Originally published in The Grenadian Voice and The New Today on 08. November, 2024.
In the previous edition of this newspaper J.K. Roberts, in his letter “Attorney Clouden in the fray on Grenada’s sovereignty and constitution”, recounted the utterances of Attorney-at-law Anselm Clouden issued on The Bubb Report on 20. October.
These utterances by Mr. Clouden, which include stating that the Independence Constitution of 1974 “needs to be revoked” and that it “fetters and abrogates our sovereign rights” are outrageous and dangerous statements which must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
Mr. Clouden asserts that the constitutional requirement to hold a referendum on relinquishing the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) and acceding to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as our court of final appeal is an infringement of our sovereignty. He asserts that parliament alone should be able to make these changes and that the referendum requirement is an imposition upon us from Britain, thus binding us and making us less sovereign.
In making these incendiary remarks Mr. Clouden shows he has a fundamental misunderstanding of our Independence Constitution and how it came to be. Our Constitution is a product of the Marlborough House conferences of 1973, which were conferences where representatives of the then-governing Grenada United Labour Party and the opposition Grenada National Party and New Jewel Movement together negotiated and drew up the provisions and principles of our fundamental document, without British interference. Sir Eric Gairy of the GULP, Herbert Blaize of the GNP and Bernard Coard of the NJM were all personally among those present.
The provisions requiring a referendum to remove the Privy Council as our court of final appeal was not a British imposition, but a clause included in the constitution explicitly at the request of the opposition GNP and NJM and agreed to by the GULP government. This can be seen from the records of the conference. It was a clause insisted upon by Grenadians and included in the constitution by Grenadians. The British had nothing to do with its inclusion, as can be attested to by the constitutions of some of our neighbouring islands like Saint Lucia or Barbados having no such requirement.
Mr. Clouden’s assertion that the constitutional requirement for a referendum is a British imposition and thus restricts our sovereignty is manifestly untrue. His insistence that parliament should be able to make sweeping constitutional changes without the inclusion of the people through referenda is furthermore immensely insulting to the Grenadian people. We the people have voted down relinquishing the Privy Council and acceding to the CCJ on two separate occasions: in 2016 and 2018. This continued complaining from certain sections of societal elites about the constitutional requirement for popular involvement in fundamental constitutional reform shows immense contempt for the Grenadian people. They seem to believe the people too stupid to “vote the correct way”.
Statements that the Constitution must be “revoked” because it requires popular involvement in fundamental reform regarding issues like the JCPC or the monarchy should be met with disgust and outrage throughout every home in our tri-island state. This sort of contempt for the people, contempt for the constitution and holier-than-thou attitude from the political elite was precisely the reason why provisions requiring referenda were included in our founding document at the Marlborough House conference.
The entrenchment of fundamental parts of our constitution was a deliberate step taken by Grenadian leaders during the writing of our Independence Constitution precisely to ensure that the Grenadian people be actively consulted and involved regarding potential changes to the core of our governance structure. It was anticipated that some political actors may seek to change and mould the constitution to their own personal benefit, and requiring referenda was intended to make this impossible.
Calls to abrogate the constitution, harkening back to the coup d’etat and revolution of 1979, are fundamental threats to our constitutional and parliamentary democracy. Such calls must be rebuked and condemned in the strongest possible terms, and the Grenadian people must remain guarded of our constitution against unscrupulous actors who seek to subvert it.
Grenada Monarchist League 