History may judge us harshly as a people if we fail to stand up for what we believe is right and to call a spade a spade regardless of the consequences. We speak in relation to the sitting of the House of Assembly on Friday, October 25, when, numerically, there was a lack of a quorum for the transacting of any business whatsoever on the agenda.
The fact that the Speaker, who has total control of the House, and the Government officials were all aware of the deficiency, and did nothing about it, in terms of postponing the sitting, appears to be an affront to the democratic process and, indeed, an infringement of the principles of good governance and responsibility. It would seem that parliament in effect became a dictatorship on that day, passing laws without any chance of free speech or participation by the rest of the membership, whose unfortunate absence led to the lack of a quorum.
Paradoxically, while the Constitution of Anguilla guarantees members free speech and participation in the House of Assembly, it allows for a sitting to continue, where there is a lack of a quorum, unless someone stands up and points out that the House is not properly constituted and therefore should not proceed. Someone speculated that the framers of the Constitution inserted that provision or caveat as a protection measure to prevent Opposition Members from unnecessarily boycotting parliamentary proceedings. But in this case it does not appear applicable when, generally, the Opposition Members are known to be altogether supportive of the legislation that was before the House. Another matter is that they had good reason for their absence if they were not properly informed about the meeting.
The provision of the Constitution that a meeting of the House can continue without a quorum, unless someone objects, is perhaps one of the anomalies which should be addressed when the now stalled and grossly protracted constitutional revision exercise recommences.
While it was not expected that any member of the Government would have got up and declare that there was a lack of a quorum, thus setting back the business of the House, it would have been an act of statesmanship and good leadership to do so. The person to do that could have been the Chief Minister and Leader of Government Business, or any of his cabinet members, in the interest of good governance and fair play. Probably the best person to do so could have been the all-powerful Speaker whose discernment, advice and ruling would not have been challenged. Those persons who walked out could have openly objected to the meeting as well but, alas, probably only to run the risk of an onslaught of unfair abuse.
One does not understand what the reason for the urgency of the House of Assembly meeting was, and what difference it would have made if the sitting was re-scheduled for a week, or so, to ensure that everyone was in attendance and familiar with the agenda. It is admitted that it was obviously an important meeting in that one of the pieces of legislation passed was the Fiscal Responsibility Bill, relating to the British Government’s policy document for the Overseas Territories with which the Chief Minister has had some difficulties in the past. It is known that the document sat on his desk for well over a year before he even looked at it and then finally, and probably reluctantly, agreed to sign it after demanding a few amendments, some of which he may not have succeed in getting.
Although his concerns appear to be over, the input by the Opposition Members in the enabling legislation could have been most helpful to Anguilla and the Government now and possibly in the future. There are times when the Chief Minister appears to charge the British Government with not living up to its commitments to Anguilla. It is hoped that this would not be the eventual case with the Framework for Fiscal Sustainability and Development, and that he would not have any regrets for not ensuring that the Opposition Members were given an opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Fiscal Responsibility Bill 2013.
The Opposition Members have written to the Governor about the circumstances which prevented them from attending the House of Assembly meeting. They have gone as far as telling her not to sign the two pieces of legislation. This may be a difficult proposition given the constitutional provision that a sitting of the House, without a quorum, can continue and transact business unless someone raises an alarm and get the proceedings to stop. There is also perhaps the matter of the separation of powers between the Executive Council where the Governor sits as Chairperson, and the Legislature, where the Chief Minister and other Elected Members have their particular roles in which the Governor has no real say, other than to rubber stamp laws passed by that body. Another school of thought is that regardless of the fact that a Bill was passed by the House of Assembly, the powers of disallowance by the Secretary of State can come into play. An example of this was seen a few years ago when Appropriation Bills, giving effect to at least two of Anguilla’s budgets, were disallowed though passed by the full House and not just by four members.
Whatever is the outcome of this matter, one thing apparently needs to be addressed somehow. It is the constitutional requirement that a meeting of the House of Assembly, lacking a quorum, can continue unless someone points out the flaw and calls for a discontinuation of the proceedings. The Anguillian has no legal expertise of itself, but this appears to be a strange situation when mathematically, the numbers in the House, and the required quorum, do not match up. Nobody needs spectacles or binoculars to see this whenever it happens. The fact that someone does not object to a meeting of the House of Assembly, where there is no quorum, does not mean that the meeting is in order and should be allowed to transact business. In practice this should not be the case.
