Submitted by nineofnine

……… do swear that I will be faithful and bare true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth 2, Her Heirs and Successors, according to law, so help me GOD.

I ……… being appointed Minister do swear that I will, to the best of my judgement, at all times, when so required, freely give my counsel and advice to the Governor General, or any other person for the time being, lawfully performing the functions of that office for the good management of the public affairs of Barbados and I do further swear, that I will not, on any account, at any time whatsoever, disclose the counsel, advice, opinion or vote of any particular Minister or Parliamentary Secretary, and that I will not, except with the authority of the Cabinet and to such extent as may be required, for the good management of the affairs of Barbados, directly or indirectly reveal the business or proceedings of the Cabinet, or nature or contents of any documents communicated to me as Minister or any matter coming to my knowledge in my capacity as such and that in all things, I will be a true and faithful Minister, so help me GOD.

As I sat, listened and observed the duly elected members of the newly appointed Government taking their OATHS OF OFFICE, it dawned on me a peculiarity of the oath’s content.

Three declarations were made by each member, the first, declaring allegiance, repeated twice and the third, pertaining to Ministerial Office.

As a citizen of Barbados and to my knowledge, INDEPENDENCE was declared in 1966 when the Union Jack was lowered and the National Flag of Barbados was raised as well as the official signing of Documents.

Having said that, it is of great concern and which requires an explanation to understand why, in the swearing in of duly elected members of the Cabinet, swear allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and not to the Constitution of Barbados, after 50 years of Independence.

In the recently held elections (2018), concern and grievance was raised when Commonwealth citizens were being denied by the Electoral and Boundaries Commission (EBC) to vote. The EBC stood ground. The case traversed the Law courts and eventually docked at the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) which made a final judgement in favor of the Commonwealth citizens under threat to the EBC.

The Questions are…

-Why did the EBC stood ground?
-Was it a question of legality to vote?
-Is entitlement to vote, clearly defined in the regulations governing the EBC?
-Why did the CCJ upheld the legality of the Commonwealth Citizens’ right to vote?
-Did they base their judgement on the written Constitution?
-Should the Constitution be amended to favor Sovereignty?
-Are definitions conflicting?

Suffice to say, these events should have raised some strong concerns or point to Principle Considerations. It speaks to positions, that is, of the roll of the British Monarchy vs the Sovereignty of a Nations’ Independence. Is it unclear at this juncture? Should ANY lines be drawn?

We are aware that those territories still under the Union Jack are entitled to DUAL citizenship as well as a VOTE within the Commonwealth as long as they have met the requirements to vote as a CITIZEN…. BUT when a TERRITORY renounces the Commonwealth, the Sovereignty of the Nations’ Constitution becomes the adjutant of itself.

If the Constitution stills reflects the component of British subjection and omits Sovereign rights, then a civil discourse of minds must engage this rather peculiar situation to make clear the definitive principle.