We continue to challenge the intention of this current government to take a piecemeal approach to the issue of constitutional reform, and its apparent determination to execute only some aspects of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee’s broad recommendations that call for a comprehensive approach.
The need for constitutional reform goes without saying – but it must be transparent, comprehensive and fair. No half-baked attempts or window-dressing will suffice. This is an issue that must have our laser beam attention at this pivotal moment, since anything we do or achieve as a democracy will hinge on the outcome.
This is not a matter for one group or one political party. It is the vital concern of every patriotic Anguillan. That is why, in recent weeks, I have engaged all the leaders of opposition parties and members of civil society in this ongoing discourse.
I love Anguilla, and it is therefore my objective to unite all those with a common purpose: that the governance of Anguilla should be for the benefit of all Anguillians. We of the opposition are united in that objective, and we are also united in the view that the incumbent government party, the Anguilla United Front, under the leadership of Victor Banks, does not share that objective. They are seeking a partial change to the Constitution that in our view is for no purpose more noble than their own party political advantage at the next election, which must occur no later than 2020.
We were so concerned that, last week, as Leader of the Opposition, I convened a meeting of leaders in opposition parties and other movements. Our discussions centered on the need for constitutional reform, and about how the process is fashioned, to ensure that the people get the governance change that they require.
We were brought together by our concern that the government of Victor Banks is about to disregard the bulk of the recommendations from the broad-based Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee, that was set up to garner the people’s views on a new constitution. The people, speaking through the Committee, have made some far-reaching suggestions which, if implemented, will broaden our democracy, strengthen our system of governance, and will finally afford us a constitution that we can relate to.
However, we have been informed that the government has decided in its final recommendations to the Governor to leave out some of the most fundamental recommendations.
We strongly take the view that the government should not – and indeed cannot properly – water down a people’s desire for change, by its own fancy. At least they owe it to the population to explain their reasons for the omissions. But we do not think that the government is in the mood to listen to the people – and so I, as representative of the people, must act to prevent a charade.
It was in this context that we decided to write to the Governor and to Lord Ahmad, UK Minister of State for the Overseas Territories, seeking their good offices to listen to the concerns of the people and, as a consequence, counsel the Banks regime about its own recommendations.
You saw my letter to the Governor, in last week’s Anguillian. Here is a copy of my letter to Lord Ahmad:
8th November, 2018
Dear Lord Ahmad
ANGUILLA – Constitutional and Electoral Reform
I write to you as the Leader of the Opposition in the Overseas Territory of Anguilla. The purpose of this letter is to convey to you my deep concern, and that of others particularised in the next paragraph, at the indecent haste with which, and the manner in which, the Government of Anguilla is seeking to secure, from Her Majesty’s Privy Council, an Order in Council for partial Constitutional and Electoral Reform, on a timescale and in a piecemeal manner which are both in direct conflict with the interests of democracy. I am also deeply concerned by indications that you, on behalf of the British Government, appear to be deceived as to the bona fides of the Anguilla government’s motives, and have indicated your willingness to accede to the Anguilla government’s stratagems.
I am supported in my objection to the proposed Order in Council by all of Anguilla’s opposition parties, together with Mr. Don Mitchell C.B.E, Q.C., Ex-Chairperson of the 2015 Anguilla Constitutional and ElectoralReform Committee and Mr. Thomas W.R. Astaphan, Q.C., the principalConstitutional Lawyer currently practicing before the Anguilla Bar.
In your Lordship’s letter dated 18th July, 2018 to the Honourable Chief Minister, Mr. Victor Banks, it was suggested by you that the proposal for an increase in the number of Ministers be addressed in the second phase, as you evidently considered it important to avoid the “coincidence with preparations for the elections due in Anguilla in 2020”. However, that proposal is far from the only proposal in the draft Order in Council which would be incompatible with the forthcoming elections, since it will be readily evident that many of the proposed provisions in the draft Order in Council will affect the outcome of the elections.
While we appreciate that, for the most part, the applicable provisions of the draft Order are subject to the qualification that they shall not come into force before the dissolution of the House of Assembly next following their enactment, not only is that not comprehensively the case, but we understand that the Honourable Chief Minister has advised his colleagues that he has an assurance that the draft will be changed to ensure that they come into force before the next election. This, in our view, would be unconscionable.
