Leader of the Dove Party, Mr. Sutcliffe Hodge and Mr. Don Mitchell, CBE, QC
Leader of the Opposition in the Anguilla House of Assembly, the Hon. Palmavon Webster, called a special press conference on the evening of Monday, November 12th to express her displeasure with the Government’s move to make certain changes to specific sections of the Anguilla Constitution prior to the 2020 general elections.
Ms. Webster, who led the conference, was accompanied by the Leader of the Anguilla United Movement (AUM), Dr. Ellis Lorenzo Webster; Leader of the Dove Party, Mr. Sutcliffe Hodge; and retired High Court Judge, Mr. Don Mitchell, CBE, QC.
All four individuals expressed their objection to amending portions of the Constitution at this time, and would prefer to have an entirely new Constitution by 2020.
The main two points of objection relate to the increase in the number of ministers in Government and the fact that major sections of the recommendations for constitutional reform have been virtually ignored by the AUF Government.
Here is the full scope of Ms. Webster’s introduction to the conference: “Anguilla needs to be put on alert and to be on watch to ensure that our system of governance is not compromised or undermined. The issue of good governance is not merely an academic discussion but it is at the core at how a government should perform for, and on behalf of, its people.
“Due to our concern over the town-hall meeting held last week, as Leader of the Opposition, I convened a meeting of leaders of opposition parties and other movements. It is in that context that we are here this evening. Our discussion 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.
“However, we have been informed that the government has decided, in its final recommendations to Lord Ahmad in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to omit some of the most fundamental recommendations. We strongly take the view that the government should not, and cannot, water down the people’s desire for change on its own whim. At least government owes it to the population to explain the reasons for the omissions.”
The Opposition Leader went on: “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…The concept of expanding representation to…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 direct involvement of all political parties. Anything short of those conditions will lead to confusion and chaos.”
In the press conference mention was made of the proposed Order in Council that would facilitate the passage of only specific areas pertinent to the increase of ministers and at-large voting. Mr. Sutcliffe Hodge voiced his views on this: “A high handed approach is being used by the Government of Anguilla to try to move forward, by Order in Council, to implement amendments to our Constitution that deal specifically with areas that would seem to give them an advantage going into the next election. This seems to be highly undemocratic.
“The areas in question where the government wants to make amendments have to do with the at-large voting, as well as moving the date of the closure for voter registration to a “floating” date. If that date becomes a “floating” date, then government would be free to appoint any date for a closing date. If our democratic system of government is to work, then such amendments to the Constitution must be done by the people and for the people.”
Mr. Hodge continued: “While I think that the people of Anguilla have broadly agreed with the idea of having at-large voting, the mechanics of at-large voting were never discussed with the people of Anguilla. We are particularly concerned about the timing of this sudden change, with just eighteen months before our next election. This appears to be an ambush in that we, the members of the opposition, were caught by surprise to hear an announcement that the Government of Anguilla was moving forward with these amendments, ahead of the next general election, with the view to having them become effective before the next general election. We find that this is quite high handed and we are very concerned about it.”
Dr. Ellis Lorenzo Webster noted: “Certainly, I think that we have been ambushed. And unless reasonable people question what our Government is doing, we certainly will get hoodwinked again. This is not acceptable, and it should not be allowed in our democracy. The concerns that were raised by Mr. Hodge regarding the at-large voting, and the timing, express my sentiments as well.
“While I think that Anguilla is a small society that can benefit from at-large voting – if it is properly administered – for this coming election it is not something that we have enough time for. It must be properly brought to the people for public consultation.
“The other thing that I am concerned about is that it is seen from the letters between the Chief Minister and Lord Ahmad that there are statements made about this being a two-phase process in terms of Constitutional and Electoral Reform. The concern is: if this is the first phase, then when will the second phase start. I am indeed objecting to this two-phase approach. We should have one overhaul of our Constitution with electoral reform all at once.
“I think it is a slap in the face for the Constitutional Committee to have met, to have spent the time in bringing these matters to the public, and then for the government to cherry-pick which parts of the Committee’s report that they would decide to adopt.”
Following Dr. Webster’s remarks, Ms. Webster read a copy of a letter that former Justice, Don Mitchell, who was Leader of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee, wrote to Lord Ahmad. With reference to the proposed changes, that letter read in part: “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 from seven to nine, designed by a new electoral boundaries commission…
“This was a reform package that was intended to be brought into effect more or less simultaneously. It is very worrying that the Honorable Chief Minister has stated publicly that he will have no difficulty in obtaining the consent of Lord Ahmad to his piecemeal 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.
“This 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.”
In addressing the press conference Mr. Mitchell observed: “It is very worrying that the Chief Minister has written to Lord Ahmad saying that he agrees with most of the recommendations for Constitutional and Electoral Reform which emerged from the public consultations that took place over a period of a year and a half. There are some, however, that his administration does not accept. While his administration is not bound to accept all the recommendations, he has to go back to the people for those recommendations emerged by consulting with the people, and we have had the agreement of the public on them. If he goes back to the public and is able to persuade the public that some of the recommendations are not appropriate, then no one can complain. But he must follow the views of the people.
“It is very worrying that Lord Ahmad replied, saying that he was happy with the piecemeal approach that the Chief Minister is taking, and he is happy that there are some of points that he did not accept…However, Mr. Ahmad was right when he said that the Chief Minister cannot unilaterally “cherry-pick” (to use Mr. Webster’s words) the report.
“The Chief Minister was quite wrong in not coming to the public and telling the people what he was planning to do with the report – what he was going to leave out. Lord Ahmad is aware that he cannot unilaterally decide what he is going to leave out. Lord Ahmad and the British Government’s position has always been that they will not agree to making any constitutional changes in a British Overseas Territory unless they are satisfied that those changes have the support of the majority of the people. So I was very pleased when Ms. Webster took the initiative to send off a letter to Lord Ahmad requesting him to make sure that this Order in Council not be put before the Privy Council at this time.”
After the various presentations, questions from the media were posed and useful discussions followed thereafter.
