The Anguilla Public Service is considered to be inefficient and ineffective. Why? Because many public officers are inefficient and ineffective. Institutions and systems are usually only inefficient and ineffective because the people managing or functioning within the institution or system are inefficient and ineffective.

In the Anguilla Public Service when an email or letter goes unanswered for weeks and months, public officers have simply forgotten about it or deliberately ignored it. When calls go unreturned, a public officer has determined whether they will or will not return your call. When an office is not open to the public at the scheduled opening time, an officer has failed to arrive on time or having arrived on time has been slow to prepare to engage with the public.

Public officers, whose function it is to answer the phone, often transfer calls and disengage without waiting to ensure that the intended recipient of the call has received the call. One would think this could be solved by issuing clear instructions and those clear instructions being followed. This inefficiency is a poor reflection on the officers answering the phones and those officers charged with managing/supervising them. They contribute to the inefficiencies in the Anguilla Public Service.

Public officers are being inefficient and ineffective when members of the public present themselves at the Immigration or Labour Department with a query, and it is obvious what their concerns or difficulties are, and public officers constrain themselves to only answering the questions asked and fail to provide information that they should realise would be helpful to the individual. Too often, officers choose to be unhelpful while being unnecessarily authoritative.

When a public facing government department does not ensure that its services are available to the public during what is commonly viewed as lunchtime (12:00 to 1:00 p.m.) it is a failing of the management of that department and of the Public Service. Why are persons, despite the constant call for such services to be made available, still unable to access customs services during the lunch break? One would think that simply staggering the lunch hours for the staff would solve this issue. The failure to make a decision that addresses this issue and to implement and monitor that decision lies with the management of the Customs Department and the Public Service.

One of the greatest inefficiencies spoken of recently in relation to the Anguilla Public Service is the reluctance or outright failure of public officers to think. Yes, to think. Senior public officers appear afraid to be guided by legislation and policies intended to guide them in the execution of their duties. Despite being possessed of bachelor’s and master’s degrees many of them resort to seeking direction from the Attorney General’s Chambers, a minister, or the Executive Council rather than interpreting and applying the law which is intended to govern their departments. This leads to significant and unnecessary delays in progressing business transactions, all because a public officer was reluctant to read, understand and follow the applicable laws and policies. The absurdity of this situation is compounded when it appears that despite similar situations having occurred in the past there was no effort to obtain a general direction as to how such matters should be treated so that similar matters would not have to be subjected to the same long referral process before a decision can be communicated. This is clearly a denouncement of the officers involved, which in turn reflects poorly on the institution – the Anguilla Public Service.

When people fail, the institutions and systems they manage and operate will inevitably fail. The failings of the Anguilla Public Service must be attributed to those who manage and operate the institution and/or system.

With the renewed attention being placed on constitutional reform it is anticipated that one of the issues that will attract significant attention will be the eligibility of persons to be registered to vote. The editorial of 26th April, 2024, titled “The Mystery of Voter Registration” is therefore being reprinted to remind persons of the current requirements to be registered to vote in Anguilla and to, hopefully, generate discussions which will inform the provisions governing voter registration in a revised constitution.

“The Mystery of Voter Registration

Who is qualified to be registered to vote in Anguilla’s elections? What makes persons eligible to be registered? The recent suggestion of the possibility of the abandonment of the existing registers of voters compiled under the continuous voter registration system, thereby requiring persons already registered to apply to be registered, has sparked some lively debates among Anguillians in Anguilla and the diaspora.
It should be reasonable to expect that Section 43 of the Anguilla Constitution would provide answers to the questions posed above. But does it? The Constitution is a legal document and despite being the guiding document for citizens as they seek to understand the affairs of Government, including voter registration, some legal expertise is necessary to understand who is qualified to be registered as a voter in Anguilla. Section 43 is set out below so that persons can make their own judgment.
“Qualification of voters
43. (1) Subject to the next following subsection a person shall be qualified to be registered as a voter in an electoral district if he is of the age of eighteen years and upwards and—

(a) is a British Dependent Territories citizen born in Anguilla, and is domiciled there at the qualifying date; or
(b) (i) is a person who belongs to Anguilla who has resided in Anguilla for a period of not less than twelve months immediately before the qualifying date, and is domiciled there at that date, and is the lawful spouse, widow or widower, or the son or daughter or the spouse of such son or daughter of a person who was born in Anguilla; or
(ii) is a person who belongs to Anguilla who is domiciled in Anguilla and has resided there for a period of at least five years immediately before the qualifying date; and
(c) is at the qualifying date resident in the electoral district in which he claims to be registered.
(2) Every person who is qualified to be registered as a voter in any electoral district shall be entitled to be so registered provided that a person shall not be registered as a voter in more than one electoral district.”

Who is a British Dependent (Overseas) Territories Citizen? If you are not the holder of a passport how is this established? What does the term ‘domicile’ mean? What is the ‘qualifying date’ referred to in section 43? What does it mean to have ‘resided’ in Anguilla?

Most persons appear content to accept without question the status of a person registered to vote, as a British Dependent (Overseas) Territories Citizen. The same applies to a person’s domicile. The fact that there is a ‘qualifying date’ seems to be totally overlooked. Whether a person has resided in Anguilla for the requisite period attracts the most attention in discussions about eligibility to be registered as a voter. This is not surprising as the term “resided” is the one with which laypersons consider themselves most familiar.

In trying to understand section 43 it would be useful to remember that words may have ordinary meanings and be perceived in a particular manner by laypersons but be subject to a particular legal interpretation. The burning question must therefore be, – What in law amounts to being resident for the purposes of registration as a voter in Anguilla?

The report of the last Constitutional & Electoral reform Committee led by Mr. Don Mitchell QC has recommended the use of the term ‘ordinarily resident’ rather than “resident” in the hope that it would remove some of the apparent confusion caused by the use of term ‘resident.’ Would the terms ‘ordinarily resident’ achieve the desired result?”

Recently, two obvious changes have become apparent in the hierarchy of Anguilla’s Public Sector. One is touted with pride while the other is looked upon with skepticism.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that our male population is not keeping pace with their female counterparts. This is seen in the performance of students at all levels in the education sector, and in the workplace. Women are outpacing men and this is even being reflected in home ownership, where very often women, rather than men, are seen constructing homes.

In the public sector, particularly as it relates to the governance of Anguilla, women are now at the helm. Anguilla’s Governor, Premier, Speaker of the House and Attorney General are all female. This is indeed historical and is looked upon by many with immense pride.

The other change in the hierarchy of Anguilla’s Public Sector is not being greeted with the fanfare being accorded to the high appointment of women. The occupation of the posts of Governor, Attorney General and Commissioner of Police by British officials has been the subject of negative comment in the social media.

Concern has been expressed that a deliberate effort is being made to appoint British officials to deliver on a British agenda. While there is no obvious evidence to support a deliberate plan on the part of the British these concerns ought not to be simply dismissed as being unfounded, when one considers that the Governor has the ultimate authority to appoint persons to the posts of Attorney General and Commissioner of Police. For many the plot thickens because the holders of these posts report directly to the Governor. Obviously, it would not be unheard of for favour to be shown to applicants who are more likely to be in accord with or persuaded to the views of the person to whom they will report. In the case of each officer, one hopes that they will demonstrate independence in the execution of their duties so that they do not merely respond to directives or suggestions but instead determine the best course of action in their professional and independent judgement.