Further, and most importantly, a glaring omission from the proposed amendments is any reference to the imposition of the “Good Governance” recommendations comprised in the Report of the 2015 Anguilla Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee, such as the Integrity Commission, among others. We are concerned that once amendments that are politically advantageous to the party presently in power are proceeded with, not only is there no guarantee that the remaining substantive amendments proposed in the Report, designed to secure good government, will thereafter receive any political priority, but it becomes most unlikely that they will do so. If that proved to be the case, this generation of government representatives, both British and Anguillian, would have the dubious distinction of condemning Anguilla to continue having the most unsatisfactory and unenlightened Constitution of any British Overseas Territory.
By virtue of the above mentioned objections, I submit that it is imperative, in the interests of good governance, to put on hold any proposed amendments to the Constitution until further consultation with the People of Anguilla and all opposition parties has taken place. It is apparent that the current Government of Anguilla’s piecemeal cherry-picking reform agenda does not have the support, or reflect the views of, all opposition parties or of the People of Anguilla, as has been falsely represented.
I therefore urge your Lordship to pause the process being undertaken with respect to the Revised Draft Order in Council, for the reasons given above. If you wish me to particularise our objections in greater detail before you will be willing to accede to this request, please do not hesitate to let me know. I attach a copy of Mr Don Mitchell’s letter in support. The other two opposition parties’ support and the support of Mr Astaphan have been conveyed to me by email.
Yours Sincerely;
Palmavon J. Webster
Leader of the Opposition
cc: His Excellency the Governor, Mr Tim Foy O.B.E
The Leader of the Opposition, House of Commons, Mr Tom Tugendhat M.P., Chair of Foreign Affairs Committee Mr Andrew Rosindell M.P., House of Commons Dr Ellis Webster and Mr Jerome Roberts, AnguillaUnited Movement Mr Sutcliffe Hodge, Dove Party Mr Don Mitchell, C.B.E, Q.C. Mr Thomas W.R. Astaphan, Q.C
To put that letter in context I should explain that it was drafted in consultation with the opposition parties and with Mr Don Mitchell QC and Mr Tommy Astaphan QC and has their united support. Mr Don Mitchell’s letter of support was as follows:
8 November 2018
Hon Palmavon Webster
Leader of the Opposition
The Valley
Anguilla.
Dear Ms Webster,
I have seen your letter to Lord Ahmad of today 8 November 2018 objecting to the imposition of the draft Order in Council presently dated 26 October 2018.
I entirely agree with the objections you set out in your letter.
In particular, I am concerned to note that the Hon Chief Minister in his letter to Lord Ahmad dated 29 June 2018 indicates that his administration does not agree with all of the proposals for constitutional and electoral reform set out in the Report of the Committee for Constitutional and Electoral Reform of March 21 2017. However, he nowhere indicates which of the many recommendations he opposes. Nor has he ever brought his objections to any of the recommendations to the attention of the public of Anguilla to obtain their acceptance to any variation from the recommendations put forward in the Report. I am pleased to see that Lord Ahmad is well aware that the Hon Chief Minister cannot unilaterally cherry pick among the recommendations.
One must question the need to introduce “voting at large”, in this Order in Council. The four members to be elected at large were a part of a number of reforms designed to improve the democratic element of our electoral system. Another was the removal of “nominated members”. Another was the removal of voting rights from the ex-officio members of the House. Yet another was the increase of the electoral districts of seven to nine, designed by a new Electoral Boundaries Commission to contain approximately equal numbers of persons of voting age. This was a reform package that was intended to be brought into effect more or less simultaneously
It is very worrying that the Hon Chief Minister has stated publicly that he will have no difficulty in obtaining the consent of Lord Ahmad to his piece-meal varying by law of our system of election to the Anguilla house of Assembly prior to the next dissolution of the House of Assembly and the ensuing general elections. That is a development fraught with challenges to our democracy.
Given that the electoral change incorporated in the draft Order in Council will not be permitted to take effect until after the next general elections, it is difficult to see what the urgency is for its inclusion in the draft Order in Council.
Yours sincerely,
Don Mitchell, CBE, QC
There should be no rush to implement a diluted constitution until the processes of consultation and information are exhausted. One aspect of the proposals that we also want both a debate about, and a stay, is the issue of electoral reform – which is a significant part of the constitutional reform process. Any electoral reform must take place amidst broad consultation and must not be done piecemeal, at the 11th hour, on the eve of an election.
