Since the controversial passage of the Goods and Services Act, in the Anguilla House of Assembly, on July 29, 2021, there has been a chain of correspondence involving the above-mentioned persons. In addition, a petition, signed by more than 2,000 persons and businesses protesting the GST, was presented to the Governor on Wednesday, August 11, 2021. Following is the chain of correspondence:
Concerned Citizens of Anguilla
31st July 2021
Your Excellency, Ms Dileeni Daniel-Selvaratnam
Governor
Old Ta
Anguilla
BY EMAIL ONLY: Dileeni.danielselveratnam@fco.uk
Your Excellency,
We feel constrained to write to you about our dissatisfaction with the fullest onslaught against our democracy that was on full display in the proceedings of the House of Assembly, on the 29th July 2021.
There are a few areas surrounding the events that occurred in the House that are troubling.
We have outlined them in the Petition that is attached hereto (hereinafter the July Petition).
In light of this July Petition which comes on the backdrop of a previous Petition of the Concerned Citizens in March 2021 objecting to the First Reading of the Goods and Services Tax Bill (GST), which was communicated to you, we are hereby seeking that you stay your hand in the assent of the GST Bill.
We undertake within 6 days of today’s date, that is to say by Friday, 6th August 2021 to deliver to you the signed Petition with the names of those individuals and business establishments who strongly believe that what occurred on the vote of the second reading of the Bill for GST was an egregious assault on our democracy and the bedrock principles of Transparency in the Anguilla House of Assembly.
We address first the breach of the process by the Government of Anguilla and the Members of the House of Assembly surrounding the Report of the Select Committee. Having constituted a Select Committee which received ‘witnesses’ who were persons ranging over a wide cross-section of the community, the Select Committee published its Report on Friday, 23rd July 2021 and was tabled in the House of Assembly on that date. The Report evidenced the clear and direct opposition to the passage and implementation of GST at this time. The Report also articulated a number of alternatives that could allow Anguilla to service its obligations so that the great potential of the GST to destroy the very fabric of Anguilla’s life by its direct and indirect impacts could be avoided.
While true that it was the Government that instituted the process for the formation of a Select Committee, the fundamental fact is that the establishment of the Select Committee and its Report emanated from a Petition by the People of Anguilla. It was therefore a process over which the People of Anguilla had ownership. The Petitioners and all Anguillians had a vested interest in the findings and conclusions of the Report and the right to adequate time to undertake a comprehensive study of the Report. Yet in a black eye to democracy and transparency, the Government of Anguilla failed to provide any transparency of the process by engaging with the Public on the details of the Report. Instead, without any notice to the media or to the General Public, the Government of Anguilla had two technocrats offer a response by social media launched one hour before the House was due to sit and debate the second Reading of the GST Bill.
From the standpoint of good governance, parliamentary democracy and participatory democracy, this breach of the process should be of interest to and very concerning to your good self with your knowledge of parliamentary procedures in the UK governing Reports of Select Committees on Bills. It should be particularly concerning to you as well that with no time for the People to study the Report, the second Reading of the GST Bill was only passed in the House of the Assembly with the support of the two ex-officio members who are British appointees. We, the People therefore ask you to consider whether the British Government accepts responsibility for this consequential breach of process against the People of Anguilla.
Secondly, the circumstances that occurred at the 2nd and 3rd Readings of the GST Bill in the House of Assembly are far more egregious. We note that the Speaker paid scant regard bordering on disrespect to the Hon At Large Member Mr Jose Vanterpool who sought a vote by division. We note further that the Speaker was deciding instead that she was satisfied by the “loudness of the yays” that the vote had carried. This is notwithstanding that she was also aware that two (2) members on the government side voted against the passage of the Bill along with the four (4) Opposition members. It therefore meant that there were 6 votes of elected members who were against the Bill and 5 votes of elected members who were in favour of the Bill.
