From QC to KC, all this talk bout going Republic too

Posted on by

There is, perhaps, no greater call upon citizens anywhere than to act with pride and industry. It is, therefore, a blessing that those words, pride and industry, consummate our national motto. Herein, we discuss the role ‘titles of honour’ play in spurring a country’s productive forces. Firstly, by discussing a seemingly small debate within legal circles with immense import for us today and our future.

Queen’s Counsel are Queen’s Counsel under the ‘Crown in right of Barbados’ whose artefacts are, for all practical purposes, grandfathered within Barbados’ constitutional fabric. Arguably, this great colonial “reservation” within our republican system allows Queen’s Counsel to retain said titles since they were conferred upon them personally at that time.

That time, however, is gone so it is difficult to plausibly argue for Queen’s Counsel becoming King’s Counsel now that King Charles III rules the United Kingdom since the Barbadian Monarchy has ended. Soon, Queen’s Counsel of the former Barbados Dominion, while retaining their titles like our Knights and Dames, must be invited into the new order of equal rank to an Attorney-General before the Courts and above the long-defunct Serjeant-at-law.

This resolution will please neither party currently claiming ‘correctness’ but it is, perhaps, the most logically consistent one we have. Moreover, if we leave this conversation at surface-level, we would all but have wasted our time for cause of apparent triviality.

Read full article – Pride and Industry

Pride and industry 

There is, perhaps, no greater call upon citizens anywhere than to act with pride and industry. It is, therefore, a blessing that those words, pride and industry, consummate our national motto. Herein, we discuss the role ‘titles of honour’ play in spurring a country’s productive forces. Firstly, by discussing a seemingly small debate within legal circles with immense import for us today and our future.

Queen’s Counsel are Queen’s Counsel under the ‘Crown in right of Barbados’ whose artefacts are, for all practical purposes, grandfathered within Barbados’ constitutional fabric. Arguably, this great colonial “reservation” within our republican system allows Queen’s Counsel to retain said titles since they were conferred upon them personally at that time.

That time, however, is gone so it is difficult to plausibly argue for Queen’s Counsel becoming King’s Counsel now that King Charles III rules the United Kingdom since the Barbadian Monarchy has ended. Soon, Queen’s Counsel of the former Barbados Dominion, while retaining their titles like our Knights and Dames, must be invited into the new order of equal rank to an Attorney-General before the Courts and above the long-defunct Serjeant-at-law.

This resolution will please neither party currently claiming ‘correctness’ but it is, perhaps, the most logically consistent one we have. Moreover, if we leave this conversation at surface-level, we would all but have wasted our time for cause of apparent triviality.

Deeper thought exposes a seemingly trivial conversation about, “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” as a meaningful conversation about the constitutional role ‘earned honour’ plays in promoting a country’s socio-economic development.

It may surprise many that there is a relationship between “pomp & circumstance” and the “rough-and-tumble” of socio-economic development. However, recalling that the State’s purpose is ‘to give us more together than we have apart’; we see why ‘honour’ lies squarely within a country’s productive foundation.

Human dignity

To quote Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and Myanmar’s former State Counsellor (Prime Minister), Aung San Suu Kyi: “Respect for human dignity implies commitment to creating conditions under which individuals can develop a sense of self-worth and security. True dignity comes with an assurance of one’s ability to rise to the challenges of the human situation. Such assurance is unlikely to be fostered in people who have to live with the threat of violence and injustice, with bad governance and instability or with poverty and disease.

Eradicating these threats must be the aim of those who recognize the sanctity of human dignity and of those who strive to promote human development. Development as growth, advancement and the realization of potential depends on available resources – and no resource is more potent than people empowered by confidence in their value as human beings”.

The concepts of ‘methodological individualism’ and ‘the invisible hand’ – that man is the homo-economicus always seeking the most efficient means of benefiting himself and his self-interested pursuit redounds to collective benefit respectively – bring us to observe that ‘the pride of titles is filled with the work of industry’.

