FRANCIS ALEXIS ABOUT GRENADA OATH CHANGE AND NATIONAL SURVIVAL COUNCIL 

Dr. Francis Alexis needs to explain as to whether or not the request by the government of the United States of America, for Grenada to allow the use of its international airport to facilitate Radar System presumably for military purposes, is a ‘shocking and surprising’ reality of the change to the constitutional Oath of Allegiance.  Does this reality present a sober reflection to the Citizens for Constitution Reform (CCR) about the ‘hostile and hardnosed’ approach’ taken for the Oath Change, and does it counsel the powers-that-be about the need to have “meaningful consultation” with the sovereign constituents on National Survival Challenges? National Survival Challenges would have to be contextualized and categorized, to include the extensive intricacies related to the advancement and defence of nationhood.

The CCR was launched by Alexis in May 2024, “delegated to promoting discussions among Grenadians at home and abroad in the Diaspora on the matter of what is the constitution of Grenada, how it came into being, and what can we do to keep the constitution under constant examination and review”. This objective was declared when an Informed Discussion was had by the Government Information Service (GIS) with a few Founding Directors of the CCR.

What has been transpiring and not transpiring about the CCR give reasons for the November 2024 article, Can Alexis Committee Rise to The Challenges About Grenada Constitution? This article questions the meaningfulness of the CCR committee, and the scope and openness of its operations. In fact, up until now, the CCR has not clearly outlined its philosophy and keenly positioned literatures of pertinent issues on a designed Web Portal and, neither has it rolled out a practical mechanism for entertaining and educating the general public about ‘beneficial reforms’ to the 1974 Independence Constitution. There is however evidence of ‘snubbing and shirking with professional arrogance’ by the CCR of other players in the discussions amongst Grenadians on matters of the Constitution; despite those other entities having contrary views to that of CCR, yet worthy for the enrichment of the nation’s democracy and sovereignty.

It is regrettable to conclude that, in the quest to gain prominence in effecting changes to the Constitution, Alexis and Team CCR seem to be ‘conveniently and calculatedly’ employing misrepresentations and / or generating misleading narratives of the issues pertinent to the constitutional governance of Grenada. Typical in that regard is the tinkering with, and the unconventional treatment of, the Constitution. By so doing, the CCR is also effectively testing the ‘realization and resolve and resource’ of the Grenadian-people to be able to repel its maneuverings. The CCR is earnestly hoping that with no legal ‘annulments and amendments', then Precedents, Conventions, and Case Law would emerge from its Fake postulations.

OATH CHANGE

The CCR boasts of producing and promoting the legislation to cause the leading State officials from swearing allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, his heirs and successors but instead swearing allegiance to the land of Grenada, and of having such legislation submitted to and discussed with the Government and Opposition for acceptance.  CCR makes constitutional and political references for its case; https://nowgrenada.com/2024/05/changing-words-of-oath-of-allegiance-first-goal-of-new-ngo/.

No considerations were made however for the sovereign constituents to peruse the Legislation and to make recommendations as may be appropriate and needful; all standards of ‘goodwill and good faith’ for “meaningful consultation” were flouted. Dr. Alexis maintains that the Oath Change lies solely with the ‘discretion and decision’ of the parliamentarians and that the Constitution must be honored within legal accuracy. As a result of the tremendous displeasure and debate amongst the Grenadian-people, including legal professionals, about Alexis’ stance, Constitutional Attorney Sir Lawrence Joseph PhD publishes Is a Referendum necessary for amending the Oath of Allegiance?  The article by Sir Joseph appears in the 18 July 2025 E-paper of the GRENADA INFORMER and agreeing thus: “Whilst the proposed amendment does not need a referendum, it is always recommended that proposals of this nature should be brought to the attention of the nation as a whole for national discussions in order to advance cohesiveness”.

Constitutional Attorney and King’s Counsel Alexis, refuses to serve in the Public Interest by not clearly and fully reacting to the Grenada Monarchist League with its article“Serious misinformation about oath being peddled by CCR”; https://www.thenewtodaygrenada.com/local-news/serious-misinformation-about-oath-being-peddled-by-ccr/. The League claims that ‘the Oath of Allegiance as originally defined in the Constitution, is already to be sworn to Grenada, through its King – the living embodiment of the Grenadian state. This being the monarchical arrangement under the constitutional principle of the Divisibility of the Crown, established by the 1931 Statute of Westminster; the Crown is a divisible entity.

