Changing the Grenada Constitution: Lining up the debate

Sir Lawrence Albert Joseph KCNG CBE, constitutional lawyer and a lead in the constitutional referenda of November 2016 and of November 2018, publishes in the E-paper of the Grenada Informer, Making A Case For A Referendum And A General Election To Be Held On The Same Day. The Article appears in the 08 August 2025 edition of the E-paper, spotting many countries where general elections and a referendum are held on the same day, as well as the advantages as to why Grenada should follow suit. Central in making the Case, Joseph compares the voter turnout at the referenda held in 2016 and 2018 to the voter turnout at the general elections in March 2018 and June 2022 and inclines to suggest that the pertinent Constitution Amendment Bills, in multiplicity or in single, “failed to reach the required two-thirds mandate from the electorate” because of the much lower voter turnout at those referenda.  

Sir Joseph relates the conditions and procedures under section 39 of the Constitution for holding a referendum and those concerns under section 52 for the holding of general elections and shows how the compatibility of the different involvements can be achieved. He then reasonably feels that the present administration of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) has “adequate time to lay the foundations for the holding of a referendum on election day” which is due within two (2) years from now, sometime in August 2027. Joseph also pitches that a non-contentious issue as the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to become the final Court of Appeal for Grenada instead of the British Privy Council, could be chosen.    

Whilst there would not be any strong dissent to the proposal of Sir Joseph, for the simultaneous holding of a referendum with the next general elections, certain critical factors must be established and clarified. What type of referendum is to be had; constitutional or non-constitutional? What are the criteria for choosing the issue(s) to be placed in the referendum, especially if it is constitutional in nature? Who should initiate the need, the desire, and the issue(s) for a constitutional referendum? What specifies and / or differentiates non-contentious issues, simple and straightforward issues, significant issues, and priority issues for a constitutional referendum? How thorough and meaningful must the debate on the Bill(s) for a constitutional referendum be? The point must be made that whether it is about writing a new constitution for Grenada, or about modifying in any form the existing Grenada 1974 Independence Constitution, the sentiments and inputs of the sovereign constituents must be ‘integral and prominent’.  

The basis and background about changing Grenada Constitution are well established, with telling aspects. A most ugly aspect is that the powers-that-be has being perpetuating a false narrative about the reasons why the constitutional referenda were ‘unsuccessful’. Attached to the misrepresentation about the outcomes of the referenda is the condemnation of the electorate for the No-vote and the contempt for the high threshold to have momentous changes to the Constitution. In a previous article entitled Perspectives on the Grenada Referendums, Sir Joseph holds that “the low turn-out at the polls suggests that electors, in general, did not take the referendums seriously”. It should be interesting to ascertain the explanation which would have been given if the said low voter turnout had resulted in the passing of the Constitution Amendment Bills with the Yes-vote; and this occurrence was possible, especially with the ruling New National Party (NNP) enjoying the ‘popular vote’ at that time.  The ‘clear and correct’ reason for the No-vote dominating at the referenda, lies in the fact that the powers-that-be did not exhibit credibility to the Grenadian-people, especially regarding the ‘clarity and honesty’ of the convoluted Bills.  

It is unfortunate that by rejecting the Constitution Amendment Bills, the Grenadian-electorate is deemed by the powers-that-be to be foolhardy and ignorant. The convolution of the Bills also raises valid suspicions about the inclusion of many ‘unnecessary and irrelevant’ items which could be addressed outside of a constitutional referendum; those items serving merely as carrots. Credits must be extended to the electorate if there were serious reflections on the kind of treatments to the provisions of the Constitution as is presently. For example, although the Government officials sworn to “honour, uphold and preserve the Constitution of Grenada” by taking the Oath of Office, there are yet no establishment of a Local Government structure for Carriacou and Petit Martinique as prescribed by section 107, and no establishment of a Constituency Boundaries Commission to ensure equity in electoral matters consistent with sections 54, 55 and 56 unfolding under Schedule 2 of the Constitution. Thus, asserting any trust that the powers-that-be will be committed to ‘activate and meet’ the voted changes as expected, is futile. Moreover, quite often the citizens are forced to access the Court for constitutional rights to be upheld. 

Lining up the debate at this time for securing a ‘successful’ constitutional referendum must be anchored principally on a sound analysis of the approach and process which was had in the conduct of the first-time referendum in 2016, with the anticipation of adopting corrective measures accordingly.  The debate should also have the rich benefit of the substantive reviews and different submissions had over the decades with the thrust for a New Constitution, or for Constitution Reform; ever since March 1979 with the suspension of the 1974 Constitution all through to the perceived tinkering with the Constitution regarding the August 2025 change to the Oath of Allegiance. Striving to welcome a high voter turn-out at a referendum along with the next general elections, cannot guarantee ‘success’ for the referendum unless the focus is on forging ‘good will’ between the proponents of the Changes and the Grenadian-people. It is also a fallacy that a referendum will be successful once the political parties support the Bill(s).  