Will the presence of females in the offices of Premier and Speaker of the House serve to thwart any British agenda that might be perceived as not being in the best interest of Anguilla? Premier Cora Richardson-Hodge and Speaker Tara Carter have been highly commended by many persons for the manner in which they have performed their roles since assuming their offices. They have both presented themselves as well-researched and well-reasoned in their engagements. These attributes will serve the people of Anguilla well as they execute their duties, while always being mindful of their responsibilities to the people and country.

While the ascension of women to high office is being rightly hailed it would behoove more men to take the necessary steps so that they can also readily be considered for such high offices. The occupation of certain offices by British persons is understandably being viewed askance, but Anguillians must ensure that they are equipped to compete for the positions to which British officials are being appointed so as to justify any claims of unfair treatment. It also follows that job requirements should not be deliberately skewed to limit opportunities for Anguillians to compete for positions.

Anguillian males and females must all strive to equip themselves to be favourably considered for positions in the hierarchy of the public sector and should be allowed to fairly compete for such positions.

With every new year many persons pledge to adopt new and more positive habits. Many of the pledges are short-lived because of a lack of discipline. As a community can we identify changes that if they were made would help to better our individual lives and therefore our communities? Do we have the discipline to make those changes? Can we be forthright with each other and therefore hold each other accountable when we are falling short? Some hard truths must be examined if we genuinely want to better our lives and our communities.

In many respects we are pretentious and very often refuse to accept our circumstances. That failure prevents us from appropriately addressing our circumstances. Many of us enjoy years of plenty without preparing for the years of struggle. This is seen at a national level and at an individual level. At a national level Governments appear to be highly motivated in their decision making by a desire to be re-elected and to outdo the former administration in terms of its ex-gratia payments or gifts to the electorate under whatever description coined for the occasion. Should a system of a fair wage for a fair day’s pay be pursued with any bonus payments only being made in circumstances merited by performance or do we prefer to foster an entitlement environment? The decisions of our leaders play a significant role in the culture created.

Some families in Anguilla are struggling. This is undoubtedly true but is that obvious in how they live? Not always. Too often persons try to keep up with their neighbours rather than accepting and responding appropriately to their current circumstances. The result is that the hole they are in is dug deeper, with implications for the development of their children. Apparent luxuries and social engagements are pursued while the basic care and needs of children are often left unfulfilled. Will we see adults conducting themselves responsibly in 2026 so that they address their needs and those of their children before pursuing their wants?

Children are often weaponised when “loving relationships” between their parents turn sour. Mothers make demands of fathers for maintenance that do not take into consideration the father’s means. Some fathers with the means to do better treat their children’s needs as secondary to their social life, preferring to party and treat the fellows at the bars. Some mothers deny fathers the opportunity to have a relationship with their children because they are angry with the father. Friends and family of parents who weaponise their children in their disputes with one another or neglect their children often condone and support such behaviour by their silence and engagements with these parents.

Young adults blame their circumstances on the failure of their parents to thoughtfully plan and manage their lives and for therefore failing to ensure they had certain advantages in life. Many often resort to suggesting that the success achieved by others is as a result of who they know, rather than accepting the work they did to achieve success. Young adults should accept that there comes a time when they must take charge of their lives and it is their efforts that will play a significant role in determining their success. Sacrifice is necessary to get what you want. Owning your own vehicle, land, home or obtaining a degree will always remain elusive if funds are spent on the latest fads, to attend every fete, or to travel extensively. If certain desires are to be realised certain life changes must be made.

In 2026, hopefully some hard truths will be faced and some tough decisions made resulting in improved lives.

The issue of independence for Anguilla is regularly touted by some Anguillians. The issue gains greater prominence on occasions when because of Anguilla’s status as a British Overseas Territory, Anguilla’s progress is viewed by some as being stymied by the decisions of UK officials. The usual response at that time is an immediate call for independence. With the renewed interest in Constitutional reform is this an appropriate time for the measured consideration of Anguilla’s readiness for independence?

I am of the firm belief that independence is the goal that all Anguillians should desire for Anguilla. I must then consider Anguilla’s readiness for independence. My view on that issue has been and continues to be that while I do not consider Anguilla to be ready to proceed to independence today, I fervently believe that we ought to be actively taking steps to prepare ourselves for that status.

There are certain broad areas to which we must turn our attention, as a country and as individuals, if independence is to be achieved in a sustainable manner. These areas include social, economic, political, and constitutional development. We must build an economy that has the capacity to provide and maintain the necessary physical infrastructure, and the social framework required to sustain and facilitate our people’s needs and aspirations. A political system that reflects the highest democratic ideals, thereby ensuring good governance principles of integrity, transparency, accountability, and public participation is required. This will facilitate the establishment of processes and relations that allow the formulation and implementation of public policies essential to Anguilla’s development. The inclusion of provisions in our Constitution, which will secure these ideals, is essential to the realisation of sustainable independence for Anguilla.
While responsible and active leadership is required to pilot Anguilla and its people in relation to issues of social, economic, political, and constitutional development, there is one area that is integral to the success of any independence movement that is personal to each of us. We need to prepare ourselves psychologically.

Sustainable independence requires a population capable of reasoning and communicating effectively. These are attributes which we can only achieve through active practice. We must become a population that recognises that the success of one of us signals success for the rest of us. We must start to realise that our desire to progress as individuals does not require that we stymie the advancement of our neighbour. We must begin to realise that our battles can and should be fought in a manner that does not irreparably damage internal relations and our prospects regionally or internationally.
The attributes described require us to revisit our thinking and our behaviour. We can be guided by the well-known principles which most, if not all, of us have been exposed to at some time in our lives. – ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,’ and ‘Brighten the corner where you are.’ Using these principles as our guideposts can see us changing Anguilla’s landscape and aiding greatly in our advancement towards sustainable independence for Anguilla.

I believe there is consensus that independence is a status that Anguilla and Anguillians should aspire to. That status can only be successfully achieved if we deliberately and consciously engage in reasoned consideration of what we need to do to navigate the path towards sustainable independence. It is an achievable reality.

The Anguilla Public Service is a rules-based organisation. Public officers and their departments are governed by legislation, policies and General Orders.

In relation to financial matters public officers are expected to comply with the Financial Administration and Audit Act, which sets out the responsibilities and powers of the Minister of Finance, the Permanent Secretary of Finance, the Accountant General, and the Accounting Officers. In the Anguilla Public Service, the Permanent Secretaries are all Accounting Officers.

The Act allows accounting officers to delegate some or all of their responsibilities to other public officers, including Department Heads. Public officers to whom such responsibilities are delegated are responsible for the discharge of the accounting officer’s responsibilities.

The Financial Administration and Audit Act, however, also provides that accounting officers are not absolved from ensuring that their responsibilities are discharged because their responsibilities have been delegated.

