ST. GEORGE’S, Grenada, Oct 21, CMC – Former attorney general, Cajeton Hood, Wednesday expressed disappointment that Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell had announced the date for the general election before the High Court ruling regarding the registration of voters.
Grenadians go to the polls on November 5 to elect a new government and Hood said that the High Court matter which he filed comes up for the first hearing on October 29.
“My disappointment is that there is not sufficient time between the 29th of October and the 5th of November to have these matters determined,” Hood told a news conference.
“I know the election process is in full swing. The matter will be heard for the first time on Thursday and I await to see what the court is going to rule on those matters. But I am of the firm view that the views or the position that has been put out by the current administration is not really in keeping with the laws of Grenada,” he said, adding “but we are going to see that.”
Earlier this month, The Office of the Attorney General said the High Court claim concerning the electoral process in Grenada was being “addressed appropriately” and that the claim “seeks to challenge certain aspects of the electoral process”.
It said it has retained and is instructing external counsel to give legal advice and representation to the defendants in the claim and that the team led by former attorney general Dr. Francis Alexis KC, also includes Ruggles Ferguson KC and Ian Sandy.
“This legal team is treating with these proceedings in the appropriate manner and is taking all necessary steps to represent the interests of the defendants and to assist the Court in the determination of the issues raised.”
Last month, Hood said he was asking the High Court to settle a growing controversy over the electoral rights of Grenadians living overseas, arguing that the courts should decide who qualifies to vote before Grenada goes to the polls.
Prime Minister Mitchell announced the November 5 date for the elections, almost a year before the constitutional deadline of October 2027.
Hood wants the High Court to interpret the provisions governing voter registration and determine who is entitled to be registered, who can remain on the voters’ list and for how long.
“I’m asking the court to interpret the provisions relating to the general elections,” Hood said, adding that he also wants the court to determine “who’s entitled to be registered, who’s entitled to remain on the list and for how long.”
At the center of the dispute is whether or not Grenadians residing overseas can participate in the election with Hood wanting the High Court to determine what the law requires rather than rely on competing political interpretations.
Prime Minister Mitchell, himself a lawyer, and the Supervisor of Elections have been named as defendants.
Meanwhile, Hood told reporters that he also has a matter before the High Court in its civil jurisdiction with respect to the oath of allegiance.
“The fact is that and that’s an irrefutable fact, Grenada is an independent nation and ….the head of state of Grenada is the king of the United Kingdom. And there is no way we can argue against that.
“The head of Grenada’s parliament is the king. Executive authority rests in his majesty, the King. So the fountain of executive authority, so to speak, resides in the King. We are in a monarchy and my understanding of oath of allegiance is that an oath of allegiance is due to the head of your country, not the head of government.
“There’s a difference between the head of state and the head of government. The head of state is the prime minister. The head of government of Grenada is the King,” he said noting that Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana have changed that arrangement, while Jamaica tried and failed.
Hood said before Grenadian legislators could have had an opportunity of discussing the issue “our prime minister went public and as far as I was concerned, demeaned the King and made statements to the effect that the King is not better than him or anybody else and you have to have your head examined if you swear an oath of allegiance to the king.
“I think it was very disrespectful. As a matter of fact, it is my considered view that the oath of allegiance has high significance. It is settled though that without taking and subscribing the oath of allegiance, you cannot sit in parliament, you cannot lawfully draw wages as a member of parliament or any other office thereafter.
“As a matter of fact, the constitution of Grenada at section 44 …makes it a criminal offence to sit in Parliament without subscribing to the oath of allegiance. So I have raised all of these matters before the court as to whether or not the current prime minister based on what he has said and what he has said is not under privilege.”
Hood said that a privileged situation is where “you can make certain statements and they cannot be challenged in a court of law.
“One such forum is in Parliament. There is a speech debate provision that covers debates in Parliament. So if the Honourable Prime Minister wanted to make those comments, he could have made them in Parliament during the debate regarding the bill and that could not have been challenged.
“So my challenge had to do with the forum of the statement, the content of the statement and the effect of that statement on the issue of whether or not he had taken and subscribed the oath of allegiance in the first case because the subscription in my view is a contractual arrangement.
“You are signing officially and you are saying to the Speaker of the House, I am committing myself to faithful and true allegiance to the King. So those matters are to be determined on the 29th of October also,” Hood told reporters.
CMC/lk/ir/2026