Former attorney general wants referendum to change oath of allegiance

ST GEORGE’S (CMC):

Former attorney general, Cajeton Hood, says he is not in favour of a decision by the government to change a section of Grenada’s Constitution by tabling legislation in the Parliament.

Hood, who served as attorney general from 2013-2018, said he believes that the correct approach should be to have citizens vote for the change through a referendum poll.

The government will next month table the Constitution (Oath of Allegiance) bill in Parliament, altering Section 37 schedule three 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, the head of Commonwealth of which Grenada is a member, his heirs and successors.

According to the proposed legislation the Oath of Allegiance will be amended by deleting the words “His Majesty King Charles the Third, His Heirs and Successors”, and substituting the word “Grenada”.

Hood said he believes 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, adding “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.”

The former attorney general said that unless the country becomes a republic all citizens are subjects of the King.

Another former attorney general and constitutional expert, Dr Francis Alexis, who has been advocating for such a change does not believe it requires a referendum vote but a two-thirds majority in the Houses of Parliament.

Grenada observed its 50th anniversary of independence last year, and Alexis had recommended that the changes be made as part of activities to celebrate the occasion.

“Changing the Oath would not interfere with its purpose, namely, to commit the oath-taker to duties of loyalty. This accords with the ‘purposive’ canon of interpretation, which promotes the purpose of the Oath.