The now infamous incident of 23rd May 2023, at a popular restaurant, involving four elected officials and a private citizen continues to attract attention locally and regionally. This is unsurprising as the actions and language of Minister Quincia Gumbs-Marie are generally considered to have been totally unbecoming of any person, but particularly one serving in the elevated office of an elected minister of government.
Poor judgment was exhibited on the occasion of the incident and seems to have remained the order of the day in all matters pertaining to the incident. Mrs. Gumbs-Marie exhibited poor judgment when she failed to conduct herself appropriately. She failed to appreciate that her response to any situation is totally within her control and that she had the power to determine how matters progressed on that fateful day.
Mrs. Gumbs-Marie’s more seasoned political colleague, Mr. Haydn Hughes, made no effort to deescalate the situation and instead appeared fully engaged with his phone while his colleague’s poor conduct escalated. One must wonder whether in hindsight, he sees his failure to engage as an error in judgment on his part. Many persons consider him to have been well placed to deescalate the situation, which was occurring between his ministerial colleague and the private citizen who was a staunch supporter of his in the 2020 General Election.
Another of Mrs. Quincia Gumbs-Marie’s ministerial colleagues, Ms. Dee-Ann Kentish-Rogers also failed to encourage her colleague minister to desist from her poor conduct. Instead, it appears that she saw value in videotaping the incident, which has since gone viral. Does Ms. Rogers-Kentish accept that she made an error in judgment and that she might have done her colleague a disservice, even if unintentionally?
Minister Gumbs-Marie offered an apology for her conduct, which to many fell well short of a sincere apology. Her attempt to justify her conduct by noting that to err is human and to divert attention to the actions of others was not well received. This too is considered to be an error in judgment, as a sincere apology would very likely have served to forestall some of the public outcry in response to this matter.
Errors of judgment continued. The Premier, the Governor and Acting Governors all failed to acknowledge that Mrs. Gumbs-Marie’s conduct was unbecoming of a minister and to propose some sanction for her conduct. The absence of a meaningful response by the persons in these offices has added fuel to the fire as they have been viewed as failing in their responsibility to promote good governance and are considered to have trivialized their call for a reduction in violent crime.
The Royal Anguilla Police Force accepts that it must build a relationship of trust with members of the public. This will take some work and the delay in bringing charges following the incident of 23rd May 2023 did not serve to build relations between the police and the public. The prevailing view is that charges were delayed because the police were hesitant to charge a minister of government, and had it been an ordinary citizen charges would have been laid much sooner. The police are considered to have missed an opportunity to build relations with the public.
The latest episode in the Quincia Gumbs-Marie saga has added to the befuddlement of persons when considering how this matter has unfolded. The Attorney General discontinued charges that were eventually brought against Mrs. Gumbs-Marie and the private citizen involved in the altercation of 23rd May 2023. The Attorney General in exercising the authority bestowed on him by the Constitution, declared that he was acting in the public interest. This, to many, flies in the face of what they perceived as the public interest which was to see this matter resolved through the court process, thereby demonstrating that the rule of law did not play favourites.
The cynics among us have declared that the course adopted by the Attorney General is not surprising as they never expected the minister to be subjected to the same rules as those to which an ordinary citizen is subjected. Did the Attorney General exercise good judgment in determining the public interest in this matter? A public statement explaining how the public interest is served by discontinuing the charges appears to be a reasonable expectation and might serve to persuade some persons that the Attorney General has not made an error in judgment.
There is still a live issue in relation to this matter. The Premier insisted that he was awaiting the outcome of the police investigation before he took any action. The police investigation led to charges being brought against Minister Gumbs-Marie. The charges were withdrawn but not because of the absence of evidence. Will the Premier now take administrative action against his minister for her unbecoming conduct?
While one can only wonder what the Premier will do, what is fairly obvious is that persons responsible for promoting the rule of law are likely to have their actions when dealing with ordinary citizens compared to their actions in the Quincia Gumbs-Marie matter. Will the comparison support the equitable application of the rule of law? Errors of judgment have consequences.
