The arrest last week of Minister of Home Affairs, the Honourable Walcott Richardson, on two counts of indecent assault, sent shockwaves throughout our little island. The duty is not mine to comment on his guilt or innocence, as others have done, for the law presumes him innocent and as a responsible journalist I must do likewise. Of greater concern to me is, what will Minister Richardson, the Chief Minister, or even the Governor, do in the face of these charges? To assist in answering this question, I was moved to review the Anguilla Constitution to see if it would shed any light on the matter. However, this does not seem to be a matter clearly addressed by the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution does not require any specific action to be taken in these particular circumstances.
Without a constitutional compass guiding the decision-making process, how will this situation, which (regardless of innocence or guilt) is an embarrassing one for the Minister, the AUM administration and Anguilla as a whole, be dealt with? If one looks at the international arena, allegations of this nature against Ministers of Government, or Heads of Government-based or international organisations, normally spur a resignation on the part of the accused person either voluntarily or at the instigation of the person to whom he or she reports. Where resignation is not immediate, the accused person is often suspended or tenure terminated. Like Anguilla, I am certain that often times there is no constitutional or other legal obligation that requires those accused persons to demit office. However, moral law and the public interest dictate that this is the most appropriate course.
Caribbean politics on the other hand, seems not to be subject to any moral compass (at least not in the form in which we know it) or any international norms or expectations. In fact, former Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Mr Basdeo Panday, expressed the view – to two Members of Parliament back in 2005 at his United National Congress party caucus – that:
“Politics has a morality of its own and … if [your] professional integrity is more important than politics, then [you] should leave politics…”
Many critics were outraged at Panday’s statement and have publicly condemned him for it. An examination of the “business as usual” approach adopted by several of our region’s leaders, in the face of criminal charges, however, suggests that Panday may in fact have a better understanding of Caribbean politics than we do.
Back in 2008, for example, St Vincent and the Grenadines Prime Minister Dr Ralph Gonsalves was charged on two occasions with sexual assault. The charges were later discontinued by the Director of Public Prosecutions but, in the interim, Prime Minister Gonsalves continued to function in the office of Prime Minister. At the time of the discontinuance of the second charge, it was reported in the Caribbean media that Dr Gonsalves was representing his country at a Caribbean conference on combatting crime.
Recently, we learnt of the arrest in Brazil of former Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands, Mr Michael Missick. Mr Missick is awaiting extradition to the Turks and Caicos to face charges of corruption. We will recall that when the charges first surfaced several years ago, Missick did not voluntarily step aside and eventually his actions resulted in Britain suspending the Turks and Caicos Constitution and imposing direct rule in the Turks and Caicos Islands.
Even more recently, Cayman Islands Premier, McKeeva Bush, was charged with misuse of Government funds, conflict of interest and importing explosive substances. Following his arrest, it was clear that Premier Bush had no intention of stepping down. He was eventually “forced out” and has been replaced by his Deputy Premier.
I am sure we can recall several other examples of Caribbean leaders faced with criminal charges, who did not appreciate the public interest benefit in relinquishing office, at least temporarily. Will this matter involving Minister Richardson follow a similar vein, or will we see a deviation from what seems to be a regional norm? Whatever our view about Minister Richardson’s arrest, our concern should be what is in the best interest of our nation at this time?
While, as mentioned earlier, we have to presume that Minister Richardson is innocent unless proven otherwise, in order to preserve Anguilla’s reputation of good governance, and in the interests of transparency and accountability and for the public good, Minister Richardson ought to voluntarily relinquish his ministerial portfolio until the matter is resolved. Such an act will demonstrate true statesmanship and a willingness, on the part of Minister Richardson, to put country above self by not allowing the image of the public office entrusted to him to be tarnished.