A title is not a play-toy to be doled out on a whim. It is the capstone of a lifetime’s achievements; often fraught with trials and tribulations of unimaginable proportions. We should, therefore, be extremely reluctant, for example, to address judges by anything other than what befits their office and, in turn, those in Offices of Honour should, as a matter of course, enforce the status quo once it does no harm. The same applies everywhere.

Herein, we come to a common understanding befitting this Independence season; with national spirit in full bloom, our title as ‘citizen’ is possibly the most the important developmental tool after ‘parent’, ‘guardian’ and ‘mentor’. These titles go beyond honour; giving meaning to our humanity, which left unfilled, would be a useless mental abstraction.

This point of meaning requires us to consider the work of industry we must pour into our fount of honour to fortify our pride of independence and spirit of republicanism against the onslaught of global forces which, every day, seek to remove from our children and generations to come from their rightful inheritance.

We must, therefore, remember that our work, actions and volunteerism, more so than our consumption, enjoyment and self-satisfaction, are the things which, under command of our title citizen will ensure our true freedom and independence from the very material conditions and institutions which, if left unchecked would subjugate us once again, to the deepest of slaveries.

Dr William M. A. Chandler is a published political economist, legal scholar and business consultant. Email wma@auxomni.com.

Dr. William Chandler is a published political economist, legal scholar and business consultant. 

19 thoughts on “From QC to KC, all this talk bout going Republic too”