Since legislation exists which details the responsibilities of public officers in relation to financial matters one would consider it reasonable to expect that there would be little opportunity for mishandling of public funds. Sadly, this does not appear to be the case.

Should there be mishandling of public funds it would be expected that since the legislation determines where responsibility lies for certain financial matters it would be easy to determine who is responsible for any mishandling of public funds. This, however, is not always apparent when it is discovered that there has been a mishandling of public funds. The systems of checks and balances that exist in the public service in relation to money related matters suggest that more than one individual should be subject to scrutiny when a proper account cannot be given for public funds.

Another significant area in the Anguilla Public Service that is governed by extensive rules is Human Resources. The appointments, transfers, promotions, and training of individuals are governed by the Public Service Commission Regulations and General Orders.

The Regulations and General Orders require the interaction of public officers at all levels. Significant responsibilities fall on Department Heads, Permanent Secretaries, the Deputy Governor, Governor, and the Public Service Commission.

There is also occasion when consultation with the Premier is required. When a public officer cries foul in terms of how he or she has been treated in the Anguilla Public Service one has to look to the Public Service Commission Regulations and/or the General Orders to determine whether the Public Officer has been fairly treated within the context of the public service rules.

Where does the fault lie when persons are considered for a post for which they did not apply, alongside applicants? Who is at fault when recruitment processes are abandoned and repackaged because the successful candidate was not politically favoured? Like the mishandling of public funds, when a public officer in the Anguilla Public Service is unfairly treated it should not be difficult to determine where the fault lies. The systems of checks and balances that exist in relation to Human Resource matters also suggest that the fault is likely to lie with more than one official in the Anguilla Public Service.
Effective Financial and Human Resource Management in the Anguilla Public Service is not dependent on the mere existence of rules. It is dependent on the consistent, objective, and fair application of the rules. Public officers are required to be observant and diligent in the scrutiny of the work and proposals of their colleagues and to call them to account, as necessary.

In the Anguilla Public Service when there is a failure to adhere to or be guided by the applicable rules, it is a failing of the public servants and not the rules. It suggests collusion between public officers, negligence on the part of public officers or a blatant refusal on their part to effectively carry out their responsibilities. Rules, if not managed diligently and effectively, have little value.

Section 3 of the Anguilla Constitution provides for the protection of an individual’s right to their personal liberty. Section 3 (3) of the Constitution, which is set out below, specifically provides for bail to be granted to persons who may not be tried for a criminal offence within a reasonable time.

“Protection of right to personal liberty
3. (1) No person shall be deprived of his personal liberty save as may be authorised by law in any of the following cases, that is to say—
(3) Any person who is arrested or detained—
(a) for the purpose of bringing him before a court in execution of the order of a court; or
(b) upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed or being about to commit a criminal offence under the law of Anguilla,
and who is not released, shall be brought without delay before a court; and if any person arrested or detained upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed or being about to commit a criminal offence under the law of Anguilla is not tried within a reasonable time, then, without prejudice to any further proceedings which may be brought against him, he shall be released either unconditionally or upon reasonable conditions, including in particular such conditions as are reasonably necessary to ensure that he appears at a later date for trial or for proceedings preliminary to trial.”

The increase in criminal activity in Anguilla has many persons questioning why persons charged with criminal activities are able to obtain bail. The principle that persons are innocent until they are proven guilty appears to be of little significance to some persons. The Judiciary and the Police are being subjected to greater scrutiny and pressure as blame is often accorded to these two bodies for not doing enough to deter criminal activity in Anguilla.

How will the Judiciary and the Police react to this increasing scrutiny and pressure? Will the Judiciary bend to pressure and ignore established legal principles which guide the granting of bail to individuals charged with criminal offences and deny bail where an individual’s appearance at trial could be secured by the granting of bail with reasonable conditions? That is not expected to be the case. The Judiciary is expected to ensure the protection of an individual’s right to personal liberty, while implementing measures to secure their appearance for their trial at a later date.

Will the Police be immune to the greater scrutiny and pressure they are being subjected to, in the execution of their duties? There is a real fear that the Police, to convince the public that they are actively responding to increasing criminal activity in Anguilla, might not be as observant of the individual rights of persons. Should persons be detained for days and questioned for hours merely because of a report made to the police? Should houses be entered (forcibly on occasion) and searched merely because of a report made to the police? Who determines whether the report is credible and justifies interfering with a person’s personal liberty or an invasion of their privacy? What further action is taken before interfering with a person’s personal liberty or an invasion of their privacy? How much information is a police officer required to share when seeking a search warrant? Is a mere indication that a person is reasonably suspected of criminal activity, without explaining the basis for the reasonable suspicion, enough to secure a search warrant? These are all legitimate questions, which are reflective of the growing concern that the Police, in a bid to demonstrate that they are actively addressing the increase in criminal activity, might not be as considerate of the rights of individuals as they ought to be.

When detaining or arresting persons or executing search warrants is there any consideration for the potential smear on the character of the persons being subjected to the exercise of police powers? There is a tendency to assume that if the police arrested you or searched your home, that you must be or have been involved in some criminal activity. Little attention is paid to the fact that many arrested persons are released without further action or that searches of premises often reveal no evidence that suggest criminal activity on the part of the occupants. The police in the exercise of their duty to serve and protect should behave in such a manner that they do not cause a person’s good name to be unnecessarily tarnished .

Our demand for criminal activity to be deterred and for crimes to be solved must not be at the expense of unreasonable interference with the personal liberty of innocent persons. Greater scrutiny and pressure must not be allowed to result in reduced consideration for our individual rights.

Two pieces of draft legislation have been the subject of public consultation this week. According to a press release issued by the Acting Attorney General “these legislative initiatives are part of the Government’s ongoing efforts to modernize the criminal justice framework, ensuring that the rights of individuals are protected while enabling law enforcement agencies to carry out their duties effectively and fairly.”

The press release further provided that “the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (2025) seek to establish clear procedures governing police powers in relation to arrest, detention, questioning, search, and treatment of persons in custody. The Bail Act (2025) will provide a modern framework for granting or refusing bail, balancing the presumption of liberty with the need to ensure public safety and the administration of justice.”

The success rate of the police and prosecutors in Anguilla in securing convictions for firearm offences and violent crimes has been low. Many crimes remain unsolved. Some persons frequently question the basis on which bail is granted, often voicing the opinion that bail should not have been granted. Recent amendments to the firearms legislation have seen mandatory minimum prison terms introduced for convictions.

Many persons see the two legislative initiatives being proposed as further efforts to secure convictions by ensuring greater police powers in relation to arrest, detention, questioning, search of suspects or their premises. Will this mean an encroachment on the existing rights of individuals? That would seem to be the case if police officers and other authority figures are allowed to exercise powers they did not previously possess. Is this a ‘tradeoff’ the citizens of Anguilla are willing to make to secure more convictions and hopefully deter criminal activity? There is trepidation on the part of some persons, who are fearful that the removal of certain restrictions on the rules governing the conduct of the police may result in the abuse of newfound powers and the victimization of innocent persons.

