Is the diplomatic spat between the Governor and the Chief Minister all a smokescreen? And, if so, who is it designed to protect?
Just to recap. The Governor and the Chief Minister of Anguilla have been publishing press releases accusing each other of misbehaviour. The Governor went off first. He claimed on Thursday that the Chief Minister had instructed him to remove the portfolios of Health and Social Development from the Hon Edison Baird and transfer them to the Hon Jerome Roberts. He says that he refused to carry out the Chief Minister's instructions because in his view they amounted to a negation of democracy. He says he considers that would amount to two people, the Governor and Chief Minister, effectively overturning the will of the people as expressed just seven months previously. The Governor's view is that the people had elected four members of the AUM to form a Government, and three other members to form the Opposition. This is so obviously nonsense that we in Anguilla have all been casting about for another explanation.
The Chief Minister followed on Friday by issuing his own press release. He accused the Governor of not telling the truth. He said that the Governor had asked him to dismiss two of his Ministers, or to resign and call new elections. This is so obviously impossible for the Governor to have said that no right thinking person could believe it. There are only 5 members of the government in the Assembly and 4 of them are already ministers. There is no one else that the Chief Minister could have appointed to replace the dismissed Ministers. The likelihood is that in the midst of a quarrel the Governor had said to the Chief Minister that he could always resign, or words to that effect, and the Chief Minister had interpreted these words as a demand that he resign.
Someone pointed out that on Thursday and Friday the House of Assembly had passed a raft of new financial laws. These laws had not been previously gazetted, which is very unusual. They had not been previously shared with the members of the Opposition. No member of the public had been aware that these laws were about to be passed. They had been kept secret. One of these laws set up a new Department of Inland Revenue under a new Comptroller of Inland Revenue with drastic, even draconian, powers to penalise anyone who did not pay his taxes. The suspicion was raised that this spat with the Governor was designed to throw a smoke screen over the hurried passage of the Acts in the hope the public would be distracted.
Another person pointed out that JB Turbidy had in the previous few days been circulating a series of letters and emails. These emails accused the Chief Minister's administration of having agreed to the Starwood purchase of Viceroy on terms that were much to the disadvantage of Anguilla's revenue. This correspondence appeared in the Thursday issue of The Anguillian Newspaper. You can read it for yourself. Included in these emails were tables and graphs. They demonstrated how much more revenue Anguilla would have got from a sale to Mr Turbidy's group of investors as compared to the sale to Starwood. Mr Turbidy claimed that the Chief Minister had invited him to put in his bid, but had then refused to consider his application. He questioned the motives of those in the administration with whom he had been dealing. The suspicion was that the spat with the Governor was designed to distract the public from reading this correspondence and coming to a negative conclusion.
A more far-fetched explanation for the spat was that it was an FCO conspiracy. According to this theory, the conspiracy had been designed to sabotage the warm relationship that had been growing between the Chief Minister and the Minister for the Overseas Territories, Mr Henry Bellingham. They had met repeatedly both in private and in public on the Tuesday and the Wednesday before Mr Bellingham left to attend the General Assembly of the United Nations. The suggestion was that the FCO repressives and their legal advisers were worried. The more open minded Minister might be getting too friendly with the natives. It was necessary to set off a hand grenade to bring any more fraternising to an end.
A final and contradictory theory is that the spat was designed to throw a smoke screen over the rumoured censureship that the Social Security Board and the Ministers had come into from Minister Bellingham for the alleged misuse of Social Security funds. You will recall that the local administration had been borrowing monies from the trust funds of the Social Security Board to pay civil service salaries. This borrowing had been in breach of the agreed borrowing guidelines. The suggestion is that the spat served to block anyone from asking the obvious question: what was the reason for Mr Bellingham's surprise visit to Anguilla?
Who knows what the truth is?
As a corruption-hound you've got a good nose. I can tell you are holding your suspicions close to your chest.
ReplyDeleteLet others make the accusation so that you only have to report on them. You've taken enough heat already.
Let the politicians step in their own doo-doo until their own smell makes their perfidies obvious.
For your own protection, would it make any sense in your blog to preface your articles, or parts of them, with
"Report" and "Opinion"? My thinking is that your weaving between one and the other makes it easier for your attackers to attack you personally. Is there any sense in using qualifying phrases such as "a suspicious person might be tempted to believe that.." to protect you in case of further legal attacks against you?
Looking out for your better interests but not in a position to do much else.
If the law says the government is 4 ministers and the CM is trying to "de facto" make a 5th minister, then he is de facto breaking the law. If the Governor had said he was hesitant to do this, he would be making sense. As it is his press release is a bit peculiar.
ReplyDeleteIf the CM is passing laws without going through the usual procedure that lets the people and the opposition read the laws first, this is very bothersome.
Concerning the final MOU (Letter to the Editor by Mr. Turbidy)
ReplyDeleteAlluding to # 5, Viceroy is now selling the "cheaper" " residences , by explaining that, "Unfortunately, incident with our agreement with the Anguillian Government, this property MUST be in a rental pool 10 months out of the year." … "If you would prefer to have a 2-3 bedroom property for which you retain the option to NOT be in the rental pool, those larger living units with full kitchen start at about $2.3M, or beyond."
NOW the "first" purchasers (of the cheaper residences)) that signed a Purchase Agreement with KOR/VICEROY/BB can NO LONGER RE SELL the units with the "OPTION" of putting the unit(s) into the rental pool. Hmmmmm, was IMI misleading the purchasers as to the EXACT nature of the purchase?
Is it still a case of "sign on the line"? You will learn the "whole truth" later?
Are all dealings in this "Anguilla is open for Business" becoming a "game" of RISK ?
WHO CAN YOU TRUST IF YOU CANNOT TRUST YOUR ATTORNEY GENERAL?
ReplyDelete".....on Thursday and Friday the House of Assembly had passed a raft of new financial laws. These laws had not been previously gazetted, which is very unusual. They had not been previously shared with the members of the Opposition. No member of the public had been aware that these laws were about to be passed. They had been kept secret. One of these laws set up a new Department of Inland Revenue under a new Comptroller of Inland Revenue with drastic, even draconian, powers to penalise anyone who did not pay his taxes. The suspicion was raised that this spat with the Governor was designed to throw a smoke screen over the hurried passage of the Acts in the hope the public would be distracted."……
On the Saturday radio talk show called "The Mare Show" it was confirmed that the Attorney General assured the Speaker and the other members of the House of Assembly that the Inland Revenue Law was ONLY to put the Inland Revenue Department “on a proper legal footing” and that all the other laws were “consequential amendments.”
This is so obviously not true.
If you cannot trust your Attorney General, who can you trust?
COUP D'ETAT BY LEGISLATION?
ReplyDeleteMr. Mitchell,
Yesterday, 28th September, in the House of Assembly, the Attorney General tried to pilot through another set of Bills which no one has seen.
This time one of the members asked that they be postponed for proper vetting and consultation.
From what I hear some of them are unbelievable.
It seems as if the British are trying to get their appointed Attorney General to pass all the laws necessary to effect a "coup d'etat by legislation".