  1. Signed by Garth Patterson is an attorney at law (formerly QC)
    __________________

    Nationhood, not Independence, our true destiny
    By Garth Patterson

    The furore over the Government’s decision to celebrate November 30 as Barbados National Day, and to jettison the traditional recognition of Independence Day, to my mind exposes a deeprooted misunderstanding of where we are, and of the significance of what we have achieved as a nation.
    Those who rail against the celebration of our coming of age, of our achievement of nationhood, of our becoming, at long last, a sovereign, constitutional republic, and lament that “Barrow must be turning in his grave” have simply missed the point.
    Independence was a major stepping stone on the journey to freedom; but it was not, in and of itself, freedom. Barbados, as a self-determining, sovereign nation achieved true freedom on November 30, 2021, when it became a republic.
    To be sure, Errol Barrow is rightly revered as the “Father of Independence”. Just about every Barbadian who was alive in the year of Independence, or who was born after Independence, has heard, or read, Barrow’s famous quote about “loitering on colonial premises”.
    His remarks were made in July 1966, during his address to the Barbados Constitution Conference in London, while pleading the case for Barbados’ independence. In that same speech, he said that Barbadians “feel a natural affinity with, and are grateful to, those Englishmen” who, in 1639, established the Barbados Parliament and the system of representative government in Barbados, and who “laid the foundations for that free society, a small part of which we already experience and the greater portion of which we shall establish after independence”.
    He observed that “by some fortunate turn of history the people of Barbados have managed to establish before their independence the solid framework of a free society”. He insisted that the “training and apprenticeship are now complete” and that after three centuries of managing their own affairs, Barbadians would not be deterred “in the path to nationhood”. He pleaded to the Secretary of State: “All they require of you is that you should speed them to their rendezvous with destiny sometime in 1966.”
    The appetiser
    Now, at the risk of contradicting our Father of Independence, our rendezvous with destiny was not, in fact, consummated in 1966, but some 55 years later. Independence was the appetiser, not the main course. It was the opening act, not the headline performance. It was a critical milestone in the journey to a free society, but not the destination. Independence was Martin Luther King’s mountaintop, not the promised land.
    On the glorious night of Independence, Barrow emotionally declared: “To be young and to be alive in Barbados tonight, I feel as if I were in paradise already.” But Independence was just a glimpse, a promise, a dream of paradise; in strict constitutional, legal, and political terms, it was not the attainment of paradise itself.
    Barrow’s vision of independence was bold in its time, but ultimately self-limiting. While strident in his demands for independence, he was at the same time compromising on the scope and breadth of its objectives. He declared that “our relations with the Crown have always been warm and it is the unanimous desire of our citizens that Her Majesty shall be Queen and Head of State of an independent Barbados”.
    Compromise
    With that fateful compromise, Barrow never quite realised his vision of Barbados becoming a truly free society. Doubtless, he considered that Barbados was not yet at the stage of social and political development and maturity that would readily accommodate the immediate transition to republican status. He recognised that the path to freedom extended well beyond Independence. Consequently, while securing the nation’s liberation from colonialism, he ultimately failed to liberate Barbados from the mental shackles of imperial rule, from the reigns of British sovereignty, or from the ignominy of remaining one of Her Majesty’s dominions.
    The Barbados Independence Act, 1966, an act of the British Parliament, interestingly does not contain a definition of “independence”. The preamble declared it to be “an act to make provisions for and in connection with the attainment by Barbados of fully responsible status within the Commonwealth”.
    It ushered Barbados’ transition from colonialism to membership of the Commonwealth as an independent state. Constitutionally, however, it only meant that the United Kingdom had relinquished its right to pass laws for Barbados and had severed any financial obligations to her. The Queen enacted Barbados’ Constitution under powers conferred by that act and was recognised by that Constitution as the Queen of Barbados.
    By that Constitution, Her Majesty was represented in Barbados by the Governor General, who was appointed by, and held office at the pleasure of, Her Majesty. In real terms, Independence meant that Barbados was no longer a British colony and would not be a dependent of the United Kingdom. But fully responsible status was a far cry from fully independent. That all changed when Barbados proclaimed its republican status.
    On the first anniversary of Barbados becoming a republic, therefore, it is fitting for all Barbadians to reflect upon the significance of that historic event. It represented Barbados’ emancipation, its coming of age, its realisation of the long-held dream of becoming a free state, a sovereign nation in its own right, with its own home-grown President and head of state.
    Her Majesty’s Constitution was replaced by a Constitution that was enacted by the Barbados Parliament. Our President, who immediately before Barbados’ elevation to republican status was, in her previous establishment, adorned in the garbs and trappings of the monarchy, has since shed the vestiges of our colonial past, and taken a fresh, new, guard in the shaping of Barbados’ social, political, and constitutional future. The Government has, symbolically and actually, systematically been dismantling the symbols and relics of the monarchy and replacing them with the badges and emblems of our nascent statehood. These fields and hills, these shores and seas, these cart roads and pavements (and potholes) are now truly our own, freed from the vice-grip of imperialism that had mortgaged them to the Queen since Barbados first became an English colony.
    Mother of our Republic
    Our Independence Constitution provided the framework for the attainment of Barrow’s vision of a free society. It reserved to the Barbados Parliament the exclusive power, at any time, to completely sever its monarchial ties. Mia Mottley, the Mother of Our Republic, had the vision, courage, and temerity to finish the job that Barrow had started. She succeeded where her predecessors, on both sides, had failed. With one fell swoop of her legislative pen, she shepherded all Barbadians across the finish line and secured for all of us the realisation of our real destiny: true nationhood. Not just independent, but free.
    To all the naysayers, therefore, I say we have evolved beyond Independence. It is time to let it go; time to relegate it to the recesses of history and embrace instead, with Bajan pride, our new republican status.
    Barbados National Day celebrates our true emancipation, not just our independence. The real job of nation-building is still yet to come. At this inflection point in our constitutional development and statehood, we should be no more given to celebrating Independence than we would be to extolling the virtues of the appetiser, especially when the feast that it heralded was so spectacular and momentous.
    So, Happy Barbados National Day, when it comes.

    Garth Patterson is an attorney at law (formerly QC)

    Source: Nation

    Reply ↓

    • ‘Looka wuh yuh do tuh my republic’