It is unlikely that increased powers given to police officers will by itself instill confidence in the police force. Many persons express concern about how some police officers operate with their current powers. Granting them greater powers will require that they exercise greater responsibility. Will this be the reality?

Reduction in crime in Anguilla requires the public to cooperate with the police. Police officers are often not present when crimes are committed. Reliance must therefore be placed on innocent bystanders who happened to be present to say what they saw or heard. There are, however, occasions when a civilian saying something will not be enough. A successful conviction might require the civilian to give evidence.
Persons often express fear of being a target of the criminals if they are known to be assisting the police. It would be helpful if the police could give civilians real assurances that their safety would not be in jeopardy. Despite assurances of a confidential hotline, civilians remain reluctant to even communicate anonymously. If civilians are reluctant to communicate anonymously, how will they be convinced to appear as witnesses at a trial?

If the new legislative initiatives in the form of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (2025) and the Bail Act (2025) serve to grant greater powers to police officers and these powers are abused, we will not see improved relations between the police and the public. Relations will deteriorate.

The potential implications of the legislative initiatives should be carefully considered and steps taken to truly ensure that the rights of individuals are protected, while enabling law enforcement agencies to carry out their duties effectively and fairly.

Most questions arise where the appointments do not appear to be justified by the qualifications, experience, and background of the appointees. It is generally accepted that a political party in making appointments will first consider eligible appointees from among its supporters. It is when the appointees appear to be ineligible, based on all reasonable criteria, that questions raised are considered to be justified.

Despite the regular cries of cronyism, nepotism, and appointments for political favours, following appointments after each change in political administration, no real change has been made to ensure visible objectivity in appointments to government-related bodies. At least one minister under the former APM administration sought to invite applications from persons desirous of serving on boards. Applications were required to be submitted to the minister, which again saw questions being raised as to the objectivity of that process. Cynical mined persons observed that the Minister merely needed to quietly invite persons he/she wanted to appoint to the boards to apply. It would then be a simple matter of appointing them on the premise that they expressed their interest.

Whether a request for persons to express their interest in serving on a board is the ideal way to ensure the best possible appointees to boards is questionable. Sadly, many persons desire to serve on boards for the apparent prestige and remuneration, rather than a real interest in or commitment to the work of the entity they will be charged to govern. An invitation to persons possessing the requisite qualifications, experience and character required to serve effectively as a director of a particular body might be more successful in securing the right calibre of person. Is this likely to happen while the mechanism for board appointments to government-related bodies lies solely with the ruling political party? The only rational answer is no.

The Constitutional & Electoral Reform Committee under the leadership of Don Mitchell KC considered this issue. The solution proposed in its report was for an Appointments Commission to be established which would consist of three members. The members would be the Governor, the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition who would each appoint one member, and the quorum would be two members. The obvious intent of the proposal to establish an Appointments Commission was to secure objectivity in board appointments, rather than the political bias which appears to prevail.

The Premier recently announced the appointment of a new Constitutional Reform Committee. The issue of board appointments as well as other matters requiring reform are expected to attract the attention of the Committee. Without a concerted and sincere effort on the part of the ruling administration, constitutional reform will not be achieved. In 2019 when some constitutional reform was achieved the process was driven by Mrs. Cora Richardson-Hodge as Minister with responsibility for Constitutional Affairs. Mrs. Richardson-Hodge now serves as Premier and Minister with responsibility for Constitutional Affairs. There is reason to hope that significant constitutional reform will be achieved.

On 7th January, 2022, Dr Timothy Hodge retired from the post of Director of the Anguilla Social Security Board. Since that date, the post has not been substantively filled. Dr. Maglan Lewis, Deputy Director of the Anguilla Social Security Board, has acted as Director since Dr. Hodge’s retirement. Despite many indications that a substantive appointment was imminent it has not materialised.

Then there is the position of Attorney General. Since Mr. Dwight Horsford demitted office in June 2024 the search for a substantive Attorney General has not borne fruit. Different persons have acted in the post of Attorney General, with Mr. Ivor Greene currently acting in the post.

Why have no substantive appointments been made to the positions of Director of Social Security and Attorney General? The explanation offered has been that no suitable candidates have been identified.

Whose responsibility is it to secure suitable candidates for these posts? This question is answered by the applicable legislation. The authority to appoint the Director of Social Security is vested in the Governor by section 6 of the Social Security Act, which is set out below.

“6. (1) The Governor shall appoint a fit and proper person to be the chief administrative officer of the Board on such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may determine.”

The Governor appoints the Director on terms agreed with Executive Council.

According to section 68 (1) of the Anguilla Constitution, which is set out below, the Attorney General is appointed by the Governor acting after consultation with the Judicial Service Commission.
“68. (1) Power to make appointments to the offices to which this section applies and to remove and exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in such offices shall vest in the Governor, acting after consultation with the Judicial Service Commission.

(2) This section applies to the office of Magistrate, to any office in the public service of any registrar or other officer of the High Court who is required to possess legal qualifications and to such other offices in the public service, for appointment to which persons are required to possess legal qualifications, as may be prescribed by any law for the time being in force in Anguilla.”

The common denominator in both these public service appointments is the Governor as the authority to make the appointments is vested in the Governor. Why the delay? Were the recruitment processes utilised ineffective? Has there been a failure to come to a consensus between the Governor and Executive Council or between the Governor and the Judicial Service Commission? Hasn’t there been sufficient time to get it right?

Whatever the cause of the delay, efforts should be made to fill these two significant posts substantively without further delay. Or is it that the Governor is content with the performance of the persons acting in these posts and see no need for urgency in substantively filling the posts? If that is the case, then why have the persons acting not been substantively appointed to the posts?

What is clear is that the existing situation is unacceptable.

Credibility once lost is difficult to regain. This appears to mean nothing to some politicians and key supporters. It might also be that they are so assured of the absolute and unquestioning support of their base that they see no need to be credible. This is a poor reflection on the politicians, their key supporters, and their base of supporters.

Do those who profess a desire to lead have a responsibility to make the best decisions and institute the best policies for the electorate even if at that time it is not obvious to the electorate? It often appears that politicians are either feeding their egos or pandering to their political base to ensure their continued support rather than insisting on implementing what is likely to be the best outcome. Was the best outcome achieved in relation to the development of the Blowing Point Ferry Terminal and the Landsome Bowl Cultural Centre? Will the best outcome be achieved in relation to the development of the Clayton J Lloyd International Airport? There are questions surrounding the adequateness of these facilities, some of which appear to be well founded. Some politicians, however, seem to be focused on bragging rights rather than ensuring continued improvements for the benefit of Anguillians, residents and visitors.

When politicians seek credit for delivering what they consider to be a considerable improvement on what previously existed, they should also accept the blame for the shortcomings in those developments. This is not often the case. Very often the shortcomings are totally ignored, with the politicians appearing to be following the example of the ostrich with his head buried in the sand. They seem to think that if it is not acknowledged by them, it does not exist. If persons fail to acknowledge the obvious their credibility ought to be questioned.

