This caption has been derived from the July 2025 published article Changing the Oath of Allegiance: Lining up the debate by political scientist and Director-member of the Citizens for Constitution Reform (CCR) Dr. Wendy C. Grenade.
It was also designed based on the substantive publications of CCR; the 27 June 2025 Patriating the Oath of Allegiance and the 11 July 2025 Oath of Allegiance in CCJ Bill 2016: Packaging, not Necessity.
The CCR was launched on 14 May 2024 by constitutional lawyer Dr. Francis Alexis KC, with its first piecemeal act to reform the 1974 National Constitution being at changing the form of the Oath as a “carefully selected low-hanging ripe fruit”.
The ‘audacious determination’ of CCR to have the Oath changed as part of celebrating Emancipation Day on 01 August 2025, without the understanding and assent of the Grenadian people infuriates certain individuals and stirs intense public debate.
Dr. Grenade’s article comes in response to the many disagreements and push backs from various quarters, including experienced attorneys and some Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) with the Independent Caucus for Constitution Reform (ICCR) being the lead agitator, to the unilateral move of changing the Oath of Allegiance.
The article sways on the importance, rationales and authority for the Oath Change, in terms of completing the political independence of Grenada and of the people affirming national identity, as well as in terms of the powers of Parliament and the working precedents in other Caribbean jurisdictions.
Grenade also introduces a ‘compromise’ in the Debate by bearing and invoking subsection 39(5) of the Constitution for providing a ninety (90)-day period for the purpose of “public education and stakeholder consultations and national consensus”, even as the two (2) Oath Bills, developed by the CCR, are laid in Parliament for the votes.
This subsection 39 (5) has been rendered ‘irrelevant and unnecessary for application’ by Dr. Alexis, as the constitutional licence for the Oath Change without a referendum.
As asserted in her public dissertation, Dr. Grenade contributed to “Grenadian and Caribbean politics for the past (‘twenty’) 20 years” and has a “commitment to continuous public education on critical issues of (‘Grenada’) national concern”.
Grenade’s association and engagement with the sovereign and noble issue of constitutional reforms qualified her to give the Keynote Address to the Grenada Constitution Reform Special Assembly of 05 November 2016 on the topic Constitution Reform and National Development.
She delivered on four (4) broad objectives; that is: “situate constitution reform within the larger process of independence; draw attention to the significance of self-definition and self-governance; underscore the importance of the Constitution as an instrument to improve the quality of democracy; and show the relationship between constitution reform and the wider imperative of Caribbean regionalism”.
The 2016 Special Assembly was organised by the January 2014 Constitution Reform Advisory Committee (CRAC) headed by Dr. Alexis, leading up to the 24 November 2016 constitutional referenda event which offered the Grenadian people seven (7) controversial Bills to vote on.
Some of the Bills were ‘mixed and compounded’ with various items, and one of such was the Constitution of Grenada (Caribbean Court of Justice and Other Justice-Related Matters) (Amendment) Bill, the CCJ Bill 2016, which features the Oath of Allegiance as a ‘valid and vital’ component for changing.
Dr. Grenade has strongly elaborated on reasons for the CCJ, and thus encouraged a Yes-vote for the Bill, so that Grenada can join in severing the vestiges of instruments of the United Kingdom. All the Bills were voted against with a low voter turnout.
Is the so-called ‘failure’ of the Constitution Amendment Bills of 2016 mean that the exercise or the process or the intent for the pertinent constitutional reforms has also failed, with no lessons to be had?
It is needful to have sound clarifications and justifications for the declared perspective that the ‘attempts with the 2016 and 2018 constitutional referenda were unsuccessful’.
Did the failure occur because the debate(s) on the pertinent issues was not lined-up or was not lined-up properly; and whose responsibility was it for the lining-up of the debate(s)?
Unfortunately, the powers-that-be has been constantly ‘criticising and chastising’ the Grenadian people for the failing of the Bills, instead of reflecting on the ‘educational and consultative’ process which was involved, as well as on the ‘attitude and posture’ which was displayed for the historic 2016 referenda event.
What though has been the real ‘root reason’ for the low turnout of the electorate? Is it about tomfoolery, or about ignorance of the Grenadian people?
It would be instructive to revisit the major ‘initiatives and decisions and pronouncements’ surrounding the 2016 referenda event, with the analytic view about the approach employed as relates in the March 2016 article Grenada Constitution Reform: Open University.
Commenting after the January 2014 initiation of the referenda event and CRAC, towards seeking the confidence of the Grenadian people, Dr. Alexis aspired and termed the educational and consultative process as an Open University on the Constitution.
In February 2014 he packed Recommendations By Grenada Constitution Review Commissions for the CRAC, and in December 2015 the CRAC releases a Referendum on Grenada Constitution Reform Public Education Programme.
