A Discussion Site for Good Governance and Corruption in Public Life Issues in the British Overseas Territory of Anguilla in the West Indies, moderated by Don Mitchell CBE QC, of PO Box 83, Anguilla, British West Indies. Email me with your comments and contributions at: idmitch@anguillanet.com.
The vast majority of the people of the TCI welcome the temporary suspension of their Constitution. The evidence is plain to be seen in the following video:
The demonstration appears to have been mounted to protest Minister Bellingham's announcement of the delay of the general elections and the restoration of a revised Constitution until after the investigation and prosecution process has advanced further.
The small number of the followers of the discredited politicians present at this “spontaneous” demonstration shows how few TC Islanders support the avaricious political aspirants of that unfortunate country.
The pre-printed signs and posters that the demonstrators are holding, put a lie to any suggestion that this was a spontaneous "human rights demonstration".
And, what is Michael Misick doing wearing a Cap Juluca hat from Anguilla?
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?
Henry Bellingham visits. The word I am hearing is that the British Minister stopped off in Turks and Caicos Islands and Anguilla for specific reasons.
We know why he visited TCI. It has been published. The elections set for July 2011 will be delayed to allow time for anti-corruption and good-government reforms to take effect in the islands. You can read about it by clicking here: http://tcijournal.com/index.php?idsub=3249&id=8
No reason for his visit to Anguilla has yet been suggested by any British or Anguillian official. However, I am informed that one of the first meetings that Mr Bellingham had was with the Social Security Board and the Executive Council.
We know that since the election in February of this year the Government of Anguilla has borrowed some $60 million from the Board to pay civil service salaries. We know that was contrary to the “borrowing guidelines” that are by agreement binding on the Anguilla Government.
We can expect that the FCO is not happy at this breach of the Guidelines.
Could this be the reason for Mr Bellingham's visit to Anguilla?
There are some other obvious gaps and deficiencies in the new draft Constitution proposed for Montserrat. It is to be regretted that no thought has been given in this draft Constitution to providing for a Freedom of Information Act. Without such a law, no one in Montserrat would have the right to obtain information that should be available to the public. Secret government, which is an enabler of corruption and bad government, is in this way encouraged.
It is to be regretted that an opportunity was not taken to entrench the Tenders Board in the Constitution. The greater part of the budget is spent on developing infrastructure, repairs and maintenance. Procurement of goods and services offers attractive opportunities for those who would corrupt the process and illegally enrich themselves. The Tenders Board ought to have the independence and security of tenure of its members protected by the Constitution and by appropriate laws and regulations, backed up by appropriate training for members of the Board.
Amendment of the Constitution. Section 114 of the draft provides that only the Premier, in very limited circumstances, may request an amendment of the Constitution. The FCO reserves unlimited right itself to amend the Constitution without any reference to the people or government of Montserrat. This is clearly highly undesirable. The Cayman Islands recently completed their constitutional negotiations and accepted a new Constitution. In the case of the Cayman Islands, the FCO accepted that it would never again amend their Constitution without first putting it to a referendum of the people. No person can suggest that there is a good reason why some lower standard of democracy should be enjoyed by Montserratians.
A Constitution is the supreme law of any people, subject, in the case of a BritishOverseasTerritory, to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. A Constitution that is imposed on a people by a foreign power lacks validity and respect.
In my view, it is the duty of every patriotic Montserratian to insist in the strongest possible terms for a right to comment on and criticise any terms in this draft Constitution that appear unacceptable to them.
Montserratians have a right to demand that the draft Constitution be put to them for their approval either by a referendum or by some other mechanism calculated to demonstrate their real approval and acceptance of the new Constitution. Only after this has been done would it be proper for the Governor to pass the draft to the Privy Council for enactment by an Order in Council.
The British Government has frequently promised that it expects no less than evidence that the people of an OverseasTerritory have expressed their support for any amendment to a Constitution.
There is no reason why Montserrat should be given a second-class Constitution.