Mr. Ronald Webster, who has been accorded the title father of the nation, is credited with establishing the Social Security System despite the lack of support from the electorate. He believed that the system would benefit his people and despite their protests he ensured its implementation. Was it perfect at implementation? It was not, and it continues to be improved upon by decision makers today. There is no shame in accepting that an improvement is not perfect and working to remedy the flaws.

We often see politicians and key supporters bickering publicly while seeking to ensure that a particular politician or political party is credited with delivering some project, while paying little attention to the shortcomings of the project which must now be addressed by their successors. This is counterproductive and does not suggest that these persons are desirous of seeing improvements for the benefit of the citizens but rather to feed their own egos. When will the electorate begin to question the credibility of our leaders such that our leaders recognise that they are not admired for their conduct and instead of retaining or gaining votes they are likely to lose votes by their behaviour? The electorate will only get the standard of conduct that they demand from their elected leaders.

Social media is replete with the comments of key supporters of politicians following their respective radio programmes or interviews. Sadly, the comments of some persons are immediately discredited as they are considered to be so blinded by their support for a particular politician or political party that their comments lack credibility. They are viewed as biased and as not having engaged in any critical analysis of what was said but are hailing the comments made simply on the basis of who made them. Discerning persons, view the comments of these persons with scepticism. This is particularly disheartening when the persons are perceived as having the education and the background to help to raise the understanding of ‘John Public’ but prefers to do otherwise. Such persons appear to pay little regard to the fact that credibility once lost is difficult to regain.

The Anguilla United Front (AUF) Administration in the Executive Council Meeting of 21st March 2025 approved the appointment of new members of the Anguilla Tourist Board (ATB). Ex Min 25/46 provides that Executive Council “Noted the Stipulation that all appointed members of the ATB must complete a Corporate Governance Certification within three months of their appointment or as soon as the course becomes available. The training should cover but is not limited to, key topics such as i. The Principles of Good Governance; ii. Board Responsibilities in Corporate Governance; iii. Financial Oversight; and iv. Risk Management.”

A similar stipulation does not appear in other recent Executive Council Minutes appointing the members of other government agencies. It however appears that despite being absent from the Executive Council Minutes, board appointees are expected to undergo Governance training. The stipulation is nothing new and first originated with the AUF Government of 2015 under the leadership of Victor Banks. It was maintained by the APM administration, led by Dr. Ellis Webster, when it took office in 2020.

Does this reflect a real desire on the part of Governing administrations to see improved governance in the management of the affairs of Government agencies? The Editorial of 25th November 2022, which is reprinted below, examined the behaviour of the APM administration in relation to appointees that failed to pass the required Governance training.
“Good Governance – Is It A Real Aspiration?

The Anguilla Progressive Movement (APM) assumed office on 30th June, 2020 having won the General Election held on 29th June, 2020. Shortly after assuming office the APM administration made a nearly clean sweep of the Government Agencies by replacing most, if not all, of the members on the Boards.

According to the minutes of the 5th Meeting of the Twelfth Anguilla Executive Council held on Thursday 13th August, 2020 the Boards of the Anguilla Social Security Board, the Water Corporation of Anguilla and the Anguilla Air and Sea Ports Authority (AASPA) were reconstituted. In each instance the relevant Executive Council Minute provided that “all members appointed to the Board must complete Governance and Accountability certification and Public Financial Management certification training within three (3) months, with a body approved by the Ministry of Finance, failure to comply will result in removal from the Board.”

The AASPA Board has again been reconstituted, according to EX MIN 22/337 as set out in the Minutes of the 109th Meeting of the Twelfth Anguilla Executive Council held on Thursday 20th October, 2022. Of the nine Board members three are new, with six having served on the previous Board appointed in 2020. According to EX MIN 22/337 four of the six returning members did not pass the Governance and Accountability certification programme. According to the 2020 Executive Council Minute, failure to complete the training should have resulted in the removal of these members from the Board. This did not occur. Instead, the four members remained on the 2020 Board and now continue on the newly constituted Board.

EX MIN 22/337 states that the four members who did not pass the certification programme are to complete the programme and examination as soon as it is available with the Anguilla Community College, the University of the Virgin Islands, or an accredited body approved by the Ministry. In relation to the other Board members the Minute states that – “Board members will be informed in their letter of appointment that they need to pass the exam and the deadline by which they must do so.” EX MIN 22/337 like the 2020 Executive Council Minute refers to the removal from the Board of Board members who did not successful pass the examination.

Is any value to be placed on the stipulations in the most recent Executive Council Minute, based on what has occurred previously? Is it realistic to expect that failure will actually result in the removal of Board members? Everything points to the contrary position being more likely.
Doubt that there is any real desire on the part of the APM administration to ensure that Board appointees are exposed to and appreciate good governance principles appears justified, when one considers the utterances of Premier Webster in relation to his Government’s failure to secure the appointment of certain persons to ANGLEC’s Board. The Premier appears to place little importance on the need to comply with the bylaws that govern the appointment of Board members to ANGLEC. He appears unwilling to accept that his Government was subject to ANGLEC’s bylaws, and that its efforts to appoint directors to ANGLEC’s Board, therefore, required that it comply with ANGLEC’s bylaws.

Sadly, the decisions and conduct of the APM administration does not cause one to be assured that we are truly aspiring to achieve good governance here in Anguilla.”

Will the AUF administration also turn a blind eye to the failure of any of its appointees to satisfy the stipulation that they complete a Corporate Governance Certification?

Anguilla was once described as a Colony of the United Kingdom. It then became known as a British Dependent Territory. Now it is described as a British Overseas Territory. What changes in autonomy have we witnessed with these name changes? Some persons would argue that with the passage of years Anguilla’s elected leaders have lost, rather than gained autonomy. The feeling among many persons is that no matter the name Anguilla is called by it is a colony.

Many persons, including elected members of the House of Assembly, profess that the Governor runs Anguilla. According to some elected members, the Governor dictates decisions in Executive Council and determines what matters will form part of the agenda. This suggests that elected officials are unable to determine what matters should be discussed in Executive Council meetings and that the decisions are not made by elected officials. If this is indeed the view of anyone seeking elected office, it raises the question – What then is the value of our elected Government? A more troubling concern is why would persons who hold this view seek elected office.

The Anguilla Constitution in section 28 establishes the areas that fall within the Governor’s remit without the input of elected members and the areas on which the Governor must act in accordance with the advice of the elected ministers who comprise the majority of the membership of Executive Council. If the Governor is able to assume a dictatorship-like role in relation to the administration of the affairs of Anguilla, the quality of our elected leadership must be questioned.

The progress of the Goods and Services Tax over the past few years leads one to wonder how much of a role effective leadership plays when engaging with the British Government. How are our elected leaders to secure what they desire for Anguilla compared to what British officials may profess to be best for Anguilla?

