Troubling Echoes and further thoughts on Grenada Oath Change: J.K. Roberts 

Grenada has not received any substantial ‘commendations or congratulations’ from leading institutions including governments, regionally and internationally, concerning the change to its constitutional Oath of Allegiance.  But then, had Grenada any ‘great and outstanding’ feat by this Oath Change?  To what extent could the Oath Change be recognized and celebrated, as compared with Grenada being the first of the Associated States of the United Kingdom (UK) to thrust for ‘complete independence’ and then advanced to attaining it on 07 February 1974 and with Grenada being the first in the English-speaking Caribbean to undertake a ‘successful’ military revolution on 13 March 1979. Recall the articles, Grenada Oath Change Neither Here Nor There! and Grenada Oath Change Should Be Beyond Anti-Colonial Sentiments, which renders the Oath Change a ‘political phenomenon of or with no real and deep change’.

Noteworthy though is the report about the Oath Change by Robert Andre Emmanuel of the Daily OBSERVER E-newspaper.  Using the caption Grenada changes its Oath of Allegiance—How Antigua and Barbuda can learn, Emmanuel proclaims that ‘Grenada’s decision serves as both inspiration and pressure for similar constitutional reforms in the sister Caribbean nation and relates that Ralph Bowen, President of Antiguans and Barbudans for Constitutional Reform and Education, expressed strong support for Grenada’s action’.  The interest and reaction of Emmanual and Bowen about Grenada’s Oath Change is understandable, since Antigua and Barbuda has had failed attempts for an identical change and that the arguments for the change match those presented by Grenada’s Parliament on 24 July and 25 July 2025.

Grenada’s ruling National Democratic Congress and the proponents of the Oath Change would boast about the move, also because of the declaration by Kevin Stewart of the Scottish National Party (SNP) and Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) that Scotland should follow Grenada.  Lauren Welch, Royal Reporter, writes in the EXPRESS Newspaper of the United Kingdom (UK) the article 'Shameless!' SNP fury as MP attempts to remove King Charles oath about an Outburst as a result of Stewart’s plea. Stewart lodged the Motion: "That the Parliament lauds Grenada’s reported decision to drop the oath of allegiance to the British crown and then replace it with an oath of allegiance to Grenada; recognizes that the people of Scotland are sovereign, and further believes that Scotland’s Parliament should have the power to follow the island nation’s lead and have its members pledge allegiance to the people of Scotland and not an unelected monarch." MSP Murdo Fraser, a Scottish Conservative, responded to Stewart's proposal to drop references to the British crown in the SNP's independence campaigns, calling it 'a blatant attempt by an SNP MSP to curry favor with republican voters, both within and outside the party'.

Grenada’s Oath Change with the profound message it tends to convey, has attracted an academic piece by Francesca Jackson who is a PhD student at Lancaster University.  The Paper entitled The Oath of Allegiance, and the Battle for Independence and which was published on the website of the UK Constitutional Law Association in September 2025, traces the constitutional and political challenges faced by countries of the UK and the Commonwealth nations in efforts to cease from observing ‘symbolic loyalty’ to the British crown, along with the quest for Republicanism as an advancement or in furtherance of Independence. Jackson points out: ‘arguably the social context in which oaths are made has changed’.

The considerations which comes with the eagerness and robustness to sever ties with the British crown are not limited to legal constraints and individual pushbacks to the determination, but it also involves the dimension of fashioning and adopting a suitable version of Republicanism with best democratic practices.

The inclination that Grenada be a Republican State takes prominence during the public deliberations of the 2002-2006 Constitution Review Commission, and in 2010 Dr. Simeon Mc Intosh, a commissioner on that Review, releases a Draft Constitution for Grenada which promotes for a parliamentary republic with a ceremonial President.  In November 2023 when delivering on the theme Reparations, Republicanism and The Rule of Law : What Next After Fifty Years Of Independence? Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell rationalizes that meaningful republicanism should not reflect a ceremonial Head of State and that such a Head should be directly elected by the people and be accountable to the people (not to the Legislature). Who and what decides on the type of governance structure between the Governed and the Governors?