The actions of the Speaker becomes relevant because during the proceedings of the House, she sought advice from the Attorney-General on the floor of the House, about an issue pertaining to voting. She did so in response to the request by the Hon At Large member, Mr Jose Vanterpool who sought a division of the vote. In support of his request he read the clear and unambiguous rule of the House that backed the request and mandated that the vote by division had to occur. Though plain to every listener, the Speaker refused to accept the plain interpretation of the Rules and the loudness of the “yays” carried the vote. This was a signal breach of impartiality in the performance of her duties as Speaker. She compounded the breach when she sought the opinion of the Attorney-General on the matter and rather than having him render his opinion to the members of the House, recessed the House for a private consultation with the Attorney-General. This was another egregious breach of the cardinal principle of transparency in the House of Assembly. On resumption, the Attorney-General’s advice to the members of the Assembly was that the vote by division should be taken. The Speaker accepted his advice.
Furthermore, startling and incomprehensible to say the least, having acted as legal advisor to the House on the issue, the Attorney-General felt ethically comfortable to deliver his ‘yay’ vote on the Government side and the Speaker made no intervention. Here it was in the People’s House of Assembly, the Attorney-General as ex-officio member acted as legal advisor to the Assembly on the law on voting on the GST Bill and then instead of abstaining, acted as decider in ensuring the passage of the GST Bill into law. This was an indecorous act that demeaned his stature and mocked our democracy. He already knew that his vote became pivotal to the outcome of whether the Bill succeeded or failed in the House.
The Public is well aware that both the Attorney-General and Deputy Governor as ex-officio Members of the House of Assembly are constitutionally empowered to vote. However, what they did by voting, and the Attorney General in particular as outlined above, cannot be divorced from the fact that they are appointed by your good office. Again, tasked with the responsibility of good governance this should be of grave interest to you. The Public therefore notes with disdain that there has never been such an unprecedented move and direct assault on the democracy of the People of Anguilla as the actions of those ex-officio members. It is incomprehensible to us, the People, that these two ex-officio members, appointees of the British, were used and felt emboldened to cast a vote to frustrate and crush the expressions of our People through the majority of the elected representatives. This full, frontal attack against our democratic process means that those 6 elected members representing the votes of over 8000+ Anguillians cast in the last General Elections, were nullified by the actions of these two British appointees.
This is untenable. It is outrageous. It is egregious. It is a serious and devastating incursion of the democracy of the People of Anguilla and we vehemently object to it. It must not be validated.
In light of all of the above and given that:
(a) this legislation is so broad-based;
(b) the Report of the Select Committee which synopsizes the great dissent of a wide cross-section of the community to the passage of GST at this time;
(c) given alternatives which were proposed; and
(d) those expressions of the community were not duly considered nor engaged before passage of the Bill
the circumstances are all indicative that there should be a pause for due consideration of the totality of the expressions of the public.
We believe that six (6) days albeit that they include three public holidays is not an unreasonable time to facilitate persons to be able to show demonstratively that they wish adequate consideration of their expressions.
We are therefore seeking formally a stay of your hand to the assent of the GST Bill until receipt of the Petition for which we would expect due consideration of the matters raised herein.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs Josephine Gumbs-Connor
Mr Mitchell Lake
Miss Khadijah A. Muhammad
Mr Percy Thomas
For and on Behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Anguilla
TO THE GOVERNOR OF ANGUILLA AND TO THE MINISTER OF THE OVERSEAS TERRITORIES
WE THE PEOPLE are utterly embarrassed and roundly reject the proceedings that occurred at the Anguilla House of Assembly – The People’s House – on 28th July 2021.
Previous Petitions
The circumstances that occurred last night are preceded by a backdrop where on 23rd March 2021, over 1500 persons in Anguilla and the Diaspora who had appended their signatures to a Petition that protested the passage of the Goods and Services Tax Bill being rushed into the House and be given a First Reading, was submitted to the Speaker of the House and copied to the Governor of Anguilla. Those Petitions form part of our historical record of discontent that we the People have expressed about the passage of the Goods and Services Tax Bill at this time.