Even with those ideas and configurations, and the financial and technical inputs by the United Nations’ “Support to Referendum on Constitution Reform in Grenada” project, what really went wrong with the 2016 referendum event?
Whilst applauding Alexis’ declaration about the Process and providing supplementary pointers for the ‘effective and meaningful’ execution of the intentions about the constitutional reforms, the said article Grenada Constitution Reform: Open University also observes that the CRAC ‘was not able or was not wholehearted to sensitise, mobilise and educate the people …. the Declaration was proving to be a sham full of rhetoric …. and nothing gave any sense of interest for entertaining intellectual debates and technical analyses, as well as independent-mindedness and critical thinking on the way forward for the Constitution Reform Project’.
The ‘reactions and stances’ by the opposing political parties, the CSOs-groupings and individuals such as Claudette Joseph, bear testimonies to the merit of the criticism or the verdict about Alexis’ CRAC.
Ms. Joseph, now Attorney-General and Legal Affairs Minister in the regime of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), publishes on the ‘process, messages and Bills’ of the 2016 referenda event, to the extent that her colleague-attorney Mr. Richie Maitland took issue on some points.
Immediately upon the ‘failure’ of the 2016 constitutional referendum event, could not the powers-that-be and other related parties including resourceful individuals as Dr. Grenade, direct or exert efforts to line-up a schedule for debate(s) on the material and mechanics for changing the Grenada Constitution?
A version of that Change for consideration should be about having a ‘full replacement’ with a new Constitution, and this can be in the ‘spirit and philosophy’ of late Dr. Simeon C. R. McIntosh with a Draft Constitution for Grenada.
Critical in changing the Constitution must be the foremost consideration of the issue “concerning the patriation of the Constitution so as to ensure that it draws its authority and validity from an Act of the nation’s (‘Grenada’) Parliament and no longer from the Parliament of the United Kingdom”; as emphasised by the ‘2002/2006’ Grenada Constitution Review Commission Report.
Reference is hereby made to the December 2023 two-part article Diversionary Tactics About Reforming Grenada’s Constitution, which also decries the attitude of the June 2022 Dickon Mitchell led NDC- led regime on Constitution Reform.
It reports that, most likely been spurred with the ‘enlightenment and enthusiasm and energy’ of the Grenadian people about the ‘critical and imperative’ issues for constitutional reforms, from the 2016 constitutional referendum process, the NDC party in Opposition pledges in a Policy Agenda Document for the period 2017 -2030.
It says: Investing in the future, Today ! to “establish a Constituent Assembly to complete the reform of the (‘Grenada’) existing Constitution after (‘further’) comprehensive public consultations … ensure that the reform process adequately and progressively addresses all of the major gaps and ambiguities identified by the 1985, 2006 and 2010 Constitution Review Commissions and Bodies … “.
Furthermore, consistent with the thrust to “build a better bond between the People and the Constitution”, Mr. Joseph Andall, then political leader and now is the Minister of Foreign Affairs, piloted the excellent point at a 2018 public forum on the Constitution, for amassing interests, efforts and resources to celebrate Grenada’s fiftieth anniversary of Independence in 2024 with a new Constitution.
Despite the failures about the 2016 constitutional referenda package, efforts and resources should have been secured and sorted out or lined up for capitalising on the ‘momentum, atmosphere and mileage’ of the process towards the 2016 referenda event.
Instead of having an unbiased review with constructive dialogues amongst the people about the 2016 event and about the substance and structure of those Amendment Bills, a haste was placed on achieving what seems to be the main aim for Constitution Reform, that of replacing the United Kingdom Privy Council with the CCJ as Grenada’s final court; thus the conduct of another referendum on the CCJ on 06 November 2018 with a ‘result worse than the first’.
The declared perspective that ‘the attempts with the 2016 and 2018 constitutional referenda in order to have changes to the Grenada Constitution were unsuccessful’ can be misleading and thus the need for it to be contextualised.
Equally so would be the resulting conclusions from the perpetuation of this perspective. To consider the ‘failure’ of the 2016 referenda event in terms of attempting to reform the Constitution in ‘whole bulk’ and the ‘failure’ of the 2018 referendum event in terms of the attempt to reform the Constitution with a ‘single item’, but without considering the commonality of both events, is not sound political analysis.
In fact, for the powers-that-be to resort to and to rely on tinkering with the Constitution to have a ‘symbolic change’ after Grenada obtaining political independence on 07 February 1974, is ‘unfair and insulting’ to the Grenadian people and to the credible process which is required.
As advised in the pertinent July 2025 article Alexis Should Concede For An Open University On Grenada Constitution: “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”.
This also must be listened to.
J.K. Roberts