The apparent curtailing of the participation of public officers in discussions on matters considered by many to be of national importance is a vexing question for many public officers. As the due by date for Anguilla’s next General Election approaches, this issue, which was the subject of the editorial of 24th September, 2021 titled “Finding the Right Balance” is again coming into greater focus. It is, therefore, considered appropriate and timely to republish the editorial.
“Finding the Right Balance
The Government of Anguilla is the biggest employer in Anguilla and it is, therefore, undisputed that the largest workforce in Anguilla is the Anguilla Public Service. It is equally undisputed that some of the most academically and technically qualified persons are employed in the Anguilla Public Service. Despite this, the question is often asked whether Anguilla receives maximum benefit of the knowledge and experience of the highly qualified individuals in the employ of the Government of Anguilla.
Persons who choose to be employed in the Anguilla Public Service may be made subject to certain restrictions, which do not apply to other citizens and residents of Anguilla. A glaring example is our individual right to freedom of expression, which is protected by section 11 of our Constitution. To my non-legal mind, it allows for the protection of the freedom of expression guaranteed to persons to be restricted by law, in respect of public officers. The relevant provision is set out below.
“Protection of freedom of expression
11. (1) Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, and for the purposes of this section the said freedom includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, and freedom from interference with his correspondence and other means of communication.
(2) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section to the extent that the law in question makes provision—
(a) …;
(b) …; or
(c) that imposes restrictions upon public officers:
Provided that the provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof is shown to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.”
How do we make optimal use of the knowledge base of our public officers, if the restrictions placed on them limit their ability to share their knowledge, and enlightened viewpoint with the ordinary citizen and resident of Anguilla? This question is being increasingly pondered, in light of the recent circulation of a draft Social Media Policy for the Anguilla Public Service. The draft policy appears to be seeking to drastically minimize the ability of public officers to comment on matters, which should concern them as citizens and residents of Anguilla. The view has been expressed that the policy has been mandated as a result of complaints from a politician about the comments of public officers in relation to the Government’s previous indication that the Covid-19 Vaccine would be made mandatory for frontline workers and about the passage of the Goods and Services Tax Act. Whatever the motivating factor, I believe that it would be wise of the authorities in the Anguilla Public Service to consider what is the appropriate balance to be achieved. While it would be inappropriate for certain senior public officers, to comment adversely on Government initiatives or policies, the same cannot and should not be applicable across the entire public service. Some public officers have a greater sphere of authority and influence on the creation of policy, and delivery of initiatives, than others.
The need to remove limitations preventing Anguilla and Anguillians from benefiting from the input of public officers has previously been noted. There was a time when public officers were exempted from jury duty in Anguilla. It was recognised that the exclusion of public officers negatively impacted the diversity, knowledge and experiential base of the jury pool and the law was amended to allow public officers, with very few exceptions, to serve as jurors in criminal trials.
As recently as 2015, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for the British Islands and Mediterranean Region (CPA BIMR), in its Independent Election Observer Mission Report on Anguilla’s 2015 General Election, noted that public officers’ ability to run for public office is limited. The 6th recommendation in the report noted:
“While candidate registration was smooth, the right to stand for office which is a universal human right was compromised because civil servants, who constitute between 25 and 30% of the population of Anguilla, are barred from running for office unless they resign their post. Ministers of religion are also prohibited from running for office. Legal Amendments could be considered to allow civil servants to take unpaid leave to run for election and if unsuccessful will have the right to be reinstated in the same grade and pay. These legal amendments should also ensure the right of ministers of religion to contest election.”
The need for the removal of barriers that prevent public officers from participating more fully in the affairs of Anguilla has clearly been recognised. Why, therefore, would persons consider implementing a policy that seeks to prevent public officers from participating in discussions on matters that will directly impact their lives? We often speak of Anguilla experiencing brain drain due to the migration of our best minds. Do we really want to exacerbate the situation by silencing many of the persons who choose to remain and serve in Anguilla? We must make every effort to find the right balance.
