The entire island was in a state of shock last week Friday as reports filtered through the early morning hours about the tragic death of two young men as a result of a car accident. These deceased youngsters, Esterlin Connor Jr. of Blowing Point and Marlon Harrigan of East End, were obviously enjoying a growing pastime of youth in Anguilla and the wider region, namely, drag car racing. Sadly their lives were snatched away in the very prime of their youth. Like every other sport, drag car racing has its share of tragic incidents, many of which have served to encourage the development of safer equipment and facilities for enthusiasts of the sport all over the world. Such measures may be too late for Esterlin and Marlon who we now mourn. However, since we know that the sport will live on we should reverence their passing as an inspiration to make it safer. In this way their memory will always be associated with the positives changes in this youthful pastime. Let me use this opportunity to extend my sincere condolences to the parents; family; relatives and friends of these two wonderful young men — of whom I have heard nothing but good things. May their souls rest in peace!
Speaking of pastimes, it would seem that beating up on me has once again become the preferred sport for a number of AUM political operatives and their allies. It began with a reference by Mr. Sutcliffe Hodge to the concept of “conflict of interest” in a speech that was obviously formulated as a reaction to my statement regarding his 100,000 shareholdings in ANGLEC. Ironically, I was only intending to commend Mr. Hodge and others (who I also mentioned by name) for their demonstration of patriotism by investing so heavily in Anguilla’s development. Surprisingly, Mr. Hodge took it personally and used this as a launching pad for a lesson on “conflict of interest” in which I was “the case study”.
Mr. Hodge later took his exposition to the “Get to the Point” Talk Show with Elkin Richardson and to “Anguilla Talk” with Keithstone Greaves. It was at that point that the Chief Minister; the Parliamentary Secretary; and the newly appointed Special Advisor (Patrick “Sherriff” Hanley) joined the stampede and went at the concept of “conflict of interest” like “sharks in a feeding frenzy”. On the Thursday night Radio Talk Show I listened in amazement, as the main Host, Mrs. Josephine Gumbs-Connor, upon joining the “herd”, seemed as if she wanted to make sure that the lawyer-client relationship was in some way exempt from any consideration of the presence of conflict of interest.
Mr. Hodge presented the Wikipedia definition of the concept which states: “ a conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest”. I prefer the more general definition also in Wikipedia which states: “conflicts of interests can be defined as any situation in which an individual or a corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit”. In plain English, this all means that a conflict of interest situation is when you are in a position to use your office or position for personal gain. What must be clarified though, and which the “conflict of interest stampede” has not clearly explained, is that being in a conflict of interest situation is not a “wrong.” It is the execution of an impropriety as a result of those circumstances that is wrong. Yet Mr. Hodge in his radio address makes the statement on the basis of anecdotal evidence that “in the United Kingdom someone engaging in this type of behaviour would be dismissed from Government or they would resign immediately.” Mr. Hodge obviously made this statement on the basis that I am a Director in more companies than he is — therefore I am involved in a “type of behaviour” that warrants my immediate dismissal without a charge of wrongdoing or impropriety. I must say, a most convenient way to get a political adversary out of the way. Judge; Jury; and Executioner!
“The stampede” has been moving so quickly to run me over, that it also ran over most important aspects of the determination, namely, the facts. Let us deal with their sweeping application of the definition. “The stampede”, in an attempt to fit the definition to what it perceived are my circumstances, has failed to point out that the presence of conflict of interest does not only include business interests “but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement and the wish to do favours for family and friends” as well. In other words, if they were to take a good look in the mirror they would find that a number of them, in the execution of their offices or positions in Government, are in situations of conflict of interests themselves.
The truth is that the small population size of Anguilla and its homogeneous society put many persons who would seek positions of authority in situations where there may be a risk of conflict of interest. Some of these risks may be as a result of business; family connections; religious affiliations; ideological preferences; race; gender; and so on. It can therefore be a complex undertaking to implement a fair method of dealing with this issue, and in some circumstances we may have to leave the matter up to the sense of fairness; honesty; integrity; and professional ethics of the official. All this show that if we are to address this problem we need to establish a clear code of ethics that fits the circumstances of a small homogeneous society before we start to “cast stones” at each other.
Let me make it clear that all that I have said so far is not by way of suggesting that I may not be in a situation where a conflict of interest exists. I am making the point that most of us are. However, what I will now show is that I have not, in my position of Minister of Finance, committed any wrongdoings that rise to the level of impropriety. And I will specifically show that the references made during the “feeding frenzy”, about alleged improprieties by me, lack factual evidence. Let me point to four of these examples made during the “Talk Show Stampede”: –
1. It was said that my position as a Director of Banx Professional Services Ltd could cause me as Minister of Finance to influence decisions made in the process of the granting or denial of business licences. The facts are that unlike the Minister of Labour who signs off on all work permits — the Minister of Finance has no involvement in the process of granting business licences. It is a purely technical matter in the Deparment of Finance governed by regulations.
2. It was said that the Solaire Company was formed and is run out of my office, and I thereby determine who should benefit from the legal services etc. First of all, the Solaire Company was not formed in my Office neither were any of its Management or Holding companies. It also is not run by or from my offices.
3. It was said that Superior Sanitary Supplies was the agent for the Transhipment Project/Corbis Trading Ltd. Superior Sanitary Supplies is a hotel and restaurant equipment and supplies company. It is not now nor has ever been an agent for any trading company. It has absolutely nothing to do with transshipment.
4. It was said that as Minister of Finance I was responsible for the commercial registry, therefore my decision-making could be influenced by my involvement in Banx Professional Services Ltd. This is almost as ridiculous as saying that if I owned any retail or wholesale business that imports goods, as Minister of Finance responsible for Customs, I could have undue influence on the duty charged to my business. Or that because I own a car, or a fleet of vehicles, I would be in a conflict of interest when discussing vehicular licence fees. The commercial registry is run by the Registrar of Companies and regulated by the Anguilla Financial Services Commission – not by the Minister of Finance.
The key point that I am making about the concept of conflict of interest is that it is a very complex issue and especially so when applied in a small society like Anguilla. The very scarcity of qualified human resources to carry out certain functions is a challenge in itself. However, because of the importance of eliminating, or at least mitigating, the presence of conflicts of interests as much as practicable, it behooves us to formulate a code of ethics that can assist us in this endeavour. Such a code of ethics will have to be pledged and signed on to by all public officers at the time of appointment – and strictly adhered to as a part of the governance culture. Undoubtedly, honesty; integrity; and professional ethics will always remain a critical aspect of the success of such a culture.
If the recent political pastime of beating up on Victor Banks serves any useful purpose, I would hope that it would be to bring attention to the complexity of the concept of “conflict of interests” and the need to be more objective, and less personal, in addressing it. Rather than attacking my person — like a group of hungry sharks in a feeding frenzy!
