‘My thinking is that one can tinker with …. the Supreme Law section of the Constitution to bring about certain changes.”
Those were the words uttered by former Lieutenant-Colonel Ewart Layne of the disbanded People’s Revolutionary Army (PRA) while making a presentation on how changes can be effected to the 1974 Grenada Constitution.
Layne, who studied law while in prison serving a lengthy prison sentence for the October 19, 1983 murder of Marxist Prime Minister, is part of a group involving former Attorney General Dr. Francis Alexis and female barrister-at-law Anande Trotman-Joseph who are behind a draft bill to amend the Constitution by the Dickon Mitchell-led Congress administration.
Speaking on May 23, 2023 at the Grenada National Reparations Committee, Third Annual Reparations Lecture, held under the theme “Republicanism in the Age of Reparations” at the Grenada Museum Compound, the ex-soldier came up with the idea that the island needs “to find a creative way to get around” a referendum and a vote by the people to change the Constitution.
Layne, who failed before the Privy Council in his attempt to be allowed to practice law on the island on account of his several convictions for murder in the bloody October 1983 events, was introduced to address the audience by the then Curator at the Museum, John Angus Martin.
As a public service, THE NEW TODAY reproduces the Ewart Layne presentation to effect changes to the Grenada Constitution without involvement of the people:-
“I know that I am entering into, maybe, heresy, because Dr. Alexis, recognised as the Constitutional guru, has stated that we need to have a referendum.
I just want to point out that this month, May (2023), also, it is 50 years since the Conference, the (Grenada) Constitutional Conference that was held in Marlborough (House), in (London) Britain.
It was in May 1973, and the Constitution that we have in Grenada now, emerged from that. That is the first point I just want to make, just to back that.
Secondly, it is quite interesting that the ‘dictate’, I will call it, that we have a referendum actually came out of the Order in Council from the British government. And the British government is saying in that Order in Council – yes, there was a Constitutional Conference – that, listen, at least on the surface it appears to be saying so, that there are certain laws in this Constitution, including the laws governing the Head of State, which requires as Dr. Alexis said, two-thirds in the Parliament, 90 days between the first and second reading, two-thirds in a referendum.
Interestingly – and that’s my point – in surveying the Constitution, I think it is quite striking, that the very clause in the Constitution – namely Section 106 of the Constitution, which says that the law is the Supreme Law of the state – any law that is inconsistent with it shall be void; a word we hear a lot tonight.
But what is quite striking, to me, at least, is that section is not a deeply entrenched section of the Constitution. In other words, you don’t have to have a referendum, it is not one of the sections mentioned under Section 39 or Schedule 1 of the Constitution, which requires a referendum to alter it.
And my thinking is – and I plan to go into it deeper, to even write on it – my thinking is that one can tinker with that section, the Supreme Law section of the Constitution, to bring about certain changes.
In other words, one can say, you can enact, following the two-thirds in Parliament, which is required for ordinary entrenched laws- you can enact a law saying that, “notwithstanding, that a law may be inconsistent with, for example Section 19 and 21, of the Constitution, it shall have effect.”
Now, Trinidad has a formula, something as that. Trinidad has a section in their Constitution, I think it is Section 13 of the Trinidad Constitution which allows by a special majority to derogate from certain rights.
So it says that Parliament can pass a law which is inconsistent with certain sections which one may say is entrenched in the Trinidad context; if they expressly say that this law is intended, or notwithstanding that the law is inconsistent with certain rights, it is lawful. But, for that to happen, a special majority is needed.
And I am thinking that, through the pathway of the Supreme Law clause, which does not require referendum to alter, one can pass laws which says, for example, “notwithstanding that a particular law is inconsistent with something else, that it is lawful.”
This is just a rough outline of my thinking on that, but I believe that it is, in fact, a pathway, it is a gateway to making these changes. Now, that’s just from a legal standpoint. One may still say that, politically, we should have a referendum, right?
One may say that politically, we should have a referendum so that people can speak on the matter, but I think that stricture of a two-thirds majority is something that we have to find a creative way to get around, and this is just my contribution to this thought process.