The AUF (Anguilla United Front) Government in a time of dire need committed to introducing the Goods and Services Tax in return for certain monetary assistance from the British Government. The APM (Anguilla Progressive Movement) Government campaigned vigorously against the implementation of the Goods and Services tax in the run-up to the 2020 General Election. However, upon assuming office they implemented the Goods and Services Tax and professed that they had no choice since if it was not implemented the British Government would declare Anguilla a failed state. The AUF members, who were then in Opposition, expressed the view that despite their earlier commitment to implement the Goods and Services Tax, because of changed circumstances, they would have engaged further with the British Government and would not have implemented the Goods and Services tax as it was implemented or at the time it was implemented.

The General Election of 2025 approached and the AUF campaigned heavily on providing relief from the Goods and Services Tax. This is the tax that was implemented by the APM on the premise that it had no choice because of the demands of the British Government. The AUF was successful in the polls in February 2025 and effective 1st August, 2025 it revised the tax regime to remove the Goods and Services Tax and replace it with a General Services Tax Act and a Goods Tax Act. The AUF, through these two Acts, have sought to make good on its promise to provide GST relief. There has been no suggestion that the AUF Government has been stymied in its desire to effect GST relief, by the British Government. What has changed between the implementation of GST in 2022 and the provision of GST Relief in 2025? One obvious change is the change in Anguilla’s elected Government. Could it be that no matter the description accorded to Anguilla, whether the desires of Anguilla’s electorate prevail as opposed to those of the British Government depends on the quality of the leadership of Anguilla’s elected Government?

The recent permanent secretary appointments have been subject to public comment. So too has the AUF Government’s GST Relief Plan. For many, the public comments via social media platforms have highlighted the significance of ensuring good men and women are appointed to senior posts in the Anguilla Public Service. Some persons are questioning whether this objective is being pursued in the Public Service.

It is hoped that republishing the editorial first published on 19th January, 2018 titled “Good Men and Women Required” will serve as a reminder why good men and women are required in the top echelons of the Anguilla Public Service. Although dated, the sentiments expressed remain very relevant today.

“Good Men and Women Required
An unnecessary ‘rivalry’ often appears to exist between public officers and private sector employees and entrepreneurs. Members of each group appear to be convinced that they offer greater value to the development of Anguilla, by virtue of the importance of the role they play in Anguilla’s development and because of the dedication and energies they bring to those roles. In my view the rivalry is totally unnecessary as the relationship between the public and private sectors must be symbiotic, if the successful and sustainable development of Anguilla is to be achieved. My long association with both the private and public sectors has allowed me the unique opportunity to personally observe the invaluable contributions of both sectors to Anguilla’s development.

Public officers have the great responsibility of assisting elected officials in creating an environment that will facilitate the successful development of private enterprise, which is essential to national and economic development. The required environment involves political, socio-cultural, economic, financial and constitutional considerations. While public officers are likely to lead and to be more closely associated with the creation and implementation of the policies that affect these areas, the vital input and continuous involvement of private sector individuals and entities is absolutely essential. The success of the process of integrating the work of public sector and private sector officials is, however, very much dependent on the leadership of public sector officials.

The public service requires good men and women in leadership roles to successfully engage with elected officials and to successfully discern and respond to the needs and desires of the private sector, so as to ensure that an enabling environment is created in a timely manner. It is in this regard that much work still needs to be done and the greater onus is on the individuals and institutions that manage the public service to ensure that this happens.

We continue to grapple with constitutional and electoral reform. The necessary engagement with the populace has been conducted. The ball is squarely in the hands of the ministers of Government and their senior policy advisers. Will leadership be demonstrated, resulting in long overdue constitutional and electoral advancement? Our Planning legislation and Labour laws are outdated. Will leadership be demonstrated in advancing the necessary revisions in these areas? Are arguments being marshaled by senior public officers to convince powerbrokers how proposed legislative changes will improve our sustainable development? A recent announcement by the Minister of Labour at a meeting between ministers of Government and business persons, facilitated by ACOCI suggests that the long awaited revised Labour Act will soon be enacted.

Anguilla now has at its disposal some £60, 000,000.00, courtesy of the UK Government and tax payers. Although the relationship between the private and public sectors may be best described as symbiotic, this is an occasion when those in the hierarchy of the public sector are better placed to influence how efficiently and effectively those funds are utilised. Will the leadership of the top echelons of the Public Service manifest itself in the coming months and years? There is no better time than now for good men and women in the public service to stand up and out. This is an opportunity that should not be squandered.

The long delays and apparent lack of direction in relation to the rollout of the new garbage collection contracts, is an example of what not to do when one is privileged to sit in the seat of authority or influence, in the public service. The absence of timely information, for an enquiring public merely seeking to understand when and how garbage would be collected, was far below the standard expected of good public officers.

Leadership requires proactive thinking, sound analysis and diligent execution. Does the Anguilla Public Service possess good men and women with these attributes? If you exist now is the time to raise your hand. Anguilla needs you now more than ever, if full advantage is to be taken of the unprecedented opportunity we now have to pursue certain long anticipated developments.”

“Tit for tat” is a phrase which conveys the retaliation against a person for some action on the part of that person. Is this what we are seeing in relation to the recent spate of murders which is considered to be gang related? Is the tit for tat phenomenon confined to gang related activity?

We need to take a hard and honest look at ourselves and consider how much we have contributed or are contributing to what is fast becoming the new norm of hostility and antagonism in Anguilla. Social media is rife with personal attacks. Some are veiled and others are direct. Many persons, who one would think should lead by example, such as elected members of the House of Assembly, often join the fray adding to the animosity brewing between persons.

Workplace incidents escalate to full-blown enmity, such that employees are barely civil to each other in the workplace, if they can maintain civility. Character assassination has become the order of the day as employees are vilified on WhatsApp messages, suspected of being created by fellow employees, and which are shared multiple times.

Parents are at odds with teachers and police officers, and this is often played out in the presence of their children. Gone are the days when parents stood with teachers and the police as authority figures when seeking to instill values of respect and discipline in their children. Today they see their antagonism towards teachers and police officers as standing in defence of their children who they consider are being taken advantage of by the authority figures. No longer is a quiet word with an authority figure considered an appropriate means of engagement, if issue is to be taken with their actions. A quiet word is seen as reflecting weakness. Appearing weak is not acceptable and loud is seen as an indication of strength.
Conflict is prevalent among families today. How is such conflict resolved? Family members no longer refer to patriarchs, matriarchs or elders in the family to assist in resolving conflict. Instead, family members arm themselves with legal representation and prepare to do battle in arenas that are naturally adversarial rather than conciliatory. The gloves come off and often the adjudicator must remind them that they are family.

As adults we are still playing the ‘last lick’ game we played as children. We must get in the last lick no matter the cost, and no matter whether it contributes to a viable solution or not. We find satisfaction in having won a battle while the war still rages.

We can pretend that societal decay in Anguilla is confined to gang related violence. If we take that hard look at ourselves and engage in some honest introspection, we should realise that many of us are contributing to creating an environment where we seem only to identify with aggression as a means of resolving our differences, since many of us seem to think to do otherwise is a sign of weakness.

The “tit for tat” syndrome seems to be everywhere in Anguilla.