Select Committee
Notwithstanding that the House proceedings ignored the voices of the Petitioners, the House of its own motion led by Government members instituted a process of a Select Committee whereby they solicited ‘witnesses’ who constituted ordinary citizens who presented information to the Committee.
The citizens represented the commerce sectors, the general private sector, the local Bar Association as well as civil society. The Report of the Select Committee was published on Friday, 23rd July 2021 and did not receive engagement or discussion by the Public. The Government took no steps to interface with the general public on the results of that report.
One hour before the House of Assembly was due to convene on 29th July 2021, with no notice to the media houses in Anguilla, a presentation of some form was made by government technocrats about the Report. It therefore has left the process instituted by the House of Assembly tainted as a sham, a farce and never a genuine intent to engage the People of Anguilla who will be under the weight of this impending legislation.
Proceedings at the House of Assembly
The circumstances that occurred at the 2nd and 3rd Reading of the House of Assembly however are far more egregious. We note that the Speaker paid scant regard bordering on disrespect to the Hon At Large Member Mr Jose Vanterpool who sought a vote by division. We note further that the Speaker was deciding instead that she was satisfied by the “loudness of the yays” that the vote had carried. This is notwithstanding that she was also aware that 2 two government ministers voted against the passage of the Bill along with the five Opposition members. It therefore meant that there were 6 votes of elected members who were against the Bill and 5 votes of elected members who were in favour of the Bill.
There has never been such an unprecedented move and direct assault on the democracy of the People of Anguilla as what occurred on the evening of 29th July 2021. It is incomprehensible to us the People that two ex-officio members, appointed by the British were used and felt emboldened to cast a vote to frustrate and crush the expressions of our People through the majority of the elected representatives. This full frontal attack against our democratic process means that those 6 elected members representing the votes of over 8000+ Anguillians cast in the last General Elections, were nullified by the actions of two British appointees.
This is untenable. It is outrageous. It is egregious. It is a serious and devastating incursion of the democracy of the People of Anguilla and we vehemently object to it. It must not be validated.
Our Request to Stay your Hand in Assenting to the Legislation
Now that sunshine pervades the process we are asking for you to consider and reflect on the actions of those two ex-officio members. We are hereby seeking that you stay your hand on the Assent of the legislation, as the People of Anguilla feel that your assent to this legislation is to give sanction to the flaws highlighted and leading to the passage of this legislation.
So determined are the People of Anguilla, that we crave seven days from today that is to say until Friday, 6th August 2021 for us to present a significant number of signatures in support of this Petition. While there are three holidays occurring next week which can impact on our obtaining signatures, we believe we can demonstrate the will of the People by their signatures not just in their personal capacity but their businesses that will be affected.
We believe that if full consideration is given to the Report of the Select Committee and other angles are explored that curtail expenditure, we can certainly meet and provide for our debt obligations without the hardship that is currently being experienced and which hardships will increase significantly on the People of Anguilla. We already foresee and have expert advice that indicates that those hardships on our People will deepen to the point of questioning the survival of our People when once there is full implementation of GST.
We seek your commitment to honour this request of the People of Anguilla.
Yours sincerely
Concerned Citizens of Anguilla
LETTER FROM THE GOVERNOR
1 August 2021
Mrs Josephine Gumbs-Connor
For and on Behalf of the Concerned
Citizens of Anguilla
Via email
Dear Mrs Gumbs-Conor,
Thank you for your letter and petition on behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Anguilla, of which note is taken.
I do recognise the strength of concern as reflected in your petition and more broadly. However, once I am satisfied the provisions within a Bill comply with the terms of the Constitution; I am obliged to respect the decision of the House of Assembly in providing my Assent.
In respect of your stated concerns about the parliamentary process, s.53 of the Constitution provides for all members who are present within the House to vote.
The Executive Council is collectively responsible to the House of Assembly and consequently the principle of collective responsibility is fundamental to its operations. All members of the Executive Council are collectively responsible for the policy decided within the Council. They are required to support decisions taken at Executive Council in the House of Assembly and if necessary before the public.