We are strongly of the view that the system needs to be overhauled, and that we must have a process that prevents electoral fraud and other malpractices. That is not what we are protesting here. The concept of expanding the representation to perhaps even accommodate At-Large candidates is in principle a good one for example. But we don’t think that a change should be made at this stage, so close to a general election, and before widespread information and awareness campaigns, including a direct involvement of all political parties. Anything short of those conditions will lead to confusion and chaos – and, in the end, undermine the very process we are looking to strengthen.
We, in the opposition – even while representing our various interests – are united on these matters. Indeed, all of Anguilla should be united on them. We hope that we have shown the way on the need for unity on these issues, since our very democracy is at stake. We must build a broad coalition of Anguillian patriots to save this territory. The people cannot be mere spectators on this – for this democracy is yours; this territory is yours; and this government must respond to your dreams; your aspirations; your needs.
At the time of going to press, I have not received a response from Lord Ahmad. I sought a meeting with His Excellency the Governor before he went off island on leave, on Tuesday of this week, but he wished to defer any meeting until after his return, which might well be too little and too late, on the pretext that the Attorney General is currently off island. My response to that was that I would like to meet with him anyway, notwithstanding the absence of the AG, although I would be happy to wait to meet until he returns PROVIDED he could give me an assurance that no decision will be taken in the meantime to go forward with a draft Order in Council, and that a proper consultation will be undertaken as a precondition to the draft Order in Council. Very regrettably, the Governor told me that he cannot give me the assurance requested and that he has “no role, and no say, in matters relating to changes to Anguilla’s Constitution. These are matters exclusively for the UKG and Anguilla’s elected Government to discuss and agree upon”. While better constitutional lawyers than I am may disagree, I find this conclusion scarcely credible in the light of sections 28 and 29 of the Constitution.
While I very much hope that the Governor is having a restful leave, I have to put this rhetorical question to him:
Governor, although you have told me that you “have no role, and no say, in matters relating to changes to Anguilla’s Constitution”, it must surely be the case that the Chief Minister could not have arranged this blatantly politically motivated draft Order in Council with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office without your knowledge and approval. The Chief Minister’s very decision to do it in secret, without discussing its implications with other relevant parties (including, especially, the people of Anguilla), must surely have been known to you in advance? How could your conscience allow you to let the Chief Minister believe that such action was in the best interests of democracy or of the people of Anguilla?”
We understand that the Chief Minister has advised his colleagues that he has an assurance that the draft Order in Council will be changed to ensure that its provisions come into force before the next election. This, in our view, would be unconscionable. At the time of going to press I am eagerly awaiting the answer to a question I have put down for answer by the Chief Minister in the House of Assembly:
To ask the Honourable Member for Valley South, Chief Minister:
WHEREAS the Honourable Chief Minister has recently disclosed that he has been in discussions for several months with the British government with a view to securing a partial implementation of selected recommendations from the 2017 Report of the Committee for Constitutional and Electoral Reform; and
WHEREAS the people of Anguilla, speaking through the Committee, made far-reaching proposals which, if implemented, will broaden our democracy, strengthen our system of governance, and will afford us a constitution that we can relate to; and
WHEREAS the Committee had secured the consent and approval of the people on the basis of its entire Report, but not on the basis of partial and selective extracts from the Report, nor on the basis of an eleventh hour implementation of parts of the report shortly before an election which would have electoral implications liable to affect the results of the election; and
WHEREAS the Honourable Chief Minister, after months of secret negotiations with the British Government, has disclosed that he has decided, in his final recommendations to the British government, to leave out some of the most fundamental recommendations contained in the report and has negotiated an understanding with the British government that not only will the selective and partial implementation of parts of the report be enacted shortly by Order in Council, but that the draft order in its current form will first be amended to bring the changes into effect BEFORE the next election;
WILL THE CHIEF MINISTER reconsider these proposals and advise the British government that he considers that a selective and partial implementation of the Report of the Committee for Constitutional and Electoral Reform should not be enacted prior to the next election, nor should it be enacted without full consultation with the people of Anguilla.
We are concerned that once amendments that are politically advantageous to the party presently in power are proceeded with, not only is there no guarantee that the remaining substantive amendments proposed in the Report, designed to secure good government, will thereafter receive any political priority, but it becomes most unlikely that they will do so. If that proved to be the case, this generation of government representatives, both British and Anguillian, would have the dubious distinction of condemning Anguilla to continue having the most unsatisfactory and unenlightened Constitution of any British Overseas Territory.
The fight will continue, and we are counting on all patriotic Anguillians to support it. We want a constitution that upholds the highest standards of governance and that works for the benefit of Anguilla and its people. We ought to do it right and do it fair – or not do it at all!
