How Barbados Became a Republic (Part 1 of 3) – The Court Case
In a previous article (28 Feb 2025) I promised to publish my evidence-based witness account, for the benefit of future historians and journalists, to fill the gap in this current misinformation age. This is the first of three articles on how Barbados became a Republic. This first part describes the court case.
[Republic minus 65 days]. On 26th September 2021, the House of Assembly passed the Constitution Amendment No.2 Bill (2021) for Barbados to become a Republic on 30th November 2021. In my opinion, the Bill seemed to violate the Constitution of Barbados. During its passage, the Prime Minister acknowledged that there were differing legal opinions on the lawfulness of the Government’s actions and advised that Barbadians could argue their case in Court. Her words follow.
“You argue a case once, in court, and the truth is that the courts are always open to those who believe that there is a different and better way. But we are satisfied that we have chosen a way that accords not only with legal precedent, but also, Mr Speaker, with our interpretation of the law.”
The problem is that the Government neither explained the legal basis of the Bill nor their interpretation of the law.
[Republic minus 54 days]. The Constitution Amendment No.2 Bill (2021) was passed in the Senate on 6th October 2021 – without the legal basis being explained or their interpretation of the law being revealed. Therefore, the only option left for citizens to understand the legal basis for Barbados becoming a Republic was to reluctantly follow the Prime Minister’s advice. Since none of the approximately 1,000 lawyers in Barbados seemed interested enough, I petitioned the court on 7th October 2021 to urgently review whether the Government’s actions were lawful.
[Republic minus 49 days]. On 12th October 2021, two lawyers from the Attorney General office and I appeared virtually before The Hon. Mr. Justice Barry Carrington, where it was agreed that in order to start the process: (i) the Attorney General would respond to my application for judicial review on or before 26th October 2021, (ii) I would file Submissions on or before 26th October 2021, and (iii) the Attorney General would respond to my Submissions within 14 days of receiving them.
Given the urgency of the matter, I filed my Submissions on 17th October 2021. By 4th November 2021 the Attorney General had neither responded to my Claim nor Submissions, but the Government was proceeding with haste to change Barbados from a Constitutional Monarchy to a Republic on 30th November 2021.
[Republic minus 26 days]. On 4th November 2021 I filed notice of my intention to apply to the Court for an order of an interim injunction, preventing the Government from changing Barbados to a Republic until my Claim (Reference: CIV 0867/2021) was determined by the Court. I followed through by filing my injunction request on 11th November 2021. The Attorney General sent me his response the following day (17 days late).
[Republic minus 18 days]. On 12 November 2021, the Attorney General finally revealed how they justified making Barbados a Republic. I filed my Submissions in Response on 18th November 2021, addressing in detail each of the Attorney General’s arguments.
THE GOVERNMENT’S LEGAL JUSTIFICATION.
The Constitutional Head of State of Barbados was the Queen. The Government wanted to change the Head of State by changing the Constitution. Many relatively simple provisions in the Constitution can be passed with a simple majority (1 plus half the number) of Parliamentarians. However, there are some very important provisions that are called entrenched and require a 2/3rds majority vote.
Changing the Head of State in every known Constitution on this planet is an entrenched provision. In other Caribbean and Commonwealth Constitutions, it is an entrenched provision that may require a public referendum in addition to a 2/3rds majority vote in Parliament. In Barbados’ case, we seem to have negotiated a constitution that does not allow the removal of the Head of State by Parliament, not by 2/3rds or 3/3rds.
There were sacred oaths in our Constitution where our elected representatives, appointed senators and armed forces had to swear before God to be faithful to the Queen and her successors. People are normally released from their oaths by the one to whom they swore. The Constitution of Barbados did not give the Parliament of Barbados any authority to unilaterally force persons to break their sacred oaths, or to absolve people for breaking them. We could become a Republic, but it had to be negotiated with our Head of State.
INDEPENDENCE NEGOTIATION MEETINGS.
We may understand why a negotiation is needed by reading the negotiation minutes of our Independence meetings with the UK Secretary of State for the Colonies completed on 1st July 1966. There is a copy in the Reference section of the UWI Law Library and I was surprised at how few persons had signed it out over the past 50 years.
In attendance for the Democratic Labour Party were: E.W. Barrow, H.A. Vaughn, J .C. Tudor, P.M. Greaves, C.L. Brathwaite and F.W. Walcott with advisors O.R. Marshall, K.W. Patchett and J.A.J. Murray. The Barbados National Party were represented by: E.D. Mottley, F.C. Goddard and J.S.B. Dear with advisors E.R.L. Ward, L.A. Lynch and D.G. Leacock. The Barbados Labour Party were represented by: F.E. Miller and H.B. St John with advisors H. de B. Forde and J.M.G.M. Adams.
The minutes show the following pattern of behaviour for several provisions where there was no agreement. The opposition BLP and BNP would object to a constitutional provision, then they would be overruled and insist on their dissent being included in the minutes, which was done. However, for some provisions, it was not merely dissent, but the minutes state: “The Conference noted the strong objections of the Barbados National Party” and “The Barbados Labour Party expressed their strong objections”. The UK Secretary of State explained to the BLP and BNP that they could change certain provisions if they were elected to govern.
The Conference Report (4 July 1966) noted that when the Independence bill was being debated in Barbados’ parliament, the two Opposition parties, BLP and BNP, took no part in the debates. It appears that they decided to raise their objections in the UK instead. The inability of the BLP and BLP to reach consensus with the DLP on some important provisions, coupled with their strong objections, displayed disunity at this critical time, and a risk of political instability in an Independent Barbados. This risk appears to have been addressed by not allowing Barbados’ Parliament to unilaterally change the Head of State.
SHATTERING.
In the Attorney General’s submissions, the Attorney General agreed that the Constitution forbade them from changing the Head of State with a 2/3rds majority. To force this change, they decided that changing the Head of State was not an important and entrenched provision like in all other Commonwealth Constitutions, but a relatively minor matter that could be changed with a simple majority. The sacred oaths were similarly discounted. This seemed to require not bending, but shattering the Constitution of Barbados, thereby rendering the Bill entirely unlawful.
[Republic minus 6 days]. On 24th November 2021 (48 days after my initial claim), the Judge ruled that I had no grounds on which to petition the Court and ordered me to pay the Attorney General $5,000. The Attorney General objected that the sum was too low and asked the Judge to increase it to $10,000.
The Attorney General should provide the legal basis for all legislation as a matter of course. Since he did not, I went to court as advised by the Government to obtain information that should be freely available to the public. Next week, our Republic’s foundation.
The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.