Considered as a symbolic gesture in the furtherance of delinking from the colonial past, Grenada officially changes its Oath of Allegiance on 01 August 2025; this day also marking Emancipation, with the coming into effect of the Slavery Abolition Act (August 1833) of the United Kingdom (UK).
The significance of the Oath Change can be analysed and appreciated within the backdrop of the demand for reparations for the transatlantic slave trade by the Europeans, and of the maneuvers to transform the identity and legacy of Grenada.
The salient question arises as to whether or not the Oath Change gives Grenada more sovereignty, and the capacity and leeway for securing ‘survivability and sustainability’ of that sovereignty.
In less than three (3) months of the Oath Change, Grenada is miserably challenged about the ‘protection, strength and management’ of its sovereignty, in light of the ‘much delayed’ Press Release by the Government concerning a ‘heavy task’ from the Government of the United States of America.
Without disclosing any particulars, the Grenada Government simply confirms that “a request for the temporary installation of radar equipment and associated technical personnel at the Maurice Bishop International Airport was received” and vaguely assures that “any decision taken will be guided by Grenada’s sovereignty, public safety, and national interest”.
Apprehensions surge in the nation with ‘strong speculations’ that the request by the American regime is about facilitating military attack on its (Grenada) ‘friendly neighbour’ Venezuela.
There is also no useful information via the Press Release, with respect to the “established national procedures” for carefully reviewing the request.
If, however, parliamentary debate forms part of such procedures, what role must His Majesty King Charles the Third play in Grenada reaching a decision, considering the substance of the Oath Change versus the composition of Parliament?
Although there has not been any public reaction by the United Kingdom about Grenada’s Oath Change, could it be constitutionally argued, or under Common Law, that there is an implied acceptance of the move by the monarchy?
The rationale being that both the Constitution (Oath of Allegiance) (Amendment) (No. 1) Act and Constitution (Oath of Allegiance) (Amendment) (No. 2) Act were enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty. Or; was the Representative of the Monarch erred?
Recall the article, How Awkward Is The Governor-General With Grenada Oath Change?, which also inquires as to whether or not Governor-General Dame Cécile Ellen Fleurette La Grenade, GCMG, DStJ, OBE, would resort to the Privy Council of the United Kingdom via His Majesty King Charles 111 for guidance, before making a decision on the assent and proclamation for the Constitution (Oath of Allegiance) (Amendment) Act(s).
The Governor-General’s role is grounded primarily on sections 19, 23 and 57 of the Constitution?
The Oath Change, ‘from swearing allegiance to His/Her Majesty to swearing allegiance to Grenada’, would have been much more impactful and meaningful, with sovereign pride for the average citizen, if the correct democratic attitude was displayed and the correct constitutional procedure was followed by the powers-that-be.
The failure to entertain pertinent consultations has not only frustrated the loud appeals for national ‘consciousness and consensus and cohesiveness’ about the Oath Change, but it has caused a great opportunity to be missed for gaining a ‘proper perspective’ on the advancement of Grenada’s nationhood and about shaping a new governance system towards prosperity and security.
A very myopic approach was taken for the introduction of the Oath Change by Dr. Francis Alexis KC., as he argues that there is nothing complex about changing the Oath from the British Monarch to Grenada.
Evident in the approach is not only the misapplication of the constitutional reasoning as proffered in the 27 January 2024 published piece Reasoning and precedent advocate change of Oath of Allegiance; but it is also about the cultivation of a false understanding of Marcus Jr. Garvey’s “Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery” and of false expectations in the Grenadian people.
The approach was grounded in academic expositions, political expediency and national aspirations, but with no serious reference of or focus on the reality of the evolving contexts and forms of expressing allegiance within the influences of institutional transactions, geopolitical dynamics, neocolonial threats and technological intrusions.
Whatever the symbolism and significance of the Oath Change, it points to an orientation for an alternate political ideology.
