The recent appointments of Parliamentary Secretary, Mrs. Quincia Gumbs-Marie, and Ministerial Assistant, Mr. Merrick Richardson, as Acting Ministers, with responsibility for the portfolios of Economic Development and Social Development respectively, have been met with mixed reviews. Such acting appointments are unprecedented. In the past existing ministers undertook oversight of the ministerial portfolios of their ministerial colleagues, who travelled on official duty. The Anguilla Progressive Movement administration has seen it fit to appoint elected officials without ministerial portfolios to act, while appointed ministers travel on official business. One can only reasonably conclude that this course has been sanctioned by the Governor, under whose hand the acting appointments are made, and the Attorney General, the Government’s principal legal adviser.
Comments circulating via social media suggest that the constitutionality of the acting appointments is being questioned. In what appears to be a response to concerns expressed about the constitutionality of the acting appointments, a post entitled “Acting Appointments” was published on the Governor’s Office Facebook page on 28th April, 2022. The Facebook post references certain constitutional provisions as justification for the acting appointments. The Leader of the Opposition, Mrs. Cora Richardson-Hodge, has questioned the applicability of those provisions. In a correspondence dated 29th April, 2022, to the Governor, she observed that there is no provision in the Constitution that confers authority to temporarily appoint elected members without a ministerial portfolio as acting ministers of Government.
The Governor’s Office Facebook post noted that as a result of the appointment of Mr. Merrick Richardson as an acting minister, the office of Deputy Speaker, which he occupied, fell vacant. In accordance with a 2020 amendment to Anguilla’s Constitution Mr. Richardson was elected as Deputy Speaker of the House of Assembly because he was not a minister – and therefore not a member of the Executive Council. The Leader of the Opposition, in her correspondence to the Governor, considered it unacceptable “to simply state that it falls to the House of Assembly when it next meets to elect the Deputy Speaker.” The Leader of the Opposition quoted the relevant constitutional provision which appears to contemplate the election of a member other than the member who previously vacated the office of Deputy Speaker, when the House next meets.
There are clearly divergent views among citizens, residents and public officials, as to the constitutionality or appropriateness of the acting appointments. While I do not have the legal expertise to offer an opinion on the constitutionality of the acting appointments, certain statements made in support of the constitutionality of the acting appointments stretch the bounds of credibility in my opinion.
The following sentence was part of the Facebook post of 28th April, 2022 on the Governor’s Office Facebook page: “Constitutionally, Ministers who are absent from Anguilla are not in the seat of government, and consequently cannot lawfully perform their functions as Ministers of the Crown.” Does this mean that Ministers Kyle Hodge and Dee-Ann Kentish Rogers, whose absence from Anguilla on official duty resulted in the acting appointments, were not lawfully performing official duties while overseas? Do we consider their appointments as Ministers to have been revoked by the acting appointments of Mrs. Gumbs-Marie and Mr. Richardson? To suggest that the appointments of Ministers Kyle Hodge and Dee-Ann Kentish-Rogers were revoked, so that they were not able to conduct ministerial duties while travelling on official government business seems farcical.
The Anguillian, like the Leader of the Opposition, would welcome further clarification on this issue of the acting ministerial appointments, as the reasoning offered in support of the appointments would derail the ordinary and accepted functioning of government. When the Premier travels to the annual Joint Ministerial Conference (JMC) and an Acting Premier is appointed, is the Premier’s appointment revoked while an acting Premier is in place and is he therefore engaging unlawfully at the JMC?
I believe that these issues are cause for real concern and not just much ado about nothing.
