Has Alexis caused Grenada Government to ERR on Oath Change?  

Grenada’s renowned and experienced constitutional lawyer, Dr. Francis Alexis KC. postulates that change to the Oath of Allegiance as “set out in Appendix 3” to the 1974 Independence Constitution, in accordance with Section 111 on Interpretation which is entrenched under Appendix 1, does not require the input of the Grenadian-people and a referendum. This position was endorsed by Team CCR (Citizens for Constitution Reform) and acted upon by the administration of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), but it has left various disputes and vexations among the people including legal and political minds.

What are the foremost cases advanced against the position and pursuit of Alexis? Firstly, the Oath of Allegiance is entrenched by virtue of Section 111 and Appendix 1 or Schedule 1. Secondly, there is a misrepresentation about the Oath of Allegiance and the King of Grenada. Thirdly, there is gross ‘arrogance and disrespect’ for the sovereign constituents on such a constitutional issue. Fourth is the need to foster ‘consciousness and consensus and cohesiveness and contentment’ towards nationhood. Fifthly, the approach does not render for substantial deliberations about Civics, the patriation of the Constitution, the ‘good governance’ principles, and about the version of Republicanism apt for Grenada.

Two Constitution (Oath of Allegiance) (Amendment) Acts (No. 1 and No. 2) of 2025 amend Schedule 3 (Appendix 3) to the Constitution and Schedule 1 to the Courts Order, from swearing allegiance to ‘His / Her Majesty’ to swearing allegiance to “Grenada”, effective 01 August 2025.  The pertinent Bills were passed with an agreement in Parliament, between the ruling NDC-party and Opposition (New National Party - NNP), that public consultations would be held on the Oath Change with the view to repeal those Acts and then conduct a referendum. The NNP had written objecting to the process for the Oath Change.

QUESTIONABLE CONSTITUTIONAL REASONING

Dr. Alexis holds that the Oath of Allegiance does not require a referendum, since Schedule 3 is not listed in Schedule 1 of the Constitution; and that the Oath of Allegiance does not qualify for the status of Entrenchment by Inflection, since there is absolutely no interest whatever by any provision in preserving its Form. It is instructive though to know what describes the Oath’s Form. The published articles, Reasoning and precedent advocate change of Oath of Allegiance (January 2024) and One nation, one future, one allegiance (February 2024), provide the backdrop and rationales for the position promoted.

Alexis relies strongly on what has occurred and exists in some Caribbean countries, in relation to its Oath of Allegiance, as well as on the judgement by the London-based Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom (UKJCPC / Privy Council) in the case of the Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights Ltd and Others v Marshall Burnett. However, the analysis and application of the pertinent aspects of the 03 February 2005 judgement regarding Acts by the Jamaican Government in 2004 to replace the Privy Council with the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), is very questionable and misleading.

How ‘sound and conclusive’ is Alexis’ constitutional reasoning in favour of the Oath Change? Has there been sufficient elucidations on all the fundamental principles on the pertinent issues, such as for the ‘disaggregation’ of a referendum-entrenched item into aspects which are entrenched applicability and those which are not entrenched applicable? Typical are sections 21, 35 and 83 of the Constitution, with respect to the taking of the Oath of Allegiance which is a “principal imperative command”. Conspicuously in the comparative analysis, Alexis fails to acknowledge the uniqueness of Grenada’s Constitution and thus the need to apply particular treatments of interpretation and application for its provisions, from the other countries. Should it be the reasoning and approval that since Barbados does not constitutionally require a referendum to change its Oath of Allegiance and to be a Republic then Grenada deserves same?

It is unfortunate that whilst the Oath Change has not severely impacted the political architecture and governance, the Grenada Monarchist League has not instituted a lawsuit against the Government on the basis of the procedural matters as well as the substantial matters as relate to the changing of the Oath of Allegiance.  Like the 1998 Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights about the constitutional adherence and merit of the Jamaican Government to accede to the CCJ, the 2024 Monarchist League should have stirred to place an injunction against the passing of the Constitution (Oath of Allegiance) (Amendment) Acts and to have a trial to abrogate those Acts.  Is it too late, within statutory provisos, for any ‘goodwill’ entity to legally challenge the Oath Change, especially to restore and maintain Rule of Law?

ENTRENCHED FORM AND TEXT OF THE OATH

Whilst Dr. Alexis raises that the purpose of the Oath of Allegiance is “to commit the oath-taker to duties of loyalty”, he dismisses the significance of the ‘form and text’ of the Oath, to the extent of unilaterally and arbitrarily changing the ‘object or focus’ of the Oath. With this notion, the Oath of Allegiance is ‘liable and exposed’ to be of any ‘configuration and substance’ by the whims and fancies of the powers-that-be. Thus, as has been realized, the Loyalty is now directed from a living representation of the Grenadian-state to a non-living entity (Grenada itself). In fact, the Oath Change is idolized in some circles as the beginning of a new tradition for Grenada, rewriting its history and rearranging socio-cultural identity and symbols. Unacceptably, the Oath Amendment laws have not issue nor iterate the definition of Grenada.

