by Curlan Campbell
- Dr Alexis would like to change his title once laws’ constitutional enactments are done
- Would like new instrument referring to him simply as Senior Counsel.
- Defended process followed re proposed bills is in full compliance with law
Dr Francis Alexis, former Attorney General and convener of Citizens for Constitution Reform (CCR), has reaffirmed his commitment to the proposed Oath of Allegiance constitutional amendments and made a personal vow to renounce the title of King’s Counsel in solidarity with Grenada’s evolving constitutional identity.
His stance follows the proposed amendment to Grenada’s Constitution that would change the Oath of Allegiance from being sworn to King Charles III to instead being sworn to Grenada.
After the Lower House meeting on Thursday, 24 July, Dr Alexis stated frankly that he would like to change his title once the laws’ constitutional enactments are done. “You have my word. I will immediately ask the Chief Justice to authorise the Governor-General of Grenada to issue me a new instrument referring me to, I hope, as simply Senior Counsel. I have no interest in being called King’s Counsel. What the response will be from the Chief Justice and Her Excellency? I don’t know, but I will cross that bridge when I get to it.”
As Parliament debated 2 bills to amend the Constitution — measures that would replace the existing oath of allegiance to the British monarch with one pledging allegiance to Grenada — Dr Alexis firmly defended the process being followed, stating that it is in full compliance with the law. “The test for requiring that a proposal be put to a referendum is stated in Section 39, subsection 5 of the Constitution. This is a criterion for submitting a proposal to a referendum that a bill to alter section 39 or schedule 1 to the Constitution, or any of the items listed in schedule 1 has to be submitted to a referendum.”
Dr Alexis directly addressed criticisms from the New National Party (NNP), who argued the changes should be subject to a public vote. “The criteria being put forward by the NNP in this letter to me is as far as Pluto is from us, as their submission is from the Constitution. All we are asking in CCR is that we respect the Constitution. The Constitution has given its criteria, its test for submitting a proposal to a referendum, and all we are asking is that all of us in the country respect what the Constitution says.”
He continued, stressing that this wasn’t about political interpretation, but legal accuracy. “This is not a private document. This is an official document of the NNP and in their document to us… they are not going by what the Constitution says. And I have also another docket from the Leader of the Opposition in which he is adopting that test put by the NNP. It is not a test known to the Constitution,” he said.
Dr Alexis continues to hold his position that the bills being proposed do not interfere with section 39 of the Constitution. “In other words, what is being done today in Parliament, where we stand now is altogether consistent with what the Constitution has laid down. Namely, they are debating a bill, 2 bills, to alter the Constitution, which do not interfere with section 39 of the Constitution, which do not interfere with schedule one to the Constitution. And therefore what is being done here, is entirely, completely, altogether, in harmony with the Constitution of Grenada.”
The letter from Roland Bhola, the Secretary of NNP, referenced by Dr Alexis, stated that while the NNP supports this change in principle, they are concerned about the apparent haste with which the bills are being passed through Parliament without the opportunity for an accompanying referendum. It states in part that “There is also growing public sentiment-including among some legal professionals, that a referendum is the most appropriate and democratic path forward.” The letter further continued, “While we note your opinion that a referendum is not strictly necessary from a legal standpoint,we are of the view that serious considerations should be given to placing the matter before the people through this process.”
Responding to questions about his own legal designation as King’s Counsel, Dr Alexis explained: “Two things. One, what is King’s Counsel? A KC is simply a leader at the bar, a lawyer who is recognised as leading the bar in terms of knowledge of the law, being able to especially lead in cases in the court, and otherwise upholding the integrity of the profession. All it is, it is not a gift from the King. It is not a gift from the Queen.”
“It’s a recognition on the part of your fellow lawyers that, yes, you are indeed a leader at the bar. That is recognised by the Grenada Bar Association, recognised by the OECS Bar, recognised by the Chief Justice. The title is controlled by the head of state representative here in Grenada. Her Excellency.”
Meanwhile, Grenada’s MPs from both the Government and Opposition sides joined together to unanimously vote for an amendment to the country’s Oath of Allegiance, a landmark decision that may lead to Grenada dropping the British Monarchy as Head of State after 51 years post-independence.
I do not know the motivation (s) of the parties involved, but from my perspective, we need to study more closely the history of the British Empire and what role is attributed to us when we pledge allegiance to to the Monarchy. It’s time we re-educate our selves to see history from our perspective and not from the colonizer’s. It is only then we may have a clearer vision as to what and to whom we pledge allegiance.
They’re avoiding public consultation on this issue because they fear it would be seen as a referendum on their administration. Meanwhile, our public library remains neglected — deeply disappointing.
It is absolutely disgusting for these folks to play on the emotions of the people.
Alexis and the whole lot are frauds and hypocrites. They all enjoy and live of the avails of the crown.
They do nothing to breakdown the social and financial injustice. There is no equality and justice for all.