by Wendy C Grenade, PhD
This year marks 51 years since Grenada gained political independence. Yet, to date, there have been no changes to the Grenada Constitution, although previous attempts were made, most notably the 2016 and 2018 referenda, which were both unsuccessful.
Currently, there is a debate as to whether the Oath of Allegiance can be changed without a referendum. I must say that I am a member of the Citizens for Constitution Reform (CCR), the group that has proposed 2 Bills to amend the Constitution to change the Oath of Allegiance. However, I am writing this article in my own capacity as a political scientist who has observed and commented on Grenadian and Caribbean politics for the past 20 years. I will seek to line up the arguments in the debate as part of a commitment to continuous public education on critical issues of national concern.
Why change the Oath of Allegiance?
In the lead-up to the 50th anniversary of independence, there were widespread debates on questions surrounding national identity, independence and sovereignty. A crucial question remains: what needs to be done to complete Grenada’s independence and advance nationhood? From my perspective, it is time for Grenada to move towards full republican status, where we can delink from our colonial past, strengthen mechanisms for self-governance, have more direct representation and better embrace our sense of Grenadian identity. However, while I support this move, I am mindful that this requires sustained efforts at public education, consciousness-building and national consensus (in as far as is possible). Therefore, until such time that Grenada becomes a republic (and I trust in my lifetime it will), there are low-hanging ripe fruits that, if carefully selected, can lead to a more meaningful independence.
This brings me to the important issue of the disconnect between our national identity — the core of who we are — and the Oath of Allegiance that connects our elected and other public officials (and, by extension, the citizens they represent) to our erstwhile colonisers. It is noteworthy that we get it right in the words of the National Anthem when we acclaim: “Hail Grenada Land of Ours We Pledge Ourselves to Thee” and in the Pledge of Allegiance to Grenada. Yet, when elected and other public officials take the Oath of Allegiance, as outlined in Schedule 3 to the Grenada Constitution, they repeat: “I…., do swear (or solemnly affirm) I will faithfully bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, His Heirs and Successors, according to law…”. As a self-respecting people, it is time to change the Oath in our quest to take incremental steps to complete our independence and advance nationhood.
The Debate
In May 2024, the CCR was launched. It is a non-governmental organisation that engages in continuous public education on the Constitution and advocates broadly for constitutional development. Currently, the CCR is advocating to change the Oath of Allegiance from the British Monarch to “Grenada” and has drafted 2 Bills, which they have submitted to both the ruling administration and the main opposition party. At the heart of the debate is a salient question: can the Oath of Allegiance be changed without a referendum? On one side of the debate, the CCR, which is led by renowned constitutional lawyer Dr Francis Alexis argues that it can.
The argument here is, Schedule 1 to the Constitution provides a master list which sets out the provisions of the Constitution that are entrenched, that is, their alteration requires referendum approval. However, Schedule 3, “Oath of Allegiance” is not included in Schedule 1 and, as such, its alteration does not require referendum approval. Hence, Bill 1 seeks to amend the Constitution to change the Oath of Allegiance by a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives and a simple majority in the Senate for the Governor General (section 20), for Parliamentarians (section 40) and for Ministers (section 65). Neither Schedule 3 nor any of these sections is included on the master list in Schedule 1, that is, their alteration does not require referendum approval.
On the other side of the debate, some observers are arguing that a referendum is required to change the Oath of Allegiance. This argument is based, in part, on the premise that if the Oath of Allegiance (Schedule 3) is amended, it has implications for Section 111, which IS on the master list. What does this mean? For example, Sections 21 (Acting Governor-General), 35 (Supervisor of Elections) and 83 (Public Service Commission) are entrenched provisions, and their alteration DOES require referendum approval. In response to this argument, CCR offers 2 counterarguments.
First, the aspect of Section 111, which is entrenched by referendum and referred to in the master list, is expressly confined only to provisions on the master list preceding the line referring to Section 111. However, Schedule 3 (Oath of Allegiance) is not included in the master list, neither it is one of the line items in the Sections preceding Section 111 on the master list. Second, CCR contends that what is guaranteed by Sections 21, 35 and 83 is the independence and integrity of those Bodies and changing the Oath does not interfere with their fundamental functions. In an abundance of caution, to address the concerns about Section 111, CCR has drafted a second Bill which separates the issue of the Oath itself and that of the entrenched Sections (21, 35 and 83).
Another concern raised is the role of the Governor-General should the Oath of Allegiance be amended, given that the Governor-General, as Head of State, is the representative of the British Monarch. In response, I must point out that Belize, Jamaica, St Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines all changed the Oath of Allegiance from the British Monarch and their elected and public officials now swear to their respective countries, while maintaining a Governor-General as Head of State. I am no constitutional lawyer, but as someone who is trained in comparative politics, the fact that this was done in other Caricom countries is strong evidence that Grenada can do the same.
For me, the essence of the debate is not whether there is need to amend the Constitution to change the Oath of Allegiance, but how to do so.
Public education and stakeholder consultations prior to parliamentary vote
Two of the lessons from the 2016 and 2018 experiences are that PROCESS matters and partisan politics can strangle the collective national good. Although the ruling administration may be able to secure the votes to successfully pass the Bills, if we are seeking to build a more mature democracy, I strongly urge that the Government listens to concerns raised by several citizens and not rush to vote on the Bills by 1 August. Instead, I endorse the following perspective that has been advanced in some quarters. That is, the Government lays the Bills in Parliament by the symbolic 1 August, Emancipation Day, allowing 90 days (see Section 39 (5) (a) that provides for an interval of not less than ninety days between the first and second reading) for the Bills to go through the Committee system in Parliament.
There are 3 advantages to this approach. First, the Government will demonstrate its intentionality to change the Oath of Allegiance and to do so through consensus-building. Second, the main opposition party will have some time (90 days) to engage with its supporters. This is important since some NNP supporters may be asking, and perhaps rightfully, “why do we have to support them now when they did not support us twice (2016 and 2018)?” This approach gives the NNP leadership time to explain why the party is taking the high ground on this issue, consistent with its commitment to constitutional reform in office and in opposition. Third, 90 days also allows for continued stakeholder consultations and public education to ensure that Grenadian citizens feel respected and included in the process, although they are not required, constitutionally, to actually vote in a referendum.
In my view, it is time to change the Oath of Allegiance, and this is an opportunity to build national consensus on what I consider a simple and straightforward issue of national concern.
Dr Wendy C Grenade is a Grenadian political scientist who has observed and commented on Grenadian and Caribbean politics and society for the past 20 years.
