by Linda Straker
- Cajeton Hood believes citizens should vote for constitutional change via referendum poll
- Francis Alexis has been advocating for change via simple majority in Parliament
- Draft bill set to be tabled for Lower House July sitting
Former Attorney General Cajeton Hood is not in favour of the Government’s decision to change a section of Grenada’s constitution via the passage of a law in Parliament. He believes that the correct approach should be to have the citizens vote for the change via a referendum poll.
Neila Ettienne, Press Secretary, confirmed that a draft bill called “Constitution (Oath Of Allegiance) (Amendment) (No. 1) Act, 2025 is set to be tabled in Parliament for the July sitting of the Lower House.
The bill will alter Section 37, Schedule 3 of the 1973 Constitution Order, which instructs to whom state officials must take the Oath of Allegiance. Currently, the Oath of Allegiance is taken to King Charles, Head of the Commonwealth — of which Grenada is a member — his heirs and successors.
A review of the draft legislation shows that these words will be altered to read Grenada. “Schedule 3 to the Constitution in the Oath of Allegiance is amended by deleting the words ‘His Majesty King Charles the Third, His Heirs and Successors’, and substituting therefore the word Grenada.”
“I believe that once we are not a republic and still in the Commonwealth, the oath should be to the King because he is our Head of State and is represented here by the Governor-General. Therefore, the first thing should be the island becoming a republic, and then we make the necessary change,” Hood said. “I have no problem with Grenada becoming a republic, but it must be done by referendum. Let the people, let the citizens make that choice, and then we change the oath of allegiance,” he said, pointing out that unless the country becomes a republic, all citizens are subjects of the King.
Former Attorney General Dr Francis Alexis has been advocating for such a change and doesn’t believe it requires a referendum vote, but rather a simple majority in the Houses of Parliament.
The draft bill further explained that “Where in any written law other than in the Constitution and the Courts Order provision is made for taking the Oath there appear in the Oath the words “His Majesty King Charles the Third, His Heirs and Successors”; those words shall be deleted, and there shall be substituted therefore the word ‘Grenada’; as in the First Schedule to the Oaths Act, Cap 217 of the 2010 Revised Laws of Grenada.
There was a similar section in the Constitution of Grenada (Caribbean Court of Justice and Other Bill Justice-Related Matters) (Amendment) for the failed 2016 referendum, which had citizens voting on 7 bills to amend various sections in the constitution.
Once approved it will affect several provisions of the Constitution, including
- Section 20 (Governor-General taking oath)
- Section 40 (Member of the Houses of Parliament taking oath)
- Section 65 (Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries taking oath)
- Section 95(1) (Citizen by marriage taking oath); and
- Section 98 (Citizen by marriage taking oath)
This sort of unilateral change is outrageous! The Grenadian people rejected this change in 2016. The government has NO mandate to change the constitution unilaterally like this. They did not campaign on this. It was nowhere in the NDC manifesto. A government unilaterally an by fiat like this altering the Constitution, this country’s most sacred document, is absolutely outrageous and CANNOT stand!