In fact, the move would not be considered by some major nations as just about Grenada gravitating to Republicanism, but as a statement against Imperialism/Capitalism/Democracy/Conservatism.
By this, Grenada would be given special attention or keen observation because of its ‘disastrous experiment’ with Marxism/Communism/ Socialism under the (from March 1979 to October 1983) People’s Revolutionary Government (PRG), ending with an intervention/invasion led by America.
With the theories that the Government of the United States of America entered Grenada on 25 October 1983 on the command that the building of the airport (Point Salines/Maurice Bishop International Airport) poses a military threat to its national security and that Russia and China would extent military support to Venezuela against America’s heightening aggressions lately, the request of America for the operations of a Radar System at the airport could be its strategy to preempt Grenada from allowing Russia and China to use its sovereign territories especially realising Grenada’s change to its Oath of Allegiance.
It is unfortunate that Dr. Alexis with the Citizens for Constitution Reform (CCR) was able to convince the ‘naïve novice’ Government of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) that the considerations about the Oath Change are not for the ordinary citizenry, but for the determination of the parliamentarians exclusively.
In fact, the Constitution Oath of Allegiance Amendment Bills were virtually prepared by the CCR and were not granted wide public circulation.
The new object (“Grenada”) to which the allegiance is directed was chosen unilaterally and shallowly, presumably by Alexis, with no room for other options.
It would be instructive to revisit the July 2025 article, Alexis Should Concede For An Open University On Grenada Constitution, which speaks about the debate on the constitutionality of the Oath of Allegiance Amendment.
The article then concludes by advising thus: “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.
Interestingly, Dr. Alexis, on behalf of the CCR, issued a 13 October 2025 Public Statement, CCR CALLS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION ON RESPONDING TO NATIONAL SURVIVAL CHALLENGES.
In apparently seeking to intervene in the negotiating process about the request of the American Government to the Grenada Government, the CCR urges the Government of Grenada to handle that request by a body which reflects the concept of a National Survival Council as described therein.
No mention was made by Alexis of any need to make the final decision about the request, resting on and endorsing by Parliament; why?
Using the American request as a pointed example of national survival challenges, the CCR declares that it is “calling for the emergence and nurturing of a sacrosanct constitutional convention on how Grenada should respond to national survival challenges … (‘to’) be informed by Grenada’s treaty obligations regarding the OECS (‘Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States’) and CARICOM (‘Caribbean Community’), where relevant”.
As an experienced constitutional lawyer, and former politician and Attorney-General, Dr Alexis informs that ‘such a convention would require that Grenada’s responses to national survival challenges be decided, not only by the Government of the day; but rather by the Government in meaningful consultation with a National Survival Council comprising of personnel from Government, Opposition, Trade Union Council, Private Sector, Churches, and Civil Society Organisations including those in the Diaspora’.
Again, no mention was made by Alexis of the function of the Social Partners; why? The Social Partners of Grenada was established under the administration of the New National Party (NNP) with a configuration quite similar to that of Alexis’ proposed National Survival Council.
The representatives of the Partnership, within the framework of a Social Compact for ‘inclusive engagement and dialogue to foster the sustainable and balanced development of Grenada’, are credited for producing the National Sustainable Development Plan. The NDC-government has not recognised such Partnership.
Whilst the premise and performance for the Oath Change have political ‘popularity and prominence’ in certain circles inside and outside of Grenada, troubling echoes and justifiable debates persist to the extent of the need for pursuing legal challenges about the manner by which the move was undertaken.
This challenge is imperative to assert the rule of law in Grenada and the sovereign respect for the Grenadian people, with the focus being on proving that Dr Alexis may have misled the Government and people of Grenada, about the Oath Change.
To refrain from the legal challenge is to condone the abuse of power, in the interest of the ‘false promotion’ of Allegiance and Patriotism and Sovereignty of Grenada.
J.K. Roberts