The level of violent crimes in Anguilla is unprecedented. Ten murders have been committed in six months. Have the investigations led to anyone being charged for any of the murders? We have heard of arrests on suspicion and subsequent releases but no charges.

The increased number of boots on the ground in terms of officers from the UK and elsewhere has borne no obvious fruit. The consensus is that we have seen an escalation in criminal activity with the increased numbers in the police force. Is this a case of quantity rather than quality?

Tough questions must be asked of those who are charged with maintaining the security of Anguilla. The Constitution bestows the ultimate responsibility on the Governor. The Governor relies on the Commissioner and his officers to deliver their mandate to serve and protect. The Electorate expects our elected government to ensure the safety of Anguilla’s citizens, residents, and visitors to Anguilla.

Are the tough questions being asked? Is the Governor being made aware that she is considered to be failing in her responsibility to ensure the security of Anguilla? Is the Commissioner being tasked to explain why no real progress is being made in bringing any of the perpetrators of the recent murders to justice? Are our elected representatives merely content to issue statements after each tragic event or are they vigorously pushing the Governor and Commissioner to deliver actual results? The Electorate is strangely ‘quiet’ in the face of the unprecedented level of violent crimes being perpetrated in Anguilla. Why is that?

I remember a time, when the Royal Anguilla Police Force was under the leadership of Keithly Benjamin and Rudolph Proctor, when the hospitality sector was very vocal in making demands of them. At that time, the hospitality establishments were being targeted by criminal elements. Commissioner Benjamin and Deputy Commissioner Proctor, with far less resources than those available to the Police today, were expected to stamp out the criminal activity and no excuses were to be tolerated. Members of the public, led by the hospitality sector, were not kind to Commissioner Benjamin and Deputy Commissioner Proctor.

Where has the zeal and passion previously displayed by the public gone? Why are we content with the issuing of statements by the Governor, Premier and Commissioner after acts of violence? What has changed so that Commissioner Clark is not subjected to the same demands, reasonable or otherwise, that Commissioner Benjamin and Deputy Commissioner Proctor faced? A police force that is better resourced, in terms of number of personnel and equipment, is available to Commissioner Clark but results are not apparent and yet there is no outcry. Quantity is clearly not the answer. Will there be a demand for quality to manifest itself in the work of our police force? Now more than ever the public zeal that Commissioner Benjamin and Deputy Commissioner Proctor were confronted with is needed. The unprecedented level of crime is not to be tolerated.

The Editorial of 10th November, 2023 (in The Anguillian Newspaper) questioned whether political parties in the past that made political promises, which were not kept, had made honest mistakes or engaged in deliberate deception. As we await the outcome of the Anguilla United Front’s (AUF’s) promise to implement GST Relief, the editorial which was titled “Honest Mistakes or Deliberate Deception” is being republished as a reminder of previous experiences.

“Honest Mistakes or Deliberate Deception?
Taxes are always a consideration for both the parties vying for election and for the electorate that must decide how to cast their vote. Usually the political party seeks to assure the electorate that there will be no increase in taxes or that taxes will be reduced. Members of the electorate are usually pleased to receive such assurances and sometimes solicit such assurances.

The AUF in its bid to win the 2015 General Election ran on a platform that included a promise to repeal what was then the Interim Stabilisation Levy. The APM (Anguilla Progressive Movement) in its bid to win the 2020 General Election ran on a platform that included a promise not to implement the Goods and Services Tax (GST).

The AUF won the 2015 General Election, garnering six of the seven available seats. The APM won the 2020 General Election garnering seven of the available eleven seats. It appears that the promises made to remove or not to implement a tax was a factor in the AUF and the APM succeeding in their bid to win the General Election in 2015 and 2020 respectively.

Were the promises made kept? The Interim Stabilisation Levy continued until it received a name change in 2021. It is now known as the Universal Stabilisation Levy with the only real change being the name change. The tax regime implemented under the name Interim Stabilisation Levy remains firmly in place. The Goods and Services Tax was implemented in 2022 and is highly touted by the APM administration as the source of funds for ongoing and promised projects. The promise to remove the Interim Stabilisation Levy by the AUF was not kept. The promise not to implement the GST by the APM was not kept.

Both the AUF and the APM have sought to explain the reasons for their failure to keep the promises that appear to have played a significant part in their successful bid for election in 2015 and 2020 respectively. The more cynical among us are suspicious as to their motives during their campaigns. Were they honestly mistaken as to the situation with the Interim Stabilisation Levy and the GST or were they being deliberately deceptive? Whether persons form an opinion one way or another, there is the genuine concern that persons seeking to lead a country for the next five years failed to sufficiently investigate the situation so that they could realistically determine what was possible or not possible. This failure does not reflect well on persons seeking elected office.

What promises will be made by the political parties, vying to be elected, in the next General Election? Will adequate research be undertaken before making promises, to ensure the viability of such promises? The electorate deserves nothing less. The electorate however, must also appreciate that it has a duty to require persons vying for elected office to support their promises with sound plans for delivery. Persons vying for office must not be allowed to rely on a gullible electorate.

The GST remains a significant talking point for both the APM and the AUF. The APM seeks to explain why, despite their promise not to implement GST, it is a good tax for Anguilla. The AUF continues to remind the APM and the populace generally that the APM failed to keep its promise not to implement GST, which they claim has contributed significantly to the increased cost of living in Anguilla.

Will the AUF do more than merely highlight the APM’s failure to keep its promise or will the AUF propose something that alleviates the suffering it claims the GST has brought to the people of Anguilla? Whatever the AUF proposes, its members will have to remember that it too failed to keep a promise made when vying for election in 2015. The electorate will now hopefully be more watchful and will demand more than mere rhetoric before buying into the promises of any political party.

Hopefully, following the next General Election, the electorate will not have to consider whether honest mistakes were made by those vying for election or whether they engaged in deliberate deception.”

We await the outcome of the promised GST Relief in the hope that the question whether the AUF made an honest mistake or engaged in deliberate deception will not have to be considered.

Politicians seek to persuade people to see things their way. This is often with the intent of diminishing their political opponents in the eyes of the electorate. Are we wise enough to discern what is real and what is merely political mischief or worse, a deliberate spreading of misinformation?

Ministerial Assistant Mr. Jeison Bryan is an Honourable Member of the Anguilla House of Assembly, having been elected as an Island Wide Member in the 2025 General Election.

Mr. Bryan’s revelation in a recent interview with Keith “Stone” Greaves that he does not possess an Anguilla passport has been the subject of discussion among some political pundits. While some persons have outright questioned his eligibility to be elected to the Anguilla House of Assembly others have been more mischievous by expressing shock that Anguillians voted for a man who does not have an Anguillian passport and leaving it to others to question his eligibility.

It is disappointing to see persons querying or condemning Mr. Bryan’s election to the House of Assembly without considering the process by which he would have gotten there. A significant step in the process to being elected is the nomination of candidates. If a person unqualified to be elected to the House of Assembly is nominated as a candidate on Nomination Day that would be an indictment on many persons.