It must be appreciated that there exist sharp fundamental differences between the powers-that-be and the Grenadian-people concerning the objective(s) for changing the Constitution, and this must be taken highly into consideration in lining up the debate. Whilst both sides aspire and agree in “seeing how best the Constitution can become more effective and more efficient”, the ‘weight and meaning’ of this idea and how it must be realized are at variance. The powers-that-be tends to facilitate and conform the terms of international institutions, but on the other hand the Grenadian-people is seeking Integrity in Public Life with accountable governance and is keen on preserving the values and norms of the society.  

It is a blatant ‘travesty and betrayal’ of democracy, sovereignty, and patriotism for the powers-that-be to ask and demand that the Grenadian-people accept and vote for foreign cultures and practices which is inimical to ‘righteous living’. The Constitution of Grenada (Rights And Freedoms) (Amendment) Bill 2016 presents such challenge for the Grenadian-electorate, authorizing in part to “... insert in the Constitution a new Chapter ... on Gender Equality ... the Constitution would be made more gender sensitive; there would be more gender inclusion ... “.  Even outside of a constitutional referendum, there is now the subtle undermining of the social and family fabric of the nation, by seeking parliamentary clearance for amendment to the Age of Civil Legal Responsibility Act (Cap. 4A). The pertinent Amendment Bill 2025 purports “to vest full legal capacity in minors aged sixteen years or older to consent to any sexual or reproductive health treatment, including diagnostic procedures, without the need for the consent of the minors’ parents or guardians ... ”.   On this troublesome development, Dr. Francis Amèdé MD publishes the must-read article: Twelve is too young: Why Grenada’s Bill on Children’s Sexual-Health Autonomy misses the mark, which appears on the New Today website on 16 August 2025. Dr. Amede yells: “It is difficult to argue that such a regime advances the “best interests of the child” where the age group in question is physiologically more vulnerable, cognitively less mature, and socially easier to coerce”. 

It is not known whether Sir Joseph’s position about the holding of a referendum and general elections at the same time is in discussions with, or would be taken up by, the Citizens for Constitution Reform (CCR) led by constitutional lawyer Dr. Francis Alexis KC. At its May 2024 press conference launch, the CCR laments about Grenada having not achieved any form of change to its Constitution, even on entering the second fifty-year period, and presents as its first goal the pursuit to change the Oath of Allegiance. Now that this Oath Change, ‘from swearing to His / Her Majesty to swearing to Grenada’, has been realized, there arrives the obvious question: what next of the CCR? Besides to the efforts of having Grenada accede to the CCJ as its final appellate, the CCR may choose to continue pursuing for Grenada to become a Republic. Considering the Oath Change as ‘a precursor or a lead’ in transforming Grenada to a full Republican State, and the ‘awkwardness and annoyance’ which prevails with the monarchical symbols and ceremonies still taking prominence in the Parliament, would the debate for a possible referendum during the next general elections be about this issue? Unfortunately though, the CCR has not outlined a systematic pathway or lineup for educating the Grenadian-people about reforming the Constitution.  

In exploring “how best the Constitution can become more effective and more efficient”, the latest experience of the Grenadian-people with the mindset and manner of the powers-that-be in changing the Oath of Allegiance should be very instructive with many lessons. Foremost, the experience depicts and proves that changing the Constitution is about symbolism and egoism on the part of special interest groups, but without any genuine concerns about representing the grassroots. Despite the argument that a constitutional referendum is not (may not be) required for the Oath Change, the CCR fails to line up or to roll out a constructive and effective plan for public education and debate on this sovereign issue towards seeking national ‘consciousness and consensus and cohesiveness’. In fact, the experience also teaches that the powers-that be wants the Grenadian-people to know that the ‘debate and decision and direction’ about changing the Constitution is reserved for lawyers, historians and politicians.   

The March 2022 article, Referendum On Constitution During Grenada’s General Elections, flags that the main problem to effecting Constitution Reform with the people’s flavours is about the lack of genuine ‘political will and goodness’ and not about the necessary ‘preparations and logistics’.  It is imperative for the citizens to campaign and pressure all political players and enthusiasts, especially the major parties of the NDC and NNP, to embrace the Cause and Call for not merely hinting about ‘serious and sound’ constitutional reforms but for embarking on ‘founding and fastening’ the Constitution in the psyche of the citizens. Thus, a typical referendum-question for the next general elections, which will form the ‘mandate and basis’ for a new Constitution should be in the manner: Do you (we) wish to continue to be governed by an Imperial Order-In-Council of The King’s Most Excellent Majesty OR do you (we) wish to write your (our) own constitution? This could well be the motivating starting-point for constructive debate on changing Grenada Constitution! 

- 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.