      You tell me tuh fuhget… all right I say I shall go. But uh hope you know is true, that I will nevuh fuhgive you. Because looka looka wuh yuh do… Emmerton, by the Mighty Gabby, tells the story of a Barbadian Government’s effort to push through an initiative which it believed to be progressive, without taking into consideration the feelings, sentiments, sensitivities, culture and traditions of the people who would be affected. Whether the action taken by the Government at the time was beneficial or not, the negative emotions it stirred up have bubbled through time.
      As the saying goes, people may forget exactly what you did but they will remember how it made them feel. The sharp edge of Gabby’s pen etched this piece of history into the national psyche. He has made sure that the Emmerton event lives on in infamy in the consciousness of generations of Bajans. The legacy of what was done is forever tarnished by how it was done.
      At the first of a series of town hall meetings on constitutional reform, political scientist Devaron Bruce made suggestions focused on helping to ensure the integrity, transparency and thoroughness of the consultation process. In other words, seeming to take no issue with what was to be done, he made suggestions as to how it should be done.
      In this regard, he echoed sentiments from a year ago during the republican transition process. Very few Barbadians were against what was to be done. Very few felt the need to hold on to the monarchy. However, many were concerned about how the transition would be done, were unclear as to the details of the process and unsure of what it would mean. The inefficiently addressed uncertainty has left a lingering stain on our republican status. It is one that can be removed with time and sensitive action on the part of the Government so that the legacy of the event is not permanently tarnished.
      Season of Independence
      However, what should have been the first season of Independence after the republican transition, where the Government got a chance to further address fears and concerns, was turned upside down.
      The announcement that Independence Day would be renamed, contrary to what was promised, inflamed suspicions and concerns about the integrity of the transition. The legacy of what has been blemished by the “how”. This time, though, it is not the pen of one mighty wordsmith that is marking the moment in history; it is the keyboards and graphic designs skills of thousands of Barbadians, whose social media posts and memes came with wind force, giving the administration one injection in the midsection and making Government boots go left, right, left, right and about-turn.
      The Mighty Gabby once sang, “One day coming soon, my people will wake up.” Has that time come? The same principle that applies to efforts of the Government applies to efforts of the people. It is not only what you do but how you do it. How the people rise and take ownership of the republic is important. A much talked about new politics may not be contained primarily in the old wineskins of political parties. The mistrust of politicians is not reserved for those in the ruling party.
      The future of the nation rests on the maturing consciousness of the people and our ability to organise and work together across boundaries outside of partisan politics. The first constitutional reform town hall started with a prayer. The first citizen to speak at this event was disappointed by this and called for the Constitution to recognise the right to be free from religion. Another speaker expressed the desire that the Constitution remain rooted in the idea of God. This is the challenge.
      These kinds of differences will not be bridged by decree, nor on paper, nor by ceremonies and name changes. These things are only beneficial to the extent that they stimulate the growth of a healthy national consciousness and shared identity.
      The republican transition is not completed by a decision in Cabinet. If we do not understand this, future generations will look back at us and sing, “Looka, looka wuh yuh do to my republic.”
      Adrian Green is a communications specialist. Email adriangreen14@gmail.com.

      Source: Nation


    • Garth Patterson (formerly QC) wrote the following article Oct 13, 2022.

      ____________

      QC, KC or SC?
      Article by
      Barbados Today Published on
      October 13, 2022
      A constitutional lawyer says attorneys adopting the King’s Counsel title following the installation of a new British monarch sends the wrong message when Barbados has declared itself a republic, even as Chief Justice (CJ) Sir Patterson Cheltenham declared the matter was not a straightforward one.

      The question of whether attorneys should hold on to the postnominal title of Queen’s Counsel (QC) bestowed on them prior to the death of Queen Elizabeth II or adopt the KC postnominal with her son King Charles now on the throne, came up for discussion on Wednesday as several veteran lawyers made appearances before the Chief Justice in the Court of Appeal.

      While some attorneys who hold the QC title have adopted the KC title, by virtue of the Demise of the Crown Act 1901, constitutional attorney Garth Patterson, who is also a QC, said he had difficulty adopting those letters.

      “Having a new monarch who does not represent the head of state of Barbados . . . for us to adopt the postnominal of King’s Counsel I think puts us in an embarrassing position,” he said.

      “I think it sends the wrong message – that despite our proclamation that we have cut our ties with the monarchy, we are still clinging to the vestiges of that monarchy. I personally have a serious difficulty in adopting that postnominal.”

      The CJ said the issue is one he has “agonised on”, noting that the grant of letters is largely an executive decision.

      “I am not sure having received republican status we automatically go back. There is that school of thought with a persuasive argument . . . . Now that we have gone there [to republican status], isn’t there some point at which we need to pause and say hold on, do we anomalously remain QCs – which we will be the laughing stock of the world if we were – or do we become KCs – we also are the laughingstock because you fellas just proclaimed yourself a republic. So where are you?

