January 25, 2017
H.E. Christina Scott
Governor,
Governor’s Office
Old Ta
Dear Governor,
Reassignment of Ministerial Responsibilities
I intend to be very frank in this correspondence lest my natural tendency to be diplomatic masks the strong sense of indignity that I feel, as an elected representative of the people of Anguilla, from your response to my directions to reassign the ministerial responsibilities in my Cabinet. I am particularly concerned because this has never happened in my thirty-seven years of active involvement in the politics of Anguilla.
Your letter of 24 January is based on one single word in Section 27 (1) of the Constitution of Anguilla, namely, “may”. I am amazed that you should believe that the word “may” allows you to overrule an advice from the Chief Minister on the reshuffling of his Cabinet. I want to suggest to you that that provision is simply to allow the Governor some latitude if the Chief Minister is appointing a Minister who is clearly not fit for such a position perhaps by virtue of some criminal or mental incompetence. Or because the Chief Minister is taking an action in the reshuffling of his Cabinet that would cause such egregious harm to the country that you have absolutely no other alternative other than to refuse his request. This is clearly not the case. The Chief Minister is simply reshuffling his Cabinet to more effectively assign ministerial responsibilities.
It is interesting that your recollection of our discussions in EXCO seem to imply that the intent of the proposed changes was principally to amend the allocation of policy responsibilities between Permanent Secretaries. Obviously, there will be some consequential changes and as you had indicated in that meeting you would not be changing the Permanent Secretaries. That is clearly your right however awkward that may be. The reshuffling of my Cabinet is a political decision that has absolutely nothing to do with an independent, politically neutral and impartial public service. And for the record, throughout my political career I have never interfered in public service appointments.
You are also quite wrong when you say that I did not object to the proposed changes in Permanent Secretary responsibilities. I would have had these discussions with the Deputy Governor and so did a number of my Ministers. However, we accepted the fact that there was no intention to amend the decision as is your right under the Constitution.
Your reasoning set out on the last paragraph of the first page of your letter is particularly troubling.
You begin by stating that the public service in principle is an independent, politically neutral and impartial public service. And continuing on to page 2, you say “the jobs that people should do in no part be influenced by patronage or preferment, and should be independent of any desires of any politician”. I am strongly of the view that you owe the Permanent Secretaries and Ministers who you have implicated in this conspiracy some apology.
This is the crux of your issue, as other than the constitutional point of whether you can disagree with the CM, you have raised no other concern with respect to the proposed moves. What this therefore means is that the driving force behind the redeployment of the Permanent Secretaries was based on a concern that the permanent Secretaries or at least some of them were influenced by patronage to particular Ministers, hence the move to place Permanent Secretaries with other Ministers. Other than this statement, there is no allegation, proof or evidence coming from you, Governor, which supports your perception that such a conspiracy is actually taking place. Certainly you have not shared this with us. As a matter of fact you have been glaringly absent in any discussions about the transfer of Permanent Secretaries up until my directions for the reshuffling of my Cabinet came up.
Governor, even if you were to present reasonable grounds to arrive at this viewpoint, the proposed shifting of portfolios does not interfere with the DG’s decision in any way. First and foremost, the Permanent Secretaries will continue to remain with the new Ministers as desired and therefore will avoid the patronage issues raised in your letter. Secondly, there is no allegation or reasoning by you to suggest that there existed any issues between the Permanent Secretaries and the departments which they previously headed. So for example, if P.S. Larry Franklin remains with the Chief Minister as directed by the DG, the transfer of DITES to that Ministry headed by PS Franklin does not undo the changing of the guards as between Permanent Secretaries and Ministers. Furthermore, it allows the real work for the benefit of the country that was taking place to continue so that certain goals can be accomplished.
To have PS Chanelle Petty-Barret continue with the awesome work she has been doing in Education at this time has nothing to do with patronage because she is still under another Minister. Where is the patronage? The Minster of Education who would have had an input in this decision, feels strongly that this is in the best interest of managing the issues in Education at this critical juncture.
My decision to reshuffle my Cabinet will not be constrained by the fact that you have made changes in the public service. I reserve the right to make changes to my Cabinet whenever and as often as I see fit. Your job is managing the public service — not managing the duly elected Government. I have no intention of accepting your decision, especially, in the Fiftieth Year of the Anguillians struggle for self-determination.
It is my intention to write Baroness Anelay on this matter. I will make sure that you have a copy of that correspondence.
Yours Truly,
Victor F. Banks
Chief Minister