The nomination of an unqualified candidate would reflect poorly on the party machinery and party leadership of the party putting forward the unqualified candidate. It would also reflect poorly on any opposing party. Even if the opposing party, for strategic reasons, did not sound an alarm during the nomination process, if the unqualified candidate is successful at the polls, one would expect the opposing party to quickly denounce the winning candidate as being unqualified. On Nomination Day at least two persons must nominate a candidate and these persons must declare, in writing, that they believe the nominated person to be qualified to be elected to the House of Assembly. Likewise, the nominated candidate must also declare, in writing, that he/she meets the requirements of the Constitution and is therefore qualified to be elected to the House of Assembly.

To readily believe that Mr. Jeison Bryan is unqualified to hold elected office, after being elected in the 2025 General Election, is to question the understanding of the party members and leadership of the Anguilla United Front and the Anguilla Progressive Movement, as to the requirements to be elected to the House of Assembly. Additionally, any belief that Mr. Bryan is unqualified to hold elected office calls into question his understanding of Anguilla’s Constitution and suggests a disregard on his part and that of the persons who nominated him, for the requirements of the Constitution.

It is a sad reflection on Anguilla if we would more readily believe that our system and people failed us in relation to such a significant national event, rather than seeking to determine for ourselves whether the absence of an Anguilla passport is a requirement to be elected to the Anguilla House of Assembly. Section 36 of the Anguilla Constitution requires a person seeking to be elected to the House of Assembly to be an Anguillian. Section 80 of the Constitution sets out the several ways in which a person can become an Anguillian. Upon reading section 80 it is clear that a person can be an Anguillian and not hold a British Overseas Territories Citizen / Anguilla Passport. If Mr. Bryan meets the requirements of sections 80 and 36 of the Anguilla Constitution, the fact that he does not hold an Anguilla passport is irrelevant in relation to his election to the Anguilla House of Assembly.

A discerning public should be able to distinguish between political mischief, mere propaganda, and genuine concern. Greater discernment on our part would mean that we engage in critical thinking and are less likely to fall prey to political machinations.

Tranquility wrapped in blue. Can Anguilla honestly still be described as “tranquility wrapped in blue?” The spate of killings being experienced in recent years says otherwise. Do we want to return to the days when tranquility wrapped in blue was a truism for Anguilla? Many of us say yes, but it is not apparent in the behaviour of some of us.

Many of us are of the view that the curbing of crime is solely the responsibility of the police and the Governor who has constitutional responsibility for internal security. The regular requests from the police for assistance from civilians are viewed by some as the police wanting them to do their job for them. Is it a failing on the part of the police that members of the Anguilla populace do not appreciate the basics involved in police investigations and criminal prosecutions?

Many people genuinely do not appreciate what is required to bring criminals to justice. Some simple questions might assist in fostering a greater appreciation of the role citizens (the man on the street) must play in bringing criminals to justice.

Are police officers often present when crimes are committed? No. Reliance must be placed on innocent bystanders who happened to be present to say what they saw or heard.

Can police officers be everywhere so as to remove reliance on civilian witnesses? No. Unless our desire is for a police force whose members outnumber the populace; this is not an option.

Will there be occasions when a civilian saying something will not be enough? Yes. A successful conviction might require the civilian to give evidence.

Obviously, civilians have a significant role to play in bringing criminals to justice. Police often arrive at the scene of a crime after the incident. They must then secure evidence to identify the perpetrator of the crime and to successfully prosecute that person. If persons have a better appreciation of the essential role of civilians in curbing crime will that be enough to ensure their ready assistance? This is unlikely to be sufficient as many persons express fear of being a target of the criminals if they are known to be assisting the police. It would, in these circumstances, be particularly useful if the police could give civilians real assurances that their security will not be in jeopardy.

Can the Royal Anguilla Police Force realistically assure persons that their safety will not be at risk if they see something and therefore say something? Despite assurances of a confidential hotline, civilians remain reluctant to even communicate anonymously. If civilians are reluctant to communicate anonymously, how will they be convinced to appear as witnesses at a trial?

Anguilla’s authorities must address the upsurge in crime from all angles. One angle is to improve the success rate for investigations and prosecutions. Currently criminals seem to be acting with impunity as they appear to have little fear of being discovered and brought to justice. The more crimes remain unsolved the more likely people inclined to commit crime will be minded to do so as the likelihood of discovery and/or conviction seems slim.

A key step towards the restoration of tranquility in paradise requires an increased understanding of the role of civilians in curbing crime. This should be coupled with increased confidence in our police force and our prosecutors to ensure the safety of witnesses and to secure convictions. Is energy being focused on those areas?

By letter dated 7th March 2025, Leader of the Opposition, Dr. Ellis Lorenzo Webster, wrote to Her Excellency, Governor Julia Crouch in relation to certain actions by the Supervisor of Elections. The letter was captioned “Re: The Integrity of our Voters Register and the Undermining of our Democratic Electoral Process.” The stated purpose of the letter was to bring the Governor’s “focus on extremely serious concerns that arose from the misconduct of the Supervisor of Elections, Mr. Rodney Rey.”

In his letter, the Leader of the Opposition repeatedly referred to Mr. Rey’s actions on 24th February, 2025 in reopening registration for early voting as being unlawful. He described Mr. Rey’s actions as constituting a tampering with the Voters list and as undermining the integrity of the entire election process.

The Governor was said not to have taken any meaningful action in response to Mr. Rey’s actions as he was permitted to supervise the polling on Election Day. The Leader of the Opposition described meaningful action as requiring immediate suspension or immediate dismissal.

The Leader of the Opposition in the closing paragraph of his letter drew the Governor’s attention to section 86 of the Elections Act and appeared to be suggesting that criminal charges could or should be considered against Mr. Rey.
The general consensus of members of the public appeared to be that Mr. Rey was unfairly targeted, as his actions had no impact on the outcome of the election and could not have impacted the outcome of the election, as the persons who sought to be registered to vote in the Advance Polls were already registered voters.

The Governor in response to the Leader of the Opposition’s concerns commissioned an independent review of Early Voting Applications. Many persons, however, questioned the need for an independent review.

The Final Report of the Independent Review of the Advance Poll Application Process, dated 7th April 2025, confirmed the views of the vast majority of Anguillians. The Findings confirmed “that the reopening of the application process for the advance poll was not supported by the law and was done without consultation or public disclosure. Despite the breach, all 38 voters who applied late were already registered electors and would have been eligible to vote in the advance poll had they applied on time.” The report also concluded that – “The election results reflected the genuine will of the people. There was no evidence of voter disenfranchisement or illegal voting.”
Many persons consider the Final Report to have vindicated Mr. Rey. To the extent that it makes clear that his action on 24th February, 2025 did not impact or taint the results of the Election, one can consider him to have been vindicated. That Mr. Rey’s actions were in contravention of the Elections Act cannot be ignored and the resulting investigation, which many consider to have been unwarranted in the face of Mr. Rey’s acknowledgement that he was wrong as he did not have the power to act as he did, should serve to emphasise the need for precise compliance with Election Laws.

While many might be of the opinion that the Independent Review did not have to be, we can consider what lessons can be learnt from it.