The proposed new draft Constitution for Montserrat is filled with anti-democratic provisions. These include:
(a) The Deputy Governor will be able to act in relation to the public service without being obliged to take the advice of the Public Service Commission. Except in the case of the most senior ranks, this is clearly undesirable;
(b) The Attorney-General, the Financial Secretary and the Deputy-Governor are not elected. As in other OverseasTerritories with modern colonial Constitutions, they should have no vote in either the Cabinet or the Legislative Assembly;
(c) The need for a Director of Public Prosecutions has clearly been recognised by the section 45 provision enabling his appointment. It appears from the wording of the section that the intention is to have the Attorney-General continue to act in that position for an indeterminate period into the future. The draft should be amended to establish the office and to require the appointment to be made;
(d) A Magistrate in Montserrat has considerable power, and can impose fines of up to $100,000.00 and prison sentences of up to 10 years. As Montserrat does not have a High Court judge, the Magistrate plays an enhanced role. He or she routinely hears cases that would normally be tried by a judge and jury. The section 84 appointment of the island’s Magistrate is by the Governor after consultation with the Chief Justice. This is unacceptable in a modern democracy. It does not insulate the Magistrate from the Executive as should be the case. For a Magistrate to do a proper job in Montserrat he or she needs to be shielded from influence and pressure from both the Ministers and the Governor. Additionally, there is a well-known current regional initiative to integrate the Magistracy into the judiciary. The provision in the draft should be that the appointment and discipline of the Magistrate is by the Governor acting on the advice of the regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission, of which the Chief Justice is the head;
(e) The thought that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Magistrate can be removed from office by the Governor and the Secretary of State is a frightening one. These are both judicial officers. The rule of law demands that both their appointment and removal be out of the hands of the Executive and be either by, or on the recommendation of, the regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission;
(f) Currently, the police police themselves. Complaints about police misconduct made to the Commisioner of Police and the Governor are notoriously not investigated impartially. Such complaints invariable attract hostile responses from the police. The absence of any provision in the draft for a Police Complaints Board is regrettable. Such a Board is a vital tool for controlling police misconduct. Such a Board will effect greater transparency and justice for all. There is no reason why Montserrat should have a lower standard of governance in this respect than Bermuda or Britain itself; and
(g) The FCO proposes through this draft Constitution to retain draconian and unrestrained powers to legislate for Montserrat over the heads of the Legislative Council. The new Constitution will preserve (i) the power to enact laws through the UK Parliament; (ii) the use of the Order in Council without prior consultation; (iii) the section 73 power of the Governor to refuse his assent to a Bill that has passed through the Legislative Council without any limitation; and (iv) the section 75 power of disallowance, though this section does require the Secretary of State to refer the offending law back to the Legislature.
These provisions do not increase democracy in Montserrat. They reduce what little amounts of justice and democracy Montserratians presently enjoy under threat of renewed volcanic activity. As such, they amount to a step backwards in constitutional advance, and are a shame on the constitutional advisers who dreamed them up.
There are other objectionable provisions in the draft Constitution that are familiar to us in Anguilla. The section 51 restriction on Montserratians who have travelled, and been so lucky and enterprising as to have acquired a second passport, from being able to be nominated and elected to the Legislature is most objectionable. It repeats the provision in the old Constitution. One would have thought that preparing a brand new Constitution would have been the opportunity to remove such an anachronism. It should form no part of a modern Overseas Territory Constitution.
Section 81 and the following sections set up a Public Service Commission, but it is a powerless institution. It has the right to consult only on public service appointments and on matters of discipline.
No FCO-appointed Governor or his deputy should have total power over the appointment and discipline of public servants in a BritishOverseasTerritory. He should be obliged to follow the advice of a PSC, except, perhaps, for the highest ranks, where consultation with the Chief Minister might be appropriate. Similarly for teachers and the police force.