In line with standard practice, all legislative matters passed by the House at its session on Thursday 29 July were presented to me the following day, for my Assent. This included the Bill for Goods and Services Tax, 2021.
In line with standard practice, all legislative matters passed by the House at its session on Thursday 29 July were presented to me the following day, for my Assent. This included the Bill for Goods and Services Tax, 2021.
Accordingly, having been satisfied that the provisions within the Bill for Goods and Services Tax comply with the Constitution, I provided my Assent and the Act has been published in the Official Gazette of Friday 30 July 2021.
I do appreciate your engagement and representations made on behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Anguilla. I hope this letter provides clarity in respect of my required duties in providing Assent to a Bill passed by the House of Assembly.
Yours sincerely,
Dileeni Daniel-Selvaratnam
Governor of Anguilla
The Concerned Citizens of Anguilla
2nd August 2021
Your Excellency, Ms Dileeni Daniel-Selvaratnam
Governor
Old Ta
Anguilla
BY EMAIL ONLY: Dileeni.danielselveratnam@fco.uk
Your Excellency,
Thank you for your response of 1st August 2021.
We have duly noted your indication that you signed the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Bill into law on the 30th of July 2021, the debate of which concluded less than an hour short of midnight on the night of 29th July 2021. Your position therefore is that our request that you stay your hand is now moot. Under ordinary circumstances your action to have so assented would indeed not have excited our attention, however on this occasion it does, and as such we do not view your assent as a fait accompli in and of itself for reasons set out below.
The Consultation Process and Assent of the Bill
You stated that you were satisfied “that the provisions within the Bill for the Goods and Services Tax comply with the constitution” and on that basis that you assented to the Bill. We take that statement to refer to your duty under section 57 of the Anguilla Constitution. That section sets out that:
“2. When a Bill is presented to the Governor for his assent he shall, subject to the provisions of the Constitution… declare that he assents to it or that he reserves the Bill for signification of Her Majesty’s pleasure…”
We are ad idem that section 57 is the relevant and guiding section to circumscribe your actions. Where we seem to depart appears to be on the fact that you have failed to address in any material way, or at all, the issue pertaining to the clear breach of process that occurred within the House of Assembly on the 29th of July. We drew the circumstances to your specific attention but noted in your response that you failed to address them.
In our communication to you, we demonstrated the chronology of events that led to Government instituting a clear process of engagement with the Public. It is a process of engagement which the Government then turned on its head and breached its own process. The reason why this breach of process should be troubling to you is because the law emanating out of our Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court and out of our jurisdiction right here in Anguilla addressed the issue of process particularly when it relates to public engagement by Government or an authority and the Public. In Paul Webster et al v.The Attorney-General No 15 of 2008 our Court was quite clear taking its cue from the Constitution and administrative law principles. Our Cout said:
“The consultation process must be fair and genuine. Proper consultation was restated and approved by Lord Woolf in R v. North and East Devon ex parte Coughlan:
It is common ground that whether or not consultation of interested parties and the public is a legal requirement, if it is embarked upon it must be carried out properly. To be proper, consultation must be undertaken at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage; it must include sufficient reasons for particular proposals to allow those consulted to give intelligent consideration and intelligent response: adequate time must be given for this purpose: and the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account when the ultimate decision is taken.”
In our correspondence to you we highlighted in detail how this process did not meet the threshold for proper consultation as the Report of the Committee was hurriedly tabled such that even the Leader of Opposition complained at its haste and in the case of the public they were afforded no opportunity to engage on the Report on this wide-sweeping and difficult legislation. The process was instituted by the Government and therefore they had a constitutional duty to ensure that it was acquitted properly and in accordance with the standards as illuminated by our Courts. This did not happen.
For this reason therefore we assert respectfully that you are not in a position to say that that you acted in accordance with the terms of the Constitution. The case we have highlighted forms that body of law that identifies “due process” – that which the People of Anguilla have been denied – as a constitutional right. It is a constitutional right which your office is tasked with in observance of section 57. We invite you, now that you may be aware of this existing legal precedent, to consider that in not taking account of that constitutional provision of due process when considering your assent to the Bill, was a material and fatal flaw which has to be redressed.
