Currently, here in Anguilla, in most conversations there is talk about the role of the Governor and the issue of assent. News travel fast and lately people are listening more critically to what is happening politically, and even if they are not fully conversant with the issue it gets extensive verbal mileage. This time it is to do with the matter of Royal Assent. Anguillians are talking about it and what they hear, based on their knowledge and understanding about the Governor’s action, seems to them unusual if not incorrect. Some argue that Governors have expansive scope under their reserved powers; while others say that, given the conditions surrounding the present case, it makes her decision questionable.
For those of us who oppose Governor Scott’s decision, we very much appreciate her swift response to the concerns expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Evans McNiel Rogers, and his colleagues in the House. However, we disagree with the content of her response. Substantively it varies considerably from what we thought should be the role of the Governor under these circumstances. We are aware of the political hazards surrounding the granting or refusal of assent. However, in the context of the issues pointed out in the Opposition’s letter, we the members of the general public request that you definitively tell us what would have caused you to withhold your assent in the circumstances of a Bill passed in the House in the absence of a quorum. The approach of our recent Governors to assent seems to differ — therefore there is need for a better understanding of the issue. Is assent automatic or discretional?
Since successive Governors have treated assent differently it seems fair to conclude that assent is conditional or discretional. Such a system is inherently flawed. Discretion begets inconsistency and inconsistency creates problems. We need a definitive answer that perhaps should be enshrined fully in the Constitution in order to eliminate the problems of “ifs” and/or “buts”. For a long time now Commonwealth’s constitutional lawyers have viewed ASSENT as a shady and a “crisis-prone” area of governance. However, in politically mature arrangements they have worked out this problem. As a matter of fact no monarch since Queen Anne in 1707 has refused assent in Canada, and today assent is a matter of course. Canadians argue that it is because of their political maturity and understanding of democracy why this has happened.
British Overseas Territories are not in the same sense politically mature. Although they may have representative government they may not have responsible government and the Constitution is their boundary. So that in areas where the Constitution is mute — action is limited and is in some cases politically problematic. Added to that, the reliance on convention is not significant or rigorously observed. So what happened here would be a problem in those countries today, because the Governor acts on the advice of the Prime Minister. In fact such political roles are largely ceremonial. And as it is understood that the Queen reigns but does not rule — so too a Governor General can bark but cannot bite.
Anguilla’s position in this regard is unclear and, because of our level of politics, the tendency is to include Governors in areas that do not belong to the Executive. Countries in the Commonwealth argue that to give discretionary power of assent is to effectually give veto power to the Governor, and in the case of mature political systems the power of assent may circumvent the authority of the Legislature. But it is also noticed in countries where checks and balances are weak that some limited assent power may help to offset the imbalance. It appears that based on the present behavior in the House, and in the interest of good governance, that this is expected from the Governor at this time.
This situation raises questions because, under one Governor Bills dealing with budgetary matters in a properly constituted House did not receive assent — while on the other hand, under a different Governor, less important deliberations of a House not properly constituted gained assent, and is now the “achilles heel” of our discontent. We are looking for clarity on universality and uniformity in a grey area of legislative activity. Perhaps it is the legislators who should clear up the mess instead of creating it. Reading between the lines there is some inconsistency here. Is HMG saying to us that they are not getting in this area of legislative activity? Neither are we are going to “make waves”, wrong or right, as long as nobody gets hurt. We are staying out of it! Don’t call us, we will call you! Fix it yourself! It is your business!
We cannot undo what the Governor has done. That is now past life. There are choices and they emanate from her action. Firstly, it should be taken as a learning situation, and instead of “belly-aching” let’s do something progressive and positive. There should be legislation to deal with future incursions. The concern is valid and is worthy of careful consideration. So this should not be brushed under the rug or even glossed over. Do you think the Speaker knew better when she started this? Even so, Anguillians have a right to the right answer. Finally, it all boils down to this fact: the Governor, the CM and the Speaker all knew that a quorum was not in place and, contrary to what should happen under such circumstances, they ignored it. The issue left to be determined is whether it is necessary to have a quorum to conduct real business rather than monkey business in the Anguilla House of Assembly? But then again we are unique! Is that not what they call it?