Without any allusions and discussions about Republicanism, the proposal for changing the Oath of Allegiance was casually and loosely presented to the Grenadian-people in the first-time 24 November 2016 constitutional referenda headed by Dr. Francis Alexis; the people voted against this change at that time.  Abruptly in January 2024, Alexis advises the Government to have the Oath Change for the nation’s Golden Jubilee in February 2024, declaring no requirements for a referendum to do so.  Alexis reasoned on patriotic and sovereign premises and on honouring of the Constitution, as well as on set precedents from pertinent court cases. The position and information for the Oath Change trigger the existence of the Grenada Monarchist League, with its mission ‘to advocate for and ensure the preservation of the Grenadian monarchy, opposing any and all moves towards constitutional changes to establish a republic’.

Grenada’s Oath Change is not ‘conclusive and foolproof’, and the continued debate about its introduction is genuine and justifiable. It was realized on 01 August 2025 by the Constitution (Oath of Allegiance) (Amendment) (No. 1) Act, 2025 and Constitution (Oath of Allegiance) (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 2025 amending Schedule 3 to the Constitution and Schedule 1 to the Courts Order, concerning allegiance virtually from “His Majesty King Charles the Third, His Heirs and Successors” to “Grenada”.  There is the question as to why two separate (but ‘quite similar’) laws are necessary for the Oath Change; this situation also reflects on the methodology of Legal Drafting and the capacity of the Attorney-General.  Citizen John Rullow has been very ‘persistent and powerful’ in calling for the general citizenry to agitate for the abrogation of those laws, on the basis that the powers-that-be violate constitutional and sovereign obligations for the Oath Change.  Moreover, it has become clear that both laws were made possible on the condition that ‘they would be repealed in favor of a People Referendum on the Issue’.

It would be beneficial academically and otherwise for the UK Constitutional Law Association to assist with an independent Legal Opinion on the process used by the Grenadian authority towards the changing of the Oath of Allegiance, and with sourcing mechanisms for pertinent recourse or correction of a flawed process.   A holistic and in-depth analysis is imperative, in terms of the prerequisites for and features of Self-determination within the United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and in terms as to whether or not ‘due respect’ for the sovereign constituents was evident within the constitutional and political construct of a democratic society such as Grenada.

The trust of the Grenadian-people in the powers-that-be has been further eroded by the manner by which the Oath Change was realized and thus, there is no guarantee that the change would easily and quickly bring Republicanism to Grenada. Further to the need for analyzing and ascertaining the significance and nuisances of the cessation of swearing allegiance to the British crown, the circumstances and experiences about Grenada’s Oath Change need to be contextualized and settled for indigenous acceptance and authenticity.  How the Oath Change was realized and what has been (and has not been) unfolding thus far, brings into focus the philosophy and application of Representative Governance and Parliament Powers as Grenada’s 1974 Independence Constitution intents. In fact, the spectrum of acts in enacting the Oath Change as law, has been about ‘experimentation, manipulation and dictatorship’ to the extent of been depicted by some political analysts as a Coup d’état against the Grenadian-people.

The Parliament of Grenada relied greatly on the submissions by the Citizens for Constitution Reform (CCR) regarding the process and substance for the Oath Change; the CCR been formed in May 2025 by Dr. Alexis KC, Constitutional Attorney and former politician.   Alexis’ team engages in separate meetings with special interest groups and politicians, but it negates Civil Society on the Issue.  In fact, there has not been any deliberately organized public consultations by the CCR towards seeking national ‘consciousness and consensus and cohesiveness’ on the Oath Change.  Most repugnant is the exploitation by the NDC-government of the parliamentary proceedings with the Standing Order, during the debate on 24 July 2025 of the Constitution (Oath of Allegiance) (Amendment) (No. 1) Bill and the Constitution (Oath of Allegiance) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill.  Both of the Constitutional Amendment Bills were made to be passed in one Sitting of the House of Representatives and moreover, the Sitting had several breaks or recesses to allow the Prime Minister and ruling colleagues to clarify pertinent concerns and to negotiate with the Parliamentary Opposition in order for those Bills to be affirmed and approved on the same day.

In line with the contention of most individuals, the main political opposition, New National Party, divulges that ‘whilst believing allegiance must be to Grenada, a referendum is required to make the Oath Change’.

- 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.