For your decision to assent to stand, casts this entire process of the engagement with the Public as a complete sham, lacking integrity and ultimately cheating the Public out of their rights to a fair, just and most importantly a democratic process. Failure to redress and retract your hand is an act that will ultimately have to fall at your feet as the Administering Power tasked with good governance and the person who ultimately by your signature of assent sanctioned this flawed and egregious process. The principles of good governance have been hollowed out.
We refer you to our previous communication in which we asserted that “the People of Anguilla had a vested interest in the findings and conclusion of the Report and the right to adequate time to undertake a comprehensive study of the Report.”.
We await your specific response to this material issue. Did they or did they not?
The Actions of the Attorney-General
In our communication to you of earlier, we specifically referred you to the actions of the Attorney-General in the proceedings of the Parliament on the same 29th July. We note that you have chosen not to address this critical aspect of his actions and appear to paint a general gloss on the issue by suggesting that all persons who voted in the House were constitutionally empowered to do so and referenced section section 53 of the Constitution. That section indicates:
“Save as otherwise provided in this Constitution all questions proposed for decision in the assembly shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting”.
On the issue of the right of the Attorney-General and Deputy Governor to be able to vote, we are at idem. At page 3, Paragraph 2 and Line 1 our communication we acknowledged that fact. Our letter stated, “The Public is well aware that both the Attorney-General and Deputy Governor as ex-offico Members of the House of Assembly are constitutionally empowered to vote”. Therefore we are unsure why you have simply restated the agreed principle and failed to address the substantive issue that grounded our complaint. Having set out the circumstances in our previous communication, we would be grateful to understand from you whether you consider it transparent, ethical and decorous, that a sitting ex-officio member should on the invitation of a Speaker recess into her Chamber to advise her on an issue pertaining to a vote and then return into the Assembly indicate what that advice is and proceed to be a decider vote on the same issue on which the Speaker sought his advice.
The People of Anguilla look to your office for “good governance” which is your constitutional responsibility and from which all other areas of the administration of Government must observe the modeling that you will accept and promote. We would be grateful to understand with specificity from you, why we should accept that the actions of the Attorney-General meets the standard of judicious behaviour and not as it appears to us to be behaviour that was ethically compromised. In so doing, we would be grateful to understand whether you consider his actions to fall in line with the constitutional provision for “good governance” by which you would have had to be guided in assenting to the GST Bill.
Our Concern about Ex-Officio Members in general
We have also observed the general gloss that you have put on the People’s complaint, about the actions of the ex-officio members at those proceedings on 29th July 2021 who in essence took on a political role when they used their votes as deciding votes to overturn the combined votes of 6 elected members of the House. While you have taken time to elucidate on the convention of collective responsibility and by so doing indirectly refer to the Ministers of Government who voted against the Bill, you have placed the ex-officio members of the House on the same footing as elected members under the general umbrella of collective responsibility. There is no gainsaying that the debate surrounding this GST Bill was highly political. One wonders if in your view ex-officio members are free to adopt a political role (which was done on this occasion) as the norm or one of exception. We would be grateful to know your express position.
Conclusion
For all those matters raised above and the underlying thread of material breaches related to the consultative process and the assent and the conduct of the Attorney-General it is our view that you could not or ought not to have felt comfortable to have exercised your hand to assent to the GST legislation. We invite your specific and clear response to each of those issues.
In conclusion, we would characterize your communication to us the People of Anguilla as a mere gloss on specific issues which we had asked you to address. On this occasion, we would be grateful if we can receive your answers with specificity to the questions and issues we have raised. We the People of Anguilla are entitled to hear from you in clear and unmistakable terms as you represent the office holder of a significant repository of power under our Constitution in circumstances where We the People currently feel that our democratic and constitutional pillars have been undermined.
