Civics addresses how government functions and how individuals participate in the democratic process. It is about us and how we are governed. It should therefore follow that civics is a subject in which all citizens should be interested. For our democratic processes to work effectively citizens must seek to understand and engage the systems applicable to the operations of government.

To effectively participate in the governance of a country a citizen should understand how government works and the value that are expected to shape the workings of government. Citizens need to be informed and to seek to be informed. It is, however, not enough to be informed, citizens must be prepared to act having been informed. Action should not be restricted to the voting process every five years. Action also involves actively and regularly holding institutions of government accountable.

A significant aspect of civics is how a person conducts themselves as they go about participating in the governance of their country. It is the diversity of people and their ideas and perspectives that makes life interesting. Civics requires that in our engagements with each other and with government institutions we are civil and respectful as we engage with each other and institutions of government.
In the context of Anguilla, is civics alive and well? Social media discussions suggest that there is a lack of understanding of how government works among a sizable proportion of Anguilla’s populace. Many persons do not understand the difference between Executive council and the House of Assembly. The difference between a policy decision and legislation is not apparent to many persons. The workings of our judicial system is a mystery to far too many persons.

Where does the fault lie for the apparent lack of knowledge on the part of so many Anguillians? Civics, one anticipates, is covered to some extent in the Social Studies programme in our schools. The depth is questionable based on the apparent absence of a basic understanding of how government works demonstrated by so many Anguillians. Are our teachers equipped to provide a basic understanding of how government works should students raise pertinent questions during the delivery of their subject matter? Teachers are very often versed in their subject area while being at a loss as to how government functions, even in respect of matters which directly affect them such as the development of the government’s annual budget.

Government has a responsibility to make citizens aware of how government works and this can be done through formal school programmes or through departmental or ministerial publications or pronouncements. The recent opportunity taken by the Honourable Speaker of the House of Assembly to explain the legislative basis for the action she took in respect of a member when his presentation in the House was truncated, is an example of a public figure educating the populace as to the rules governing the workings of government.

The sole onus for ensuring awareness about the workings of government does not lie with government institutions. Citizens are not absolved of the responsibility to display a natural interest and curiosity, which would see them pursuing information to ensure their understanding of the functioning of government. The size of Anguilla and our familiarity with public figures makes any excuse we raise for being in the dark laughable.

An understanding of government and the role of citizens in ensuring that government works efficiently and effectively, in accordance with certain values and principles, is essential if citizens are to effectively monitor and participate in governance in Anguilla. Civics cannot be allowed to be a dying concept.

The Editorial below titled “Mending Our Communities Through Self-Reflection” was first published on 28th September, 2018 and again on 19th February, 2021. As we continue to grapple with the increase in violent crime in Anguilla, we must consider how we contribute to our current circumstances, whether through action or inaction. The editorial, Mending Our Communities Through Self-Reflection, asks us to examine ourselves with a view to fixing ourselves and in so doing fixing our communities.

We too often hear the cry that Anguilla is lost and that our young people in particular are lost. The question is repeatedly asked – “When will we wake up and do something about it?” When an incident that highlights some social ill occurs, the airwaves and social media are inundated with persons asking – “Will people wake up now?” I often wonder who exactly we expect to wake up and do something about all the ills in our society that many of us can readily identify. Clearly the efforts of “the establishment” is not considered to be enough. It might, therefore, just be that the answer lies elsewhere.

Calypso is a form of social commentary, which is often intended to effectively convey social happenings to those with the capacity to make changes. Very often the intent is to bring the plight of the ‘common man’ to the attention of those who wield political power. Sometimes however, a calypso is designed to speak to every member of a community and ask them to be part of the needed social change.

The Mighty Springer won the Calypso crown this year(2018) singing such a song. The Calypso, titled “Introspection,” which was penned by Mr. Bernard Wattley, is an appeal to the masses to examine and reflect on their character and behaviour. In the context of Anguilla this song is both timely and relevant. Anguillians are a confident and outspoken people. This confidence and outspokenness often leads to us expressing opinions that have not been properly thought out and which fail to take into consideration our own individual shortcomings. Introspection is asking us to examine ourselves before we pass judgement on others. The lyrics, which are set out below speak for themselves.