I note that section 84 expresses a hope that one day a Public Service Act might one day be passed that will oblige the Governor to act on the advice of the PSC. Such a hope is not good enough. The Constitution should require it to be done.
It is accepted that Montserratians live in a country under threat by volcanic eruptions as well as hurricanes. States of emergency may have to be declared from time to time. The traditional constitutional provisions are well known, and have been tested in the courts. There is no need to weaken the rights of the average Montserratian only because there is a risk of more natural disasters striking.
The draft Constitution would have the section 18 provision for protection of persons detained under emergency laws significantly curtail the rights of the detained person.
There is no good reason why the family and the public should wait 10 days to be notified of the identities of persons detained. It should be no more than 3 days.
Nor is there any reason why persons should be able to be detained for up to 30 days without an appearance before the court. This should be no more than 5 days.
Nor is there any need for any other tribunal but the established courts of the island. Except in a police state, the courts are the most reliable protector of the rights and freedoms of the citizen.
The evil does not stop there. The draft states that if an independent tribunal recommends that a detainee be released, the authority that locked them up in the first place can ignore the Tribunal’s recommendation. This provision would mean that the authority could ignore a decision of someone such as a judge appointed by the Chief Justice to preside over the tribunal. This should be a frightening prospect.
This new provision vests draconian and dictatorial powers in the hands of the Governor and the police. It is completely unacceptable in a modern Constitution of a BritishOverseasTerritory in the West Indies.
The section 17 provision in the draft Constitution for declaring periods of public emergency is anti-democratic in that the Governor alone decides. The section should provide as in the British Virgin Islands that he acts in declaring a state of emergency on the advice of Cabinet unless otherwise instructed by the Secretary of State.
That is not all. There is a further whittling away of the rights of Montserratians in the section. The traditional test for restricting the rights and freedoms of the individual is generally expressed as having to be “reasonably justifiable in a democratic society”. However, in relation to the Governor’s emergency powers, the standard would be set considerably lower in the draft Constitution. The new test would be “reasonably justifiable for dealing with the situation that exists.”
The alteration of the test for justifying a declaration of a state of emergency is undesirable, particularly as that provision has been judicially reviewed in Montserrat. One may infer that the reason for the watering down of the test is that it is designed to enable the Governor to act in a heavy-handed way in the future without his being accountable to the Courts.
Such a deplorable development in a proposed Constitution for a BritishOverseasTerritory is much to be regretted.
In my view it is shameful what the FCO are doing to the Montserratian people: We are going to spend the next couple of posts looking at the new draft Constitution 2010 that the FCO is proposing to implement for Montserrat.
I have come to the conclusion that the draft is bereft of any sign of an interest in good governance on the part of the FCO. It is devoid of any of the principles of integrity, accountability or transparency, as I shall attempt to show. These principles are routinely touted by the same FCO as the three pillars of good governance. The draft Constitution of Montserrat has missed the opportunity to contribute to this movement.
The concentrating of power in the Governor’s hands, as proposed by this draft Constitution, tends towards arbitrary, one-man rule. It may be true that a good governor is better than a bad local Cabinet. We cannot be confident that our Governors will always be good. Experience, especially in the case of Montserrat, teaches otherwise.
A new Constitution should rather be trying to develop local democratic institutions that will involve the people in their own governance. It is preferable that the Constitution should encourage responsible government in the OverseasTerritory, rather than destroying it. Responsible government is a better guarantee of democracy, justice, and fairness in government than one-man rule. The draft Constitution provides for absolute power to be concentrated in one person, subject only to the oversight of the Secretary of State far away in London.
In this respect the draft Constitution increases the deficit of democracy in Montserrat.
Montserrat is being offered a new, ante-deluvian Constitution. Last week I visited Montserrat at the invitation of the Hon Donaldson Romeo MLC to consult with him and members of the public on the new draft Constitution 2010. This has been drafted by a team of Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) lawyers, and agreed to by the government of the island. They propose that the Legislative Council should pass a Resolution approving the draft with or without amendment. The present Constitution dates to the year 1989. My conclusion is that the new draft Constitution does not advance government in Montserrat. Rather, it sets Montserratians back decades, particularly in the area of human rights.
