Section 7 of the Constitution protects our fundamental right not to be deprived of our property. It says that no interest in or right over any property of any description shall be compulsorily acquired except under a law which prescribes how you are to be compensated. The Commission in its Report of 25 August recommended that the section be amended to provide that the compensation is required to be paid in cash. The problem that was being 
addressed is that the Constitution says that your property can only be taken away from you under the provisions of a law that prescribes how you are to be compensated. But, it does not say that you have to be compensated in cash. There have been times, in other parts of the Commonwealth, when governments have tried to compensate landowners by giving them bonds redeemable in 20 years. Others have tried to force alternative land on you. Courts have tended to hold that “compensation” means compensation in cash or its equivalent.
Members of the House of 
Assembly discussed this recommendation. It was the second time that they came up with a variation on the recommendations made by the Commission. They suggested another word. They took the view that “cash” was too restrictive. A wire transfer is not cash. A bank draft is not cash. A bank manager’s cheque is not cash. But, these are all as good as cash. They thought that the word “money” was a better word than “cash”. They came up with this suggestion in order to make the recommendation of the Commission more effective, more workable.
I do not have a problem with that. I am happy to accept their alternative suggestion.
It would seem that both the commission and the members of the house of assembly are "on the same page". They are both striving to choose language which specifies that the form of payment be immediately liquid.
ReplyDeleteHubert revealed on KOOL-FM this morning that this whole constitutional exercise is a fraud. The new constitution was a British idea. This proves, he says, that our new constitution has already been written by the "racist boys" in the Foreign Office (which he knows as well as he knows the Secretariat) and "has been passed down." He was careful not to say who their agent here is, who they passed the new consititution down to, but it could only be Justice Mitchell.
ReplyDeleteHe stated that "lawyer Mitchell has been going a good job. "So far," he stressed. He seemed to be confirming what Teacher George has been saying for two years - that Justice Mitchell is being used by the British to bring Anguilla to destruction.
The man will do anything to incite the race hatred of the most ignorant among the voters. I expect to hear soon how the Mitchells are part of the plantocracy and the evil Carty Dynasty.
"I have all the answers," said Hubert.
"Anybody who doesn't appreciate what I did, God will rain a curse upon them."
ReplyDelete--Hubert Hughes, 21/9/02