Last week the community was inundated with articles, letters, editorials and discussions about what occurred in the Anguilla House of Assembly on Friday, October 25, 2013. It triggered letters to the Governor and the Attorney General from Members of the Opposition who had boycotted the House because of a growing pattern of emergency meetings that clearly stifled their ability to make meaningful contribution to the debate and, most of all, obstructed the process for getting their motions on the Agenda or Order Paper, as it is rightly called. No doubt there will be more exchanges because the Opposition is not happy with the responses they have received.
This week I want to bring attention to the state of governance in Anguilla and comment very briefly on a few aspects of the incident that need to be reinforced. There is more than “meets the eye” in that incident that may have a debilitating effect on our democracy and the democratic process in Anguilla. I would like to make the point, at the outset, that the Governor and the Attorney General are technically and legally correct in their responses but, in terms of the frequently touted commitment of the partnership to “good governance”, there is need for further introspection on both sides. There certainly appears to be a “gaping hole” in the legislative process that needs to be filled because it can lead to the abuse of power and to the “Dictatorship of the Executive Council” or perhaps more correctly the “Dictatorship of the Chief Minister and a few Ministers”.
Let me further state that it is not my intention to create any illusions that the possibility of such abuse has not existed over the years. However, in practice, most Speakers have been very careful not to facilitate that occurrence. In particular, I must highlight the approach of the past two Speakers of the House, the Hon. Leroy C. Rogers and the Hon. David Carty, who in every case paid close attention to the issue of quorum; the rules governing the readings of Bills in the House; and adequate notice for sittings of the House. These three issues are very basic to ensuring that despite the fact that Bills coming out of Executive Council, through the Gazette, will normally pass — at least the Opposition has a fair opportunity to make an informed contribution to the debate.
In many instances the Opposition and Nominated Members have been able to convince the Government of the day that they should reconsider and/or amend certain aspects of legislation before the House. Members of civil society have also been able to make contributions because adequate notice in the public media is a part of the process as well. In fact, Hon. David Carty took the initiative to establish a Special Committee of the House, which he chaired, comprising the Hon. Hubert Hughes, Hon. Stanley Reid, Hon. Keisha Webster-Carty and myself, to reform the Rules of Procedure to bring them more closely in line with parliamentary procedures in modern democratic societies. It is time for that project to be revitalized and I am certain that Mr. Carty will be happy to make a presentation to a new Special Committee on our suggestions.
Many persons may not be aware of the fact that the Sitting of the House on October 25th was to give the First Reading to three bills, namely, The Money Services (Amendment) Bill 2013; The Fiscal Responsibility Bill 2013; and the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank Agreement (Amendment) Bill 2013. The Rules of Procedures, as they now stand, do not allow for all three readings of a Bill to take place at one sitting of the House unless the Leader of Government Business, or the Mover of the Motion, request the Speaker to allow a motion to suspend the Rules of Procedures to allow all the readings to take place at the same time. This motion is put to the House and if passed then the readings can take place. However, the Speaker has the opportunity to inquire into the urgency of the matter and if not satisfied may disallow such a motion. In the circumstances it behooves the Speaker to ensure that allowing such a motion will not infringe on the rights of the minority members (Opposition) of the House in the Debate. Even in the circumstances of a properly constituted House with a quorum, the former Speaker the Hon. David Carty, persuaded the past Government on many occasions to reconsider suspending the rules when he was not convinced of the cause for urgency. While he had the power to allow or disallow such motions, at no time was it necessary for him to employ that power — moral suasion was sufficient to achieve that fundamental element of the legislative process.
It is in this context, that the recent sitting of the House must be considered. Not only did the Speaker continue to allow the sitting of the House without a quorum, but she also allowed a motion to suspend the rules of procedure to facilitate all three readings of two of the three Bills to take place. In plain terms, she not only ignored the signals from three of the Members of the House that they was no quorum — but went a step further to ignore another fundamental element of the process, namely, the rule governing the scheduling of the readings of Bills before the House. One would expect that, especially in the absence of a quorum, a Speaker concerned with good governance would not facilitate such a blatant breach of fairness in the House. What is also ironic is the fact that one of the Bills, namely, the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2013 is founded on the principle of good governance.
Our concern in this matter must be at what point does this kind of attitude end. It is conceivable, given the events of the recent sitting, that the Government can call a meeting of the House on short notice; ignore the fact that some members did not receive their notices; bring a controversial Bill before the House for its first reading; ignore the fact that there is no quorum; suspend the rules of procedure; and then proceed to pass the Bill in one sitting. It should be noted that one of the Bills that was passed at the last sitting had to do with immunity from prosecution of Officials of the ECCB in the discharge of their functions. Given the sensitive nature of issues related to the present takeover of the indigenous banks by the ECCB – while it may be considered to be a routine matter by the Government, the Opposition and the wider community, who are stakeholders in the process, need to be informed and educated. And, “to top it all off”, Members of the Government displayed complete arrogance in the debate by taunting their opponents in the absence of Opposition Members. One innocent bystander in the House was heard to suggest to the Chief Minister that it was time to go into Independence. Obviously, he may be of the view that in such an environment a dissenting Opposition could be readily quashed. As I have said, on a number of occasions, this Government and its supporters believe that the rules are for other people.
Hopefully, the Governor and the Attorney General, as the persons intimately involved in carrying out HMG’s commitment to good governance in the Overseas Territories, are aware of the importance of looking behind the “veil of separation of powers” and paying attention to a pattern of conduct that has pervaded the House of Assembly in recent times. Indeed, one must be concerned that the Attorney General and the Deputy Governor who also sit in the House of Assembly are first hand witnesses to the arrogance frequently exhibited by Members of Government apparently in collusion with the Speaker from time to time. Certainly, they can be conduits to the Governor to inform her of their concerns. Radio Anguilla also broadcasts the sittings of the House. The abuse of authority is therefore for the most part in the public domain.
So while the events of October 25, 2013 may appear to be isolated, we should be keeping our eyes on similar highhanded conduct taking place in ANGLEC, the Social Security Board, the Ministry of Tourism, and other departments and agencies of Government as a result of Ministerial intervention in the affairs of management. There are horror stories of illegal actions that are causing the Government and the taxpaying citizens of Anguilla money in lawsuits and other unnecessary expenses. In fact, there is a raft of tax measures being spoken about and implemented where precious little consultation has taken place. Yet the Government seems to be doing precious little to improve the level of economic activity on the island. What will this year’s budget do to an already fatigued tax paying community?
For the last four years many persons have been giving this Government a free ride. They have believed that they needed more time to fulfill their promises. They have believed that the British Government and the Governor are standing in the way of process. They have believed that the past Government is the problem. They have believed that investors are colluding with others to destroy Anguilla. The list of excuses goes on. Obviously, all of this is a load of waste! This Government is quite capable of abusing its authority to achieve whatever it wants when it so wishes. And, as was demonstrated at the recent sitting of the House, not even the Governor can intervene in such blatant abuse of authority even when exercised openly in the public domain. Fortunately, a number of Anguillians who were almost persuaded about those AUM conspiracy theories are now beginning to see the light.