      “This is not a straightforward point as I first thought it was…. When I open the legal year I will have something to say about it,” he added.

      Attorney Patterson disclosed that he had written to the Attorney General on the issue and suggested that the matter be the “subject of legislation”.

      In his correspondence, he suggested the postnominal of Senior Counsel (SC) – which is consistent with the practice in republics across the region – be substituted for those holding the offices of QCs prior to going republic as an equivalent honour and privilege granted by the independent state of Barbados.

      Sir Patterson, meanwhile, said he was “trying to work out” how much authority the judiciary, and a Chief Justice in particular, has on the matter.

      “Because if you look at the instrument . . . you are given when you become a Queen’s Counsel, you will see that it is particular to you and you become one of Her Majesty’s Counsel.

      “The other point that I throw out is whether this gift is something that can be taken and who takes it. It is not a straightforward a matter as people thought where you can just say ‘so, what is the government’s position on it, what is the court’s position?’.

      “I was warned to reflect on it carefully and now that we are even just tossing it out you recognise it doesn’t lend itself to a straight and ready answer,” he added.

      The Chief Justice said his approach may well be to have short and intense consultations “with some of the very persons who are here sitting, on a one-to-one basis”.

      “Having taken off the monarchical garbs and assumed the republican ones, the question remains live as we have just raised it . . . but I know it is not an easy matter to resolve . . .

      “I also think a considered note from the CJ of the day summarising the arguments and saying these are the options may well be a tasteful way of dealing with it, that offers some guidance,” he added.

      Source: Barbados Today


  2. Legal Tings the Law Way for Ancient Offices of State
    Courts Laws Legal Systems act in the name of the Crown
    Kings Queens Counsels are appointed by the Lord Chancellor
    As BRD ditched the Crown KCs and QCs will now act for the Supreme Power
    Title positions should no longer reflect gender

    Reply ↓

  4. @David, this is essentially a QC discussion about KC: Quintessential Contrivance about Kingly Cow-dung!

    This entire chatter and talk about meetings in the judges’ chambers to discuss something so simplistically insignificant is NONSENSE!

    A nonsense birthed BECAUSE there was no practical and proper Act (or plan) to smoothly transition to Republicanism … had that been done then these non-issues of describing members of the Bar who are deserving of such honorifics (and base higher fees, mind you) would have been easily despatched.

    Good heavens, this is done already WITHOUT issue. So why all the long-talk! Steeupese!

    And then in keeping with that exceptional sense of nonsensical egotism we had the further nonsense (and illegality) of attempting to rename the duly legislated day of Independence … not to mention creating another National Hero without one word of ‘national’ consultation… More QC this time on PC!

    Need we mention that up to recently our gov’t websites STILL had the title Governor General boldly listed … will there be meetings in IT Directors’ chambers to resolve that simplicity too … double Steeupse!!

    Looka, we might as well discuss the seismic news of The Netherlands beating South Africa this morning in that T20I cricket match … lot more sensible stuff can be determined from that and our state of cricket affairs than these ridiculous PR contrivances fabricated by egotistical leaders and our governance future, seems to me. Fah real.

    I gone, do!

    Reply ↓

  5. I thought these were a few ming jogging articles. The exception being reference to Aung San Suu Kyi.

    Reality is there are several issues which need addressing as opposed to solution by osmosis or time.

    On another channel, I see Savoy has reached the mainstream press. With new info? The land descriptors are being challenged as to exactly what lands were bought and transferred in the sale.

    And the Church is weighing in (finally?) on the MoE issues.

    Reply ↓

  6. This is bare BS! (Dah stand fuh bull shit) Have we nothing of importance to be doing? Who gives a RB (dah stan’ fuh rat’s botsy) what they call themselves?

    Some people does call dum BTs. ( Dah stan’ fuh big tiefs.)

    The only KC I care about is KC and the Sunshine Band.

    I wonder if Lashley KC’s brother still plays with that band.

    That will now occupy my attention.

    I gone too.