In the discharge of your guardianship over good governance we look forward to the courtesy of detailed responses to the questions and issues raised previously and restated in this letter.
Yours sincerely
Mrs Josephine Gumbs-Connor
Mr Mitchell Lake
Miss Khadijah A. Muhammad
Mr Percy Thomas
For and on Behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Anguilla
OFFICE OF THE LEADER OF OPPOSITION
4th August 2021
BY EMAIL: DileenLdanielselvaratnam@fco.uk
Your Excellency, Ms Dileeni Daniel-Selvaratnam
Governor
OldTa
Anguilla
Your Excellency,
Re: Passage of Goods and Services Tax Act 2021 in the Anguilla House of Assembly
I write to you in my capacity of Leader of the Opposition ‘ in the Anguilla House of Assembly, the Leader of the Anguilla United Front Party and as an Anguillian.
The second and third readings of the Goods and Services Tax Bill 2021 (“GST”) came before the Anguilla House of Assembly (“the HOA”) on Thursday 30th July 2021. Of the eleven elected members in the HOA, six members voted against the passage of the GST and five voted in favour of same. You are no doubt aware that the two ex officio members – the Deputy Governor (“the DG”) and the Attorney General (“the AG”) in an unprecedented move, voted for the GST.
Section 19A of the Anguilla Constitution provides that “[T]here shall be a Deputy Governor who shall be appointed by the Governor in pursuance of instructions given by Her Majesty through a Secretary of State and shall hold office during Her Majesty’s pleasure”. Section 68 of the Anguilla Constitution provides that the power to make appointments to any office in the public service who is required to possess legal qualification shall vest in the Governor, after consultation with the Judicial Services Commission. The Attorney General is appointed pursuant to this provision.
It is clear from the above two provisions that the positions of the DG and the AG and their consequential presence in the HOA are not by virtue of their being elected, but through their appointment by the Governor. All other members of the HOA (with the exception of the Speaker) are elected by the People of Anguilla. It should be noted that the Speaker of the HOA only votes in the event the votes in the HOA are equally divided.
We are fully aware that our Anguilla Constitution 1982 (as amended) (lithe Anguilla Constitution”) allows the DG and the AG to vote as ex officio members. The fact is, notwithstanding their ability to vote, in the past both ex officio members did not exercise their right to vote, and instead allowed the people Anguilla to exercise their democratic rights through their elected representatives.
The members of Opposition in the Anguilla House of Assembly, as well as the people of Anguilla whom we represent are firmly of the view that a significant matter such as a wide sweeping tax law which has implications for all Anguillians, residents and visitors alike, should not have been passed with votes from two unelected members, even though their votes may have been constitutional. One of the foundational tenets of democratic governance is encapsulated in the well-known slogan, “No taxation without representation”. This principle was clearly and blatantly violated and abused with the votes of the AG and the DG on that infamous evening of 30th July 2021, and makes a mockery of representative governments.
The DG and AG voted with a minority of the elected members. Their vote in favour of the GST were ultimately the deciding votes for the passage of a new and significant tax on our people, and otherwise undermined the will of the people, as expressed through the votes of their elected representatives.
But what is equally troubling is the inescapable fact that both DG and AG positions are Governor appointed positions. Their votes were therefore seen by the public as votes cast by the Governor by proxy and made a farce of the concept of parliamentary democracy. It should be noted that this view prevails irrespective as to whether a governor actively plays a role iri the decision of the DG and AG to vote, especially on substantive matters in the HOA.
The precedent that this has set for the passage of laws in the HOA in the future is alarming. Will the votes of the DG and the AG now be used to secure the passage of an unpopular bill where the elected members of government of the day may be in the minority? Will the votes of the DG and the AG now be used to secure the continued functioning of a minority government where the Premier (formerly “Chief Minister”) no longer commands the support of a majority of the elected members of the Assembly contrary to Section 24(1) of the Anguilla Constitution? If that is the case, are we not to assume that the Office of the Premier is now simply an extension of the Governor’s power (as he has become reliant on the Governor to enact legislation)? We have now observed two pivotal votes of appointed and unelected officials being used to pass a tax on the people of Anguilla.