During the three days that I was in Montserrat, I met with one youth group, two service clubs, the Rastafarian organization, one church group, and various individuals, including a number of the island’s barristers and solicitors. I also took part in a television interview, a radio call-in programme, and interviews by various members of the press. I am especially grateful to Jean Kelsick Esq, barrister and solicitor of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, for some of his observations on weaknesses in the draft Constitution, some of which I have been happy to adopt.
Montserrat is one of the few BritishOverseasTerritories still receiving financial support from the British Government. The receipt of grant-in-aid, I was told by several Montserratians, makes it difficult for them to believe that their views on the draft constitution will be welcomed. Many believe that the draft Constitution is being offered to them on a “take it or leave” basis. This unfortunate, and wrong, view of theirs is reinforced by recent actions of the local Government.
Government has made a concerted effort to rush the draft Constitution through the Legislature without any public consultation. Only reluctantly did the government suspend its efforts to have an approving resolution passed. The public has been given three months to ‘consult’. The resulting consultation process has been deeply flawed. It would appear that no effort is being made to gather any input from the people of Montserrat regarding the draft Constitution.
The government has established a Constitution Implementation and Advice Committee whose main function appears to be to sell the draft to the public, rather than to get suggestions for improvement of the draft. This is no way to secure the approval and support of the majority of the people to the proposed new Constitution.
The process chosen for the introduction of a new Constitution shows an attitude of pure contempt on the part of the administration towards the people of Montserrat.
Have you had a look at Kate Sullivan's Initial Recommendations for Changes to the Constitutional and Electoral Arrangements in the Turks & Caicos Islands? I have, and I have sent the Editors of the TCI Journal my preliminary views. It might be as well to re-publish them here, with such amendments as seem appropriate for Anguilla. We do not know when similar proposals will be put forward for us. It appears to me that unless I am very mistaken that will not be long in coming. Constitutional and electoral reform in Anguilla is long overdue. These then are some of my preliminary views:
[1] The FCO has now published Ms Sullivan's initial recommendations for constitutional and electoral reform for TCI as a discussion paper. I have reservations about some of her Recommendations that I would like to express. She starts off her Recommendations by giving the following useful background:
Background to this review
1. In 2008 an independent Commission of Inquiry was set up to look into possible corruption or other serious dishonesty by elected members of the TCI legislature. The final report made over 60 recommendations covering systemic weaknesses; criminal sanctions; civil recovery; integrity in public life and the management of Crown Land. Some of the Commission’s recommendations focused on deterring or preventing corruption and other serious dishonesty while others looked at the broader constitutional and statutory framework of government.
2. In August 2009, United Kingdom (UK) Government Ministers instructed the Governor of TCI to bring into force an Order in Council suspending ministerial government and the House of Assembly. The UK Government also announced that during the period of suspension a review of the 2006 Constitution would be undertaken, as had been suggested in several of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations.
[2] The relationship between Britain and the Overseas Territories is governed by a 1999 social contract. This contract is titled Partnership for Progress and Prosperity. It is an FCO Report and it commences with a foreword by Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook. He sets out the three principles that underlie the partnership between Britain and the Overseas Territories. He describes them as follows:
n First, our partnership must be founded on self-determination. Our Overseas Territories are British for as long as they wish to remain British. Britain has willingly granted independence where it has been requested; and we will continue to do so where this is an option. It says a lot about the strength of our partnership that all the Overseas Territories want the constitutional link to continue. And Britain remains committed to those territories which choose to retain the British connection.
n Second, the partnership creates responsibilities on both sides. Britain is pledged to defend the Overseas Territories, to encourage their sustainable development and to look after their interests internationally. In return, Britain has the right to expect the highest standards of probity, law and order, good government and observance of Britain’s international commitments.
n Third, the people of the Overseas Territories must exercise the greatest possible control over their own lives. We are proud that our Overseas Territories are beacons of democracy. We applaud their achievements, and want them to have the autonomy they need to continue to flourish.