    Reply ↓

    • @Donna

      You need to scratch under the surface of this issue. Why was KC retained. Dee Pedantic cursorily addressed it in the context of an overall governance issue that it is.


  7. @Donna
    I saw that group in 2017 live, and he was still the bass guitarist. With Covid and time, I know nothing more current. This is up Hants and Dubs forte.

    Reply ↓

  10. @David

    The current format you are using for BU maybe streamlined but it is not effective in capturing the quintessence of the BLOG*…

    Please consider another “TEMPLATE” or format!!!

    Cheers, ‘ole boy…

    Reply ↓

  11. COMPLETELY OFF-TOPIC:

    Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, Retired Neurosurgeon, Theoretical Neuroscience Researcher, Author & Writer in the “Surgical Neurology International” posits some challenging findings to the “MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX” in a piece entitled; “COVID UPDATE: What is the truth?”

    He vehemently argues: “The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most manipulated infectious disease events in history, characterized by official lies in an unending stream lead by government bureaucracies, medical associations, medical boards, the media, and international agencies. We have witnessed a long list of unprecedented intrusions into medical practice, including attacks on medical experts, destruction of medical careers among doctors refusing to participate in killing their patients and a massive regimentation of health care, led by non-qualified individuals with enormous wealth, power and influence…”

    He further states: “For the first time in American history a president, governors, mayors, hospital administrators and federal bureaucrats are determining medical treatments based not on accurate scientifically based or even experience based information, but rather to force the acceptance of special forms of care and “prevention”—including remdesivir, use of respirators and ultimately a series of essentially untested messenger RNA vaccines. For the first time in history medical treatment, protocols are not being formulated based on the experience of the physicians treating the largest number of patients successfully, but rather individuals and bureaucracies that have never treated a single patient – including Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, EcoHealth Alliance, the CDC, WHO, state public health officers and hospital administrators…”

    READ MORE: https://surgicalneurologyint.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/11548/SNI-13-167.pdf

    As I have been vociferously arguing with the “GREAT” & the “GOOD” since 2019/2020 – “EVERYTHING ON THIS PLANET HAS BEEN BIRTHED, SWADDLED & CROWNED WITH DIABOLICAL LIES”… Nothing can be trusted (EXCEPT) #TheRighteousnessOfJesusChrist!!!

    Reply ↓

  13. Re Garth Patterson article, what he states is totally correct. This is what most Bajans FAIL to internalize. Some are even dismissing the significance of becoming a republic for narrow pontifical reasons. From what I can see, if does not affect the price of food, gas or a cell phone it doesn’t register with Barbadians.

    To use a layman’s explanation, Barbados became 100% POLITICALLY independent on Nov 30th 2021. In comparison, Barbados became 95% politically independent on 30th Nov 1966. The difference is that the British Monarch was removed as head of state. Once the head of state is not a monarch or emperor but now a president then the state is a republic. There is no need for comprehensive constitutional reform to actually become a republic. There was not even internal political strife in Barbados or resistance from the British Monarch to Barbados becoming a republic. Hence why I support the Mottley administration for Barbados to become a republic without referendum. Knowing Barbados, if we had to wait for this constitutional reform or referendum it would take another 15-20 years.

    Where i differ from Garths opinion is that it only strengthens the reasoning to have 30th Nov to remain as Independence Day. Barbados National Day sounds too ambiguous. I consider Heroes Day, Errol Barrow Day and Independence day as national days. Independence and Republic day may sound cumbersome but it explicitly states what the day is celebrating.

