The Constitution (Oath of Allegiance) (Amendment) Bill(s) 2025 which has patent with the May 2024 Citizens for Constitution Reform (CCR), convened and headed by renowned constitutional attorney Dr. Francis Alexis, and was passed by the two Houses of Parliament, has not only presented insults to the Grenadian people, but has placed the Governor-General in a very awkward position.
The proposed Act essentially changes the Oath of Allegiance as defined in Schedule 3 (Appendix 3) to the Constitution, from swearing to His/Her Majesty to swearing to the State of Grenada, taking effect on 01 August 2025 upon the assent by the Governor-General and then causing its publishing in the Government Gazette, according to section 45 of the said Constitution dealing with the Mode of Exercise of Legislative Power.
The gravity and extent of the situation surrounding the Oath Change has special bearing on the role and status of the Governor-General. Is it far-fetched to interpret that the attitude taken towards the Oath Change could possibly be about the powers-that-be having devised a way to dismiss Dame Cécile Ellen Fleurette La Grenade, GCMG, DStJ, OBE, who has been in the office of the Governor-General ever since 07 May 2013?
Is the June 2022 ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) with political novice Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell, and with Attorney-General and Legal Affairs Minister Claudette Joseph, testing the capacity and fortitude of, as well as the patriotism and balancing of allegiance by, Dame La Grenade, in relation to the constitutional soundness of the Act in terms of its ‘content, procedure and effect’?
Would Governor-General Dame La Grenade take assurance and rely on the advice of the Government and other authorities in setting the ‘quasi-republicanism’ to be posed by the Oath Change?
Would the Governor-General follow suit with the defence of the proponents of the Oath Change, questioning the claim and capacity of the Opponents to secure constitutional redress on this Change?
Would Dame Cecile participate in the perceived conspiracy against the sovereign constituents of Grenada and thereby facilitate the further tinkering with the Constitution and the abuse of Power and Rule of Law?
The Governor-General should explore and be able to benefit from precedents on this multi-dimensional sovereign issue, locally and/or in the Commonwealth of Nations, but being always conscious that careful observance must be given to the ‘unique’ constitutional construct of Grenada.
Moreover, the tolerance of similar developments without any serious mark of protest, including for Quasi-republicanism, in other countries of the Caribbean Community, does not give an automatic ‘correctness and wholeness’ on such issues and thus instructing that this disposition ought to be adopted blindly for purpose in Grenada.
Would Governor-General Dame Cecile resort to the Privy Council of the United Kingdom via His Majesty King Charles 111 for guidance, before the proclamation of the Constitution (Oath of Allegiance) (Amendment) Act; being grounded on at least sections 19, 23 and 57 of the Constitution?
Section 19 establishes: “There shall be a Governor-General …. appointed by Her (‘His’) Majesty and shall hold office during Her/His Majesty’s pleasure and who shall be Her/His Majesty’s representative in Grenada”.
Section 23 stipulates: “There shall be a Parliament of Grenada …. consist of Her (‘His’) Majesty, a Senate and a House of Representatives”.
Section 57 asserts: “The executive authority of Grenada is vested in Her (‘His’) Majesty …. may be exercised on behalf of Her / His Majesty by the Governor-General …. “.
It should be wise for the Grenadian people, especially the unsuspecting and inexperienced young members, to be alert and to observe the situation surrounding the Oath Change, as many lessons are unfolding.
A pertinent dimension for reflection is about comparing the ‘nature and philosophy and reign’ of the People’s Revolutionary Government (PRG) from March 1979 to October 1983, with this telling national situation; and to realize what existed then?
The February 1974 Constitution was outlawed by the PRG, and Acts were by ‘rule by decree’. It should be of interest to know who officiated or signed those Acts; what Oath was taken, if any, during this period; and how Ministers of Government were appointed.
Critical for political understanding is that, during the era of the PRG there was the continued existence of Governor-General Sir Paul Godwin Scoon GCMG GCVO OBE. How the status of Sir Paul was upheld and the role executed under the PRG, need to be revisited, especially to ascertain whether or not he was representing Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II; and to whom his allegiance was then.
To be featured at this point though, is the precarious position which Sir Paul was experiencing, to the extent of him having to invoke the constitutional prerogative of acting “in his own deliberate judgment”.
It was the exercise of this Independent Discretion by Sir Paul which may have given the permission and credit for the invasion/intervention of Grenada by foreign forces led by the United States of America, to end a military ‘shoot on sight’ governance during October 19 to October 25 of 1983, following a political massacre within the PRG.
This record about Sir Paul should inform Dame Cecile as she might be facing the predicament about bringing into law the Constitution (Oath of Allegiance) (Amendment) Bill(s) 2025.