[3] The Foreign Secretary gave us to understand that the three underlying principles of our partnership are “self-determination”, “responsibilities”, and “the greatest possible control” over our own lives. It is mutually agreed that we the Overseas Territories have a fundamental right to self-determination and control over our own lives while accepting our responsibilities for good governance.
[4] The next major statement on the constitutional principles that underlie the relationship between Britain and the Overseas Territories occurred in the year 2006. At the annual Overseas Territories and Countries conference the FCO issued a White Paper on Good Governance. The first paragraph of this white paper explained what we mean by good governance:
1. Although it is a phrase that has gained currency in recent years, the concept of governance has been with us as long as there have been systems within societies which determine the process of decision making; and the process by which decisions are, or are not, implemented. Good governance is simply doing this well.
In ten short paragraphs the white paper sought to set out some of the issues we should look for in good governance. It highlighted the need for the rule of law, transparency, accountability, the responsiveness of institutions, and effectiveness and efficiency in securing good governance.
[5] The reader takes away from this white paper the idea that good governance means doing the processes of decision making and implementation well. That notion expressed in 2006 was an underlining and a reinforcement of the need for the rule of law, transparency, accountability and the rest of the principles set out in the 1999 Report.
Well, I have received a reply to my Freedom of Information Act request. It reveals that there is no letter of authorisation for the Government of Anguilla to borrow funds from the Social Security Board. All the borrowing from the Social Security Fund has been unauthorised. Unauthorised borrowings to this date amount to some EC$43 million. At this rate the Fund will be depleted, I estimate, in two years time.
This is the correspondence I have received:
This is the attachment referred to:
I have to tell you that I am grateful for what I consider to be a prompt and complete response to my request.
Anguilla in the overseas press. When I first read the article on Anguilla in All Voices I was concerned. How could a newspaper publish such rubbish about UK "oppression" of Anguilla? This is an extract:
“Anguilla has been nervously managing United Kingdom's threats to take governance of the country. Anguilla, a self governing and autonomous island country in the Caribbean, is also an UK territory with an installed UK governor overseeing "proper governance".
Just prior to the General Elections in the UK, Chris Bryant, the Foreign Affairs Minister at that time, had not only made threats against Anguilla but decisively and unilaterally rejected Anguilla's proposed budgets and refused to review amended budgets. This had many local government officials worried about UK's agenda there and saw this act as a sign that the UK was not willing to allow the Anguilla government to continue.
When speaking of Anguilla, the UK officials compare Anguilla to the Turks and Caicos. Recall that the UK invaded Turks and Caicos last August 2009 for what the UK called corruption concerns. However, nearly a year later, the UK has been unable to prove any local corruption and has pieced together a circumstantial case by using uncorroborated testimony by a dubious local opposition party …’ etc
I asked around about the paper and the author of the article. I am not worried any longer. A correspondent wrote me:
AllVoices is a blog, disguised in the form of an online newspaper,
where anyone can post any lies or rubbish. Chris Burke is a
fictitious person who is an apologist for the Misick criminal
conspiracy.
I then Googled the four words Chris Burke journalist Turks and got enough to satisfy me that the characterisation of both is accurate. The blog is unmoderated. The author is reputedly a fanatical supporter of Misick masquerading as an English journalist residing in TCI. She first started writing under this pseudonym in January of this year.
To: Foreign and Commonwealth Office Subject: Freedom of Information request - Borrowing guidelines for the Anguilla Government
Dear Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
I should be grateful to know if you are aware that the Anguilla government has been borrowing upwards of EC$10 million a month from the local Social Security Fund to pay public service salaries since February 2010. The Fund holds approximately EC$160 million, and stands to be depleted in less than one and a half years.
