Further to denying the Grenadian people to vote on this constitutional amendment, great insults are dished out by the CCR in not having the related Bills circulated for the public’s consumption and say.
It must be deemed as a ‘damning and damaging’ failure of the CCR, in having ‘no consideration and provision’ for introducing those Bills to the historic-elected National Youth Parliamentarians of 05 December 2024 and who were sworn-in with the taking of an Oath on 26 February 2025.
Could Alexis confirm what Oath was taken by the young parliamentarians; was it the Constitutional Oath of Allegiance or some other (specially designed) type? Were the young parliamentarians elected through the constitutional office of the Supervisor of Elections?
Alexis and his team should appreciate that it is in their ‘sphere of affairs’ to establish for the Grenadian people, the legal ‘context and correctness’ for hailing these designated parliamentarians; the use of the electoral mechanism at the Parliamentary Elections Office in electing these parliamentarians; and these parliamentarians taking Oath of Allegiance.
As the debate intensifies on the proposed Amendment, the ‘ulterior and erroneous’ moves for constitutional reforms, which may even be bordering on treason by the powers-that-be, are also unfolding.
Although there are other salient concerns about the circumstances for the Amendment, the core of the debate is that the CCR holds that Appendix 1 of the Constitution does not mention explicitly or directly that the Oath of Allegiance is deeply entrenched for a referendum, consistent with Section 39 of the said constitution.
The ICCR on the other hand, disputes and rejects the CCR’s stance by showing that the Oath of Allegiance which appears under Appendix 3 of the Constitution, is deeply entrenched by virtue of Section 111 which is an item under Appendix 1, and thus also requires referendum treatment.
In fact, by defending and trying to be resolved on the CCR’s stance that Appendix 3 (defining the FORM of the two principal Oaths of the State) is not directly related to Appendix 1 (referring to DEEPLY ENTRENCHED PROVISIONS), or that Appendix 3 is not for application to Appendix 1 by Section 111 (dealing with INTERPRETATIONS), Alexis has been incriminating himself for ‘trickery and hypocrisy’ about constitutional reforms, and/or has been proving that the legal advocates for the constitutional reforms are ‘ill-prepared and ill-patient’ in the quest to achieve same; and also adverse to constructive debates.
Alexis boldly and proudly claims that his CCR’s stance about there should be no referendum to change the Oath of Allegiance is a cause or a call “for the Constitution to be honoured, respected”; emphasising that Appendix 3 is obviously excluded from the referendum list of Appendix 1, and that it will be against the Constitution to put the Oath of Allegiance to a referendum vote.
The Grenadian people then need to interrogate Alexis as to why this said issue about the Oath of Allegiance was included in the Constitution of Grenada (Caribbean Court of Justice and Other Justice-Related Matters) (Amendment) Bill 2016 and presented to the people in the ill-fated 24 November 2016 referendum which he led.
A follow-up question is: what would have been the judicial and governance consequences if a YES-vote was had on this so-called CCJ Bill 2016?
Moreover, it should be of great interest to know how the particular clauses for the change of the Oath of Allegiance in the 2016 CCJ Bill compare with the pertinent 2025 Amendment Bills; especially that, despite his wide experiences on constitutional cases, Alexis has lately been making discoveries on the ‘contents and interrelations’ of the three Appendices to the Constitution.
The evidence of ‘emptiness, shortcoming and irregularity’ in the race and anxiety by the powers-that-be to change the Oath of Allegiance has been alluded to by some of the key players of the CCR including Alexis.
Whilst the ICCR has been portrayed or meant by certain entities and individuals, to be scorned as having no authority to detest the approach for amending the Constitution and to be seen as an underdog in the pertinent debates, ‘credits and congratulations’ were ultimately extended to its team, for the CCR’s team reverting the original Proposal and then producing a complementary Bill for the Amendment.
This should be instructive, and such a responsiveness by the CCR must not be concluded as a gesture of compromise or appeasement.
The critical ‘warning message’ however, is that this ‘not far-reaching’ response surfaces and reinforces the pressing need for thorough exchanges on those constitutional matters; being also cognizant that there could well be some other ‘unseen and/or ignored’ serious areas.
The point must be emphatically made and earnestly observed that the ‘script and significance’ of the Oath of Allegiance does not only apply to the certain constitutional ‘offices and officeholders’ but also to certain constitutionally entrenched ‘institutions and practices’.
That is – the swearing to ‘…. faithfully bear true allegiance to The Majesty / The Royal …. according to law. So help me God’ relates principally to the authority of and recognition for the Crown.
The Parliament, the Royal Grenada Police Force and the Public Service for example, are all serving in “the service of the Crown” in various capacities (ceremonial, civil, etc.).
Does messing with the Oath of Allegiance on the basis that it is not deeply entrenched for requiring a referendum, also give the powers-that-be the opportunity and capacity to re-define and re-determine what a “law” constitutionally denotes and to be able to delete the aspect “So help me God”?
Considering the disturbances and realities which have evolved thus far about the approach for changing the Oath of Allegiance, considering all the concerns of the circumstances surrounding this constitutional change, and considering the possibility that everything has not been explored and exhausted about the impact and/or the effectiveness of the Change, then the pertinent Bills in its present status should not be laid in Parliament at this time and neither should Parliament ‘unscrupulously and unconscientiously’ give its approval to those Bills.
Dr. Alexis with the CCR should not rely on and be cloaked with the idea that once the Bills are brought into law, any constitutional challenges will not be easily practical to pursue.
J.K. Roberts