The predicament faced by Dame Cecile originates mainly from the unresolved issue regarding the constitutional soundness of the proposed Act in terms of its ‘content, procedure and effect’.
The assessments employed by the powers-that-be, with the pertinent criterion and procedure, for arriving at the Act have been in much controversy, including legal disturbances and democratic irregularities.
The core of the debate lies in whether or not the Oath of Allegiance can be changed without a constitutional referendum. In seeking to ensure public education, stakeholder consultations and national consensus on this issue, Political Scientist and Founding Director of the CCR, Dr. Wendy Grenade offers a ‘compromising stance’ in the debate via the article Changing the Oath of Allegiance: Lining up the debate, urging the Government to listen to the concerns raised by the several citizens and to not rush to vote on the Bill(s) by the symbolic 01 August, Emancipation Day. Would Dame La Grenade meet this date?
The need for further analyses about the Oath Change was advised by the article Alexis Should Concede For An Open University On Grenada Constitution, 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”.
The referred article for the Open University on Grenada Constitution also brings to the fore the basis for the argument for and the argument against the requirement of a referendum for the Oath Change.
That is, the CCR holds that Appendix 1, same as Schedule 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.
To be noted; if this argument is taken to be true on the surface, then it should apply also for Section 39 (“Alteration of this Constitution and certain other laws”) which is not expressly mentioned in Appendix 1 or Schedule 1 and thus it can be changed by Parliament without a referendum.
On the contrary to the CCR’s position, the Independent Caucus for Constitution Reform (ICCR) holds 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 it also requires referendum treatment provided under Section 39.
To be noted again for curious learning by referring to sections 21, 35 and 83 listed under Appendix 1: is there a principle ‘of selectivity or of disaggregation’ in the determination and application of which part of a provision or which subsection is entrenched; and why not the whole?
It is appalling how Dr. Alexis and Dr. Wendy Grenade inject Comparative Politics and refer to precedents about the circumstances with Court cases and other jurisdictions, in favour and in correctness of the Oath Change; that is, erroneous and misleading and unrelated claims are applied.
The constitutional arrangement about Oath Change in St. Vincent and the Grenadines and in St. Lucia for example, is fundamentally different to that of Grenada; whilst in those countries the Oath of Allegiance is “prescribed by law” (typical of the Oaths Act) under the control of the Parliament there, the Oath of Allegiance is “set out” in the Constitution of Grenada.
That is, as distinct from the other jurisdictions, in Grenada “the oath of allegiance means the oath of allegiance set out in Appendix 3 to the Constitution”, as interprets by Section 111 which is referendum-entrenched under Appendix 1 / Schedule 1 thus: “Section 111 in its application to any of the provisions mentioned in the foregoing items of this Appendix 1 (Schedule 1)”.
It is unfortunate that the powers-that-be including Dr. Alexis and the CCR-team fail to react, and/or to give clarifications in the public’s interest, to the positions held about the Oath Change by certain entities such as the February 2024 Grenada Monarchist League.
The Monarchist League declares to be “dedicated to preserving, defending and advocating for Grenada’s constitutional monarchy …. supports certain changes and reforms to the Monarchy, in order to strengthen it and its Grenadian character” and have forwarded some proposals.
The League publishes amongst its others, the internet-circulated article “Serious misinformation about oath being peddled by CCR” and the Grenada Loyalist publishes The Oath of Allegiance is already to Grenada; both raise the “constitutional principle of the Divisibility of the Crown”, indicating that “The Grenadian Crown and the British Crown are thus wholly separate”.
“As King of Grenada – an entirely separate and independent institution and crown to that of Great Britain – King Charles III is the living embodiment of the Grenadian state.
When ministers and MPs swear “true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third”, they are swearing allegiance not to the British monarch, but to the Grenadian monarch – and thus to Grenada itself.
Swearing allegiance to the King of Grenada, who within his person constitutionally embodies the Grenadian state, is the one and same thing as swearing allegiance to Grenada.
Thus, the Oath of Allegiance in truth needs no alteration at all since it is, through the King as the living embodiment of the state, already sworn to Grenada”.
Is Governor-General Dame Cécile La Grenade knowledgeable about the constitutional principle of the Divisibility of the Crown and would this be also a determinant in deciding on whether or not to assent to the Constitution (Oath of Allegiance) (Amendment) Bill(s)?
Many different parameters are to be mixed! The impetus for the change to Grenada’s constitutional Oath of Allegiance is more about arousing political emotion and revolt against ancient colonialism, than about a commitment to national identity, prosperity and democracy.
By this; conventions, conscience and the Constitution are compromised!
J.K. Roberts