The Request by the American Government for the installation of Radar System in Grenada may not be connected in any way with Grenada’s Oath Change. However, in consideration of the concerns raised about the ‘authority and justification’ for the American-led invasion / intervention of Grenada in 1983, with respect to the ‘role and representation’ of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, both current events may be correlated. Was the sovereignty of Grenada as a small Island State, more ‘exposed and compromised’ because of the failure of taking into account all the parameters and consequences about the Oath Change? A comparative analysis involving the circumstances of the American August 2025 Request and that of the American October 1983 invasion / intervention, would inform about the ‘scope and strength’ of Grenada’s sovereignty. Instructive on this critical concern is the article ‘A Somewhat Lethargic Approach’: Britain and the Grenada Crisis, 1983 by Gary Williams, published on 30 July 2023 in the Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History. The American Request gives another dimension of Grenada’s Oath Change for explorations in Political Science and International Relations, where the concepts of Allegiance, Sovereignty and Interdependency take evolving meanings and applications.

NATIONAL SURVIVAL COUNCIL

Referencing the American Request as a pointed example of a national survival challenge, Dr. Alexis in a Public Statement and News Broadcast, calls for a ‘sacrosanct constitutional convention on how Grenada should respond to National Survival Challenges .... requiring by the Constitution that responses to such challenges be decided not only by the Government but rather by the Government in “meaningful consultation” with a National Survival Council.’

It is obvious that Alexis is trying to seize the dilemma involving the sovereign test for Grenada, or rather the testing of Grenada’s new Oath of Allegiance, by way of America’s request, to make the CCR relevant.  There is the eagerness to affect a second ‘superficial’ change to the Constitution; the first being the 01 August 2025 Oath Change which is not ‘settled and conclusive and foolproof’ but is liable for repeal. The Call for a Constitutional Convention so that the configuration for “meaningful consultation” be spelt out in the Grenada Constitution is laughable; the rationale presents a gross misrepresentation of the ‘purpose and substance’ of the Constitution.  Whilst there is the need to reform the Constitution towards ‘improved and effective’ governance, any unjustified efforts to transform the Constitution and having it resulting as a long-winded encyclopedia or manual, must be actively condemned and resisted.

The Constitution already aims at and establishes the framework for consultations; how meaningful is that consultations depend on the ‘morality and integrity’ of the powers that are. It provides for a Cabinet which proposes and propels the businesses of the people, and for this Cabinet to be “responsible” to a Parliament (section 59); despite there is virtually no Separation of Powers and personnel between the Cabinet and Parliament.  The Parliament serves the delivery, debate and decision of those businesses, with the powers and practices according to sections 23, 38 and 50. The ‘good governance’ principle of Democracy is prescribed by the Parliament composing of Representatives of the sovereign constituents (section 29) and Representatives of the sectoral interests (section 24), but with the need to increase the number of Senators to at least include representations of the Churches and Civil Society Organizations.

The provisions of the Constitution are generally interpreted and applied beyond its strict texts, by conventional practices. Moreover, the Constitution comes alive by means of enacting laws and regulations. Particular laws and regulations may provide for mechanisms to deal with threats to the ‘survivability and sustainability’ of Grenada’s sovereignty, including for the Government to engage in “meaningful consultation” with political parties and other stakeholders as Trade Union and Private Sector.

Dr. Alexis and Team CCR would serve the Grenadian-people better on the concept of a National Survival Council by also declaring whether or not the American Request, a pointed example of a national survival challenge, poses a Public Emergency for Grenada and which must be treated consistent with section 17 of the Constitution.  In fact, instead of seeking to write into the Constitution the text for a National Survival Council, a review of the 2014 National Social Compact should have already been undertaken to adapt it (or a version thereof) into legislation for this Council. A 2013 broad-based Committee of Social Partners developed the Social Compact when Grenada’s survival was challenged by fiscal misery.

- 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.