These important questions fall to you to be answered as the Governor of Anguilla appointed by Her Majesty pursuant to Section 19 of the Anguilla Constitution, who in turn appoints the DG and the AG in accordance with Sections 19A and 68 of the said Constitution.
In the circumstances, I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Cora Richardson Hodge
Leader of the Opposition in the
Anguilla House of Assembly
Anguilla Christian Council
5th August 2021
Her Excellency Dileeni Daniel-Selveratnam
Governor of Anguilla
Government House
Old Ta
Anguilla
Dear Governor,
Greetings in the name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Christ, of whom I am a servant.
As chairman of the Anguilla Christian Council, with my colleagues in ministry, I have engaged Government, followed the consultative process, debate and eventual passage of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Bill in the Anguilla House of Assembly.
Though the passage of this bill is deemed to be lawful, the unprecedented manner in which it was passed in the House of Parliament has opened a series of debates and questions, that will have serious implications upon parliamentary democracy in Anguilla in the future.
The Anguilla Christian Council will subsequently make a comprehensive representation to you on these issues. However it is my hope that you as well as our parliamentary representatives on both sides of the divide regarding GST will note how the democratic voice of the people of Anguilla was not reflected in the final vote in the House of Parliament on this bill.
It is also my hope that you as well as our parliamentary representatives will consider the implications this action will have not only with regards to this bill but also on bills and motions brought to the House in the future.
I will therefore like for you as well as our parliamentarians to consider whether the manner in which this bill was passed has established a precedent that will endanger parliamentary democratic representation that reflects the sacred values and views of the people of Anguilla in the future. Today it is GST, what will it be tomorrow?
I await your response to the ‘petition‘ letter.
Please join me in prayer, for the peace, unity and prosperity of the people of Anguilla.
In the Service of Christ
Wilmoth O. Hodge
The Concerned Citizens of Anguilla
9th August 2021
Your Excellency, Ms Dileeni Daniel-Selvaratnam
Governor
Old Ta
Anguilla
BY EMAIL ONLY: Dileeni.danielselveratnam@fco.uk
Your Excellency,
Mrs Gumbs-Connor had been in communication with Mr Hicks with respect to delivery of the Petition of the People of Anguilla to your goodself. While the communication between them both had progressed to determining a time for your availability, his correspondence to us disregarded our request for audience and indicated that we were free to “drop off” our Petition during the opening hours of your office any day of the working week. We must reasonably assume that the Head of your Office conveys that change of communication on your express instruction.
If that is the case, such an action would be an affront not just to the signatories who sought a specific request, but primarily in their capacity as representative of the People’s interest. Your refusal to receive the Petition in person constitutes an insult to the 2000+ Anguillians who in seven (7) days which included three (3) public holidays appended their signatures to the Petition. Those Anguillians, in that Petition, expressed their views on the black eye to our democracy which occurred with the egregious circumstances surrounding the passage of the GST Bill in our House of Assembly and to your assent to the Bill passing it into law. Therefore, that your office, which we must assume is acting on your instruction, should exhibit such a contemptuous disregard for the People’s interest is unacceptable on any view. As a matter of fact, this would be the first time within our memory that a request for delivery of the People’s Petition to a sitting governor has been treated with this scant regard. Thus, a request to simply drop off the Petition of the People of Anguilla will not be condoned.
We therefore make a formal request for audience with you to present the Petition of the People of Anguilla to your goodself.
We also wish to inform, in the spirit of transparency (which has been drawn into question in this current climate), that we will be inviting the Press to be present for formal coverage of the transmission of the Petition to you.
We therefore look forward to your indication as to the day and time when you might be prepared to receive us.
Yours sincerely
Mrs Josephine Gumbs-Connor
Mr Mitchell Lake
Miss Khadijah A. Muhammad
Mr Percy Thomas
For and on Behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Anguilla