    Reply ↓

  14. A Blast from the Past
    A Big Tune with Spirit Guides

    Dream a Little Dream of Me
    Stars shining bright above you
    Night breezes seem to whisper “I love you”
    Birds singing in the sycamore tree
    Dream a little dream of me

    Reply ↓

    • Barbados has a Constitution
      An extremely persuasive argument is gaining steam everywhere that Barbados is without a Constitution.
      Its proponents argue that “when Parliament repealed the Independence Order, it also repealed the Constitution since the Constitution was a part of the Order”.
      Though strong, this argument fails because it refrains from fully evaluating the relationship between the two laws.
      The constitutional authority in pre-Independence Barbados was the monarch’s “Orders-in-Council”. These Crown laws controlled all Government institutions, including the Governor, Parliament, “Cabinet” and Judicature.
      Consequently, the supreme political and legal authority in Barbados was the British Crown in her Westminster Parliament.
      When Westminster passed the Barbados Independence Act 1966,
      providing for the “fully responsible status of Barbados”, it declared that “on and after 30th
      November 1966 Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of Barbados”.
      Consequently, Queen Elizabeth II, on the advice of her Council and the command of her Lords & Commoners, issued the Barbados Independence Order 1966 with the Act termed a “Constitution Order”.
      This “Constitution Order” continued a process reaching back to the Battle of Jamestown, through the
      Charter Of Barbados 1652,
      where Westminster legally recognised Barbados’ self-ruling, partial independence. Thus, in 1966, Barbados transitioned from “independent colony” under the British Crown to “independent country” under its own “Crown in Right of Barbados”.
      Consequently, the Order empowered Barbados’ Parliament to amend said Order as it saw fit; and, further, “Provided that the Governor may…after 22nd November 1966…exercise any of the powers conferred upon the Governor General…necessity [sic] or expedient to enable the Constitution to function as from the appointed day”.
      Thus began a seven-day transferral of authority from the “Colonial Constitution” to the “Independent Constitution”. By November 29th, 1966, Westminster’s legal authority over Barbados was mostly transferred to Bridgetown except for its constitutional authority, which ended when the Constitution superseded the Orders-in-Council in its ascendance to supremacy on November 30th, 1966.
      Legal emancipation
      The Order provided, “Subject to the provisions of this Order, the Constitution shall come into effect on the appointed day [November 30th, 1966]” as a schedule to the Order.
      Commensurably, many believe that the Constitution’s life was bound to the Order’s life. This error can be explained through two distinct routes.
      The first is pure logic. Those arguing that the
      Constitution cannot repeal the Order without repealing itself fail to appreciate the “contrarian mode” so fundamental to legal science.
      Thus, they reason only using linear (chronological) thinking without employing dialectic (contrarian) thinking. In constitutional law, dialectics is the preferred method of enquiry since every provision is balanced against another in a near-perfect antagonistic union of “positive and negative liberty”.
      The Order, Section 4; states that: “Save where the context otherwise requires, expressions used in sections 1 to 12 of this Order have the same meaning as in the Constitution and the provisions of section 117 of the Constitution shall apply for the purposes of interpreting those sections as they apply for the purposes of interpreting those sections as they apply for the purposes of interpreting the Constitution”.
      The Order is numbered 1-12.
      Thus, the Order – though birthing the Constitution – provides that, on November 30th, 1966, the Constitution be emancipated from the Order; and the Order, in turn, being a colonial law saved within the new Independent laws of Barbados, shall be subsumed within them in a position necessarily inferior to the Constitution, given its newfound supremacy!
      The second route of “legislative drafting” explains the first. The Order uses special amendment provisions called Henry VIII clauses. These clauses enable subordinate government institutions to amend or repeal provisions of parent legislation without going back to Parliament, once they do not repeal parent legislation entirely or change its intent fundamentally.
      They are only used in extremely special circumstances!
      One may argue that the Order’s complete repeal breaks this “integrity and intent” rule.
      However, that argument fails for three “joint-and-severable” reasons.
      Firstly, the Order empowered Barbados’ colonial Parliament to amend the Order without Westminster. Secondly, the Order removed pre-Independent Bridgetown’s Parliament from Westminster control. Thirdly, the Order completed its intent to bring the Constitution into full force.
      By stating that “sections 1 to 12 of this Order have the same meaning as in the Constitution”, the Order explicitly divested itself, thus Westminster, of all control over the Constitution like “thrusters to rockets”. On Independence Day 1966, the Order’s effects died. Its repeal only disposed of the body. Summarily: Barbados has a Constitution.

      Dr William M. A. Chandler is a published political economist, legal scholar and business consultant.
      Email wma@auxomni.com.

      Source: Nation

The blogmaster dares you to join the discussion.