The Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers, before leaving the island last Friday for a number of milestone family events in the United States, delivered an Anguilla United Front (AUF) Press Statement setting out the Party’s position on what has become known around Anguilla as the “Dolphin Issue”. “The Dolphin Issue” is another one in a series of “cloudy matters” which the Chief Minister seems to be using to rationalize his battle with the Governor and justify his call for Independence. The matters before this latest stage show were the “one-stop shop for identity services” and, a little earlier, the “staffing at the Attorney General’s Office”. None of these two earlier issues have risen to the level of a national crisis — because, on further scrutiny, the concerns expressed by the Chief Minister appear to be totally unfounded. In a meeting with the Anguilla Christian Council (ACC), the Evangelical Association (EA) and the Parliamentary Opposition, he seemed unable to present any credible basis for his views. Following that meeting, the Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers, organized a similar meeting with the ACC, the EA and the Governor to get a clearer picture of those issues. It is my understanding that those present found those discussions very instructive. Many of them expressed the view that there seemed to be “much ado about nothing”.
It is has also been reported to me that the energy for a march on the Governor’s Office had just about dissipated when the Chief Minister took to the streets last week riling up his supporters and others with the story that the Governor had closed down the Dolphinarium in Blowing Point. The matter with the “one-stop shop” was already “put on hold” by a simple decision by Executive Council to defer its implementation. And the matter with staffing at the Attorney General’s Chambers was apparently not an issue in the first place. It only goes to show that the Chief Minister is prepared to create a public alarm even before considering his options within the context of his constitutional authority and with sheer contempt for the truth and the facts.
But what really concerns me is the readiness of the Anguilla United Movement (AUM) diehards, talking heads and loudmouths, to go into an offensive mode without acquainting themselves with the facts. Before the Chief Minister can fully articulate his latest conspiracy they are all ready to march to Old Ta. Then throughout the evening, on the AUM talk shows, “the usual callers” are in a fierce competition to determine who can say the rudest, the most outrageous, and unkind things possible. In light of this conduct it seems clear that the AUM game plan for the rest of its term is to “run the country from the streets”. Never in the history of Anguillian politics has an elected Government held more demonstrations, literally, against itself. Because as was pointed out in the AUF Press Statement: “what happened is a clear indication that a fractured Government cannot deliver representative leadership to the people of Anguilla”.
The reports on the March to Old Ta on Tuesday (June 18) are inconsistent but one thing is clear : it did not live up to expectations. I was definitely among those persons who had better things to do on the first working day of the week. It was not on account of any lack of concern for the proposed closure of the Dolphinarium but mainly because it is clearly neither the fault of – nor a matter for the Governor. It is definitely a matter for the elected Government. I read that rather disjunctive correspondence dated June 13th from the Hon. Evans Gumbs, the Acting Chief Minister, which seems to blame the Governor and the Attorney General for what occurred. And while in my entire experience of almost twenty years in Executive Council, I have never encountered a situation where a Governor has exercised a “casting vote” on a matter before Executive Council. That situation never came into question because we were elected and acted as a united Government.
The fact is the Executive Council (EXCO) is not the House of Assembly. All the elected members in EXCO are of the same political persuasion and the Chief Minister’s claim to his position is on the basis of Section 24 (1) of the Anguilla Constitution which states as follows: “The Governor acting in his discretion shall appoint as Chief Minister the elected member of the Assembly who, in his judgment, is likely to command the support of the majority of the elected members of the Assembly”. It is therefore an aspect of the management of Executive Council, and enshrined in the Constitution, that an effective Chief Minister ought to command the support of his Ministers. If he is unable to do so his authority in EXCO may be compromised. The problem which the Government now faces has absolutely nothing to do with the fact the Governor exercised the “casting vote” (which I will return to later) but with the fact that the Chief Minister was unable to rally his Ministers to support a project which he “claims” to consider a matter of national importance. It is immaterial whether it is one, two or three Ministers.
As I investigated this matter of a “casting vote” in EXCO I was told that the appeal in question was not strictly being dealt with by EXCO. But rather that EXCO transforms itself into an Appellate Body, established under the Beach Ordinance, to deal with such appeals against the usage of beach resources. In line with that process I was further informed that matters brought before this body are adjudicated on the basis of a voting process in which, in the event of a tie, the Governor has the “casting vote” to break that tie. To my mind even if this is the case (and I have no reason to doubt the credibility of my sources), it is EXCO members who decide which matters are brought before them and when. So if the Chief Minister was “on top of his game”, and he realized that he was not in control of his Ministers on this issue, he then had the option to defer the matter until he discussed it further with his colleagues. If in the end he could not persuade his colleagues to support his point of view then he cannot reasonably blame anyone else for his dilemma. To put it bluntly, if he cannot command the support of his own colleagues how can he expect to convince the Governor to do so?
And since the Governor was a voter in this exercise like everyone else, why is a group of obviously “ill-informed citizens” marching up to the Governor to get that decision overturned? It was not the Governor’s decision — it is the decision of the Appelate Body. Any action to be taken in this matter is therefore more appropriately dealt with by EXCO which comprises all the Ministers. Even the Acting Chief Minister, after sitting in Office for almost three and a half years, has finally come to the realization, by his own admission in his letter of June 13, that the Governor “does not have a vote in EXCO”. Dare I say better late than never! But can you imagine the amount of misinformation that has been fed to the AUM cohorts through the vacuous rhetoric of the Chief Minister simply to fuel his own conspiracy theories?
Another ridiculous situation is that the Acting Chief Minister is also complaining that the Governor and the Attorney General asked him to recuse himself from the voting process. The argument that he made in his letter seems to suggest that the only forum on which the AUM Ministers stage forceful resistance is outside of EXCO. He seems to have too readily accepted the admonition that he should recuse himself and now at this eleventh hour is speaking of unfairness. These protests should have been strongly articulated in EXCO not on the Talk Shows. The Chief Minister does not need to cry “foul” after play is called — he must stay awake and do so during the game. His entire handling of most of these matters constitutes confusion politics and unnecessary public upheaval. As I said earlier this is obviously a part of the AUM governance plan for the next 19 months.
And what can I say about the Hon. Edison Baird’s stand on this issue? I am now noticing that a considerable amount of criticism is being cast in his direction. Many of the AUM loudmouths are actively seeking his dismissal as a Minister based on his support of the Appeal. While I cannot confirm the reasons for his opposition to his colleagues on this issue — closer examination may suggest that it was the AUM Party which shifted its position rather than Minister Baird. His present position seems consistent with that which the party had during the campaign. The AUM platform came out strongly against the Dolphinarium in Blowing Point. Activists against the project spoke freely and openly on their platforms. My questions therefore are: “Is the Chief Minister really in favour of the Dolphinarium or is this just another scheme to consolidate his support among the stakeholders in his constituency?” Is he doing this to achieve what he wants without taking the blame? Why did the demonstrators not wait just another day for the Chief Minister’s return so that he could join them in their march? Will he respond to their boisterous cries: “You got to get rid of Eddie??”