It is not ‘honest and accurate’ for Alexis to declare that ‘since the changing of the Oath of Allegiance without a referendum approval in Jamaica has never been annulled then this precedent is absolutely persuasive for Grenada’; this should be the rejection unless a Court Judgement can be provided. The aggravating circumstances, imperativeness, and social impacts are definitely some of the general reasons which would motivate and compel the Jamaica Council for Human Rights or any other capable individual or organisation to challenge the three-piece legislation for the CCJ, as distinct from the Oath’s legislation.

The fact remains that the Form and Text of the Oath of Allegiance, like the Oath of Office, are well-defined and well-entrenched in section 111 (1) of the Grenada Constitution. Section 111 is entrenched and by which both “oath of allegiance” and “oath of office” are “set out in Schedule 3” to the Constitution. Grenada’s Oath of Allegiance must be treated as an entrenched provision, despite it is of the same meaning in the Constitution of Jamaica and seems not to be carrying ‘entrenchment by inflection’ in Jamaica as assumes by Alexis. The entrenchment status of the Oaths in Appendix 3 / Schedule 3 is furthermore conveyed in Appendix 1 / Schedule 1 of the Grenada Constitution, with item (vii) thus: “section 111 in its application to any of the provisions mentioned in the foregoing items of this Appendix”.

What are the listed provisions in Schedule 1, which are affected by the Oath of Allegiance as set out in Schedule 3? At least; section 19 (linked to 20), section 21, sections 24 and 29 (linking with 40 and 65), section 35, section 57 (also linked to 40 and 65 accordingly), and section 83 (under Part VI). That is, each of these provisions has or is associated with entrenchment status, directly or indirectly. Thus, the Oath of Allegiance is apt to be Referendum Entrenched on its own, as well as by Entrenchment by Inflection.

PROTECTION OF MONARCHICAL SYSTEM 

Dr. Alexis asserts: “Entrenchment by Inflection operates to preserve a particular subject” and agrees that in the case of the Privy Council Judgment delivered by Lord Bingham of Comhill, for the Jamaica Council for Human Rights, it is about protecting the Courts. However, he refuses to acknowledge that the Oath of Allegiance indicates the authority of the Monarch and the need for the protection of the Monarchy System; albeit the Monarch would not be immediately and absolutely dislodged by the Oath Change.

The Oath Change puts Grenada as a ‘quasi-republic’, by a flawed process which ‘impinges, chips and threatens’ the Monarchic System. What is the reality? Grenada is deeply ‘grounded and entrenched’ as a Monarchy, with sections 19, 23 and 57 as principal provisions and the Constitution as an “Imperial Order-in Council”. All the parliamentary institutions and instruments are in the ‘name and recognition and honour’ of His / Her Majesty, such as involving the ceremonial practices, enactment of legislation, and the observance of the Oath of Allegiance. The claim that “there is nothing in the form of the Oath to protect under entrenchment by inflection” also nullifies the eminence of the “public service”, defined by section 111 as “the service of the Crown in a civil capacity in respect of the government of Grenada”. 

The Oath of Allegiance is also intrinsically connected to the features of the Monarchical System, by way of the arrangement of the Judiciary as reflected in the Courts Order of the West Indies Associated States.

There is the query however as to why Schedule 1 of the Courts Order, despite not entrenched, had to be amended by the Constitution (Oath of Allegiance) (Amendment) Acts. Considering that the Courts Order is about the six countries of the Eastern Caribbean, are the four Oaths to be taken by the judge of the Court of Appeal ‘State-specific’ due to the itinerant operations of the Court of Appeal in those Countries?

Moreover, what is the inconsistency or the oversight in not amending the Oath of Office, to be taken by the members of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission as established under the West Indies Associated States Supreme Court Order, 1967? That is, from also referring or swearing to ‘The Majesty’.

EMBARRASSMENT AND DANGER 

By the position undertaken and glorified for the Oath Change, Dr. Alexis manifests himself as a hardliner for strict adherence to the Constitution, honouring its provisions to the Letter but not in the Spirit.   What is the dangerous and unpleasant expectation, from here on? Not only has the ‘meaning and essence’ of Loyalty, by means of the new Oath of Allegiance, been ‘corrupted and devalued’ and having no mechanism for accountability and punitiveness, but the argument and process for the Oath Change have set the space for changing other fundamental aspects of the Constitution.  Thus, for example, Section 39 on the alteration of the Constitution, as well as Section 106 on the Supremacy of the Constitution, can be changed and /or be disregarded by Parliament, since these are not explicitly included in Schedule 1.

What has been experienced with the attitude and process for the Oath Change give strong testimony about the ‘embarrassment and danger’ for Democracy, when Parliament is overwhelmed by a single political party, and has the exclusive powers to alter the Constitution as with the case for Barbados.  Had Grenada’s construct as Barbados, then all the seven bogus 2016 constitutional Bills would have passed.

With ‘pomposity and brashness’, the powers-that-be tease the Grenadian-people to take the Oath Change to the Court. This is, as Alexis craves that the Oath Change will set ‘precedents and conventions!

- By J. K. Roberts (Sound Public Policies Advocate)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author. These do not necessarily represent the views of WIC News or its editorial team.