I should also be grateful to know if such borrowing has been approved as being within the borrowing guidelines.
Finally, I should be grateful to receive a copy of any letter from the FCO to the Anguilla government approving such borrowing.
Thank you for your Freedom of Information request. It has been assigned a unique reference number (above) and has been passed to the relevant section within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to deal with. They will be in touch with you should your request need clarification.
We received your request on 29 June 2010 and will aim to respond within 20 working days.
We take a break from considering fundamental rights and the right to life. Something urgent has come up that I need to consider. Mike Gapes MP (photo left) and his Foreign Affairs Committee have just put out another report affecting us in the British Overseas Territories. After having read it, I am concerned. It would appear that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is refusing to accept responsibility for the decline of good government in the Turks and Caicos Islands. They are holding up reform by refusing to fund the necessary prosecutions. The inevitable result, I fear, will be the British Government’s international embarrassment.
The FAC is about to be dissolved as Britain heads into general elections. There will be a new Committee from about May 7. Before being dissolved, the FAC has done us the favour of producing this Report. It analyses and summarises where the Interim Government of the TCI is in investigating and prosecuting the crimes of the previous government and in putting in place mechanisms that will ensure that such a state of affairs as we have seen over the past 5 years does not easily happen again.
The Report is not very long (read it here). I urge you to read it for yourself. The appendices, titled “Written Evidence”, provide startling new information to the effect that the FCO has not understood the extent to which it is responsible for the decline in governmental standards in our Territories. The gnomes of Whitehall appear to have taken the view that it is the responsibility of Territories such as TCI and Anguilla to fund their own investigations, prosecutions, and reforms. All those experts presenting evidence to the FAC, except those coming from within the FCO, were unanimously of a different view. It is the responsibility of the British Government to produce the necessary funds. If this is not done, the inevitable outcome of reductions in public service salaries and the laying off of surplus workers will be that the public will view the reforms as having come at the expense of income and jobs of the locals. The risk is that the reforms will be rejected as having cost too much. That is in addition to the point that the island budgets could never raise the necessary funds.
As Special Prosecutor Helen Garlick reported, the budget for her prosecutorial team to the end of next year is ₤6.8 million. At 4 to 1, that would be EC$27.2 million. That is just the beginning, as the figure does not include the cost of any actual prosecutions. We can assume that figure will double and triple once prosecutions begin. This is an enormous cost for a small-island territory to bear.
Helen Garlick, Special Prosecutor, TCI
As the old maxim has it, a stitch in time saves nine. If the FCO had only done its oversight job properly in the first place, this expense would not have had to be incurred.
Paragraph 14 is relevant to us in Anguilla. It reads:
14. Although this Report deals specifically with issues relating to TCI, a number of concerns have been brought to our attention in relation to allegations of corruption and poor governance in other OverseasTerritories—for example, in Anguilla. We recommend that the Government should supply us with a memorandum setting out in detail what support is provided by the UK Government to each of the individual Territory governments to assist them in tackling corruption and maintaining standards of good governance. In the event that it is not possible to supply this information to us before the dissolution of the present Parliament, we recommend that the Government should make it available to our successor Committee in the next Parliament when it begins its work.
Those three sentences raise a spark of hope in our breasts that someone in Westminster understands the needs of these OverseasTerritories for reform in our system of governance. Whether the FCO will live up to its responsibilities is another matter. Only time will tell, bearing in mind that the likelihood is that there will be a new government in place in the UK in a few short weeks. New policies will surely sweep away the old ones.
We have got to keep our focus on the need to reform our Constitution to put in place an entirely new regime of checks and balances designed to ensure that the risk of political and administrative abuse is minimised.
Anguillians have to be concerned that under any new UK government the FCO will continue to refuse to fund good governance programmes in the OverseasTerritories and will wash their hands of us at the end of the day, leaving us to become yet another failed Caribbean banana-republic state.