Introspection

“Stop pointing fingers, thinking you are better than the one you are trying to take down
Look in the mirror and ask the father to put a smile where now there is a frown
There is no reason to destroy your brother to advance one’s personal agenda
There’s room for all to succeed, provided we curb our greed
There’s simply no need for you to judge me
We all have our history
Before you accuse me check yourself out carefully
For everyone of us have something in our past that we would not want to be put on blast
So instead of us being so self-righteous my advice to us is to refocus
Let’s do everything that we can to help out our fellow man
That’s my admonition.
Instead of accusation, let us each and everyone practice introspection.“

Sound advice is being offered through a popular form of social commentary – calypso. Will we take heed?

As a community we are failing to recognise that for many of us, our behaviours, attitudes, conversations and actions all help to shape our communities. Superficial responses and momentary interest in resolving a societal ill does not serve as a meaningful and sustainable solution. Calls for retribution and the unwarranted assignment of blame will not solve our societal ills. It just might be that a hard look at ourselves is the answer to our mounting problems. “Instead of us being so self-righteous my advice to us is to refocus. Let’s do everything that we can to help out our fellow man.”

Instead of relying on politicians and government institutions to fix what is broken in our communities, let’s fix ourselves and in so doing fix our communities.

Our social values are crumbling. It is particularly evident in our schools. In a press release dated 23rd April 2026 the Department of Education referenced three videos circulating on social media depicting female students of the Albena Lake-Hodge Comprehensive School (ALHCS) engaging in inappropriate behaviour, including physical altercations and other conduct that falls well below the standards expected within our schools and wider community.

The press release noted that the behaviour was deeply concerning. It was stated to not only be a breach of the rules and expectations outlined in the ALHCS Student Handbook, but to also run counter to the values of respect, discipline, and personal responsibility the education system seeks to instil.

The press release references expected standards and values that are sought to be instilled. What are the standards expected and values being instilled within our schools and wider community? Are parents and community members on the same page as the education system in relation to the expected standards and the values sought to be instilled by our education system?

Our response to occasions of poor conduct by Anguilla’s representatives with national implications suggest that we are not all minded to hold persons to high standards in their conduct. Many persons sought to excuse the conduct of a minister of government, when in 2023 she engaged in violence and foul language in a public place and it was widely shared via social media. The excuse that she was only human was put forward by many persons from varied walks of life. The minister continued in office with no sanction.

More recently members of our Men’s Under-20 National Football Team engaged in acts of violence during a match against Guyana resulting in sanctions by the Concacaf Disciplinary Committee. It is unclear whether sanctions have been applied at the national level by the Anguilla Football Association, but what is clear is that many Anguillians took to social media seeking to excuse the conduct of the young men who engaged in acts of violence or to beg for understanding for them.

In our communities acts of domestic violence against women are sometimes explained or sought to be justified on the basis that the woman was unfaithful or that she had left the man after all he had done for her. Many discussions appear to suggest that the man was justified in those circumstances in physically assaulting a woman.

Are the responses described above instances of poor conduct, reflective of the standards we expect within our schools and wider community? Are we signalling, with our responses, that poor conduct, including violent acts and foul language, is acceptable? If there are no consequences for poor conduct, it is likely to continue unchecked. If poor conduct is excused or celebrated it is likely to be repeated. Our tolerance for poor conduct and our willingness to excuse it serves to promote it.

Prisoners, while being punished for criminal acts, are usually subjected to rehabilitative measures. To ensure that poor conduct is punished does not equate to the eternal condemnation of the individuals who engage in poor conduct. It does however convey the message that their poor conduct was unacceptable and will not be condoned, while any rehabilitative measures are undertaken.

Our responses to poor conduct send messages to the perpetrators. If we persist in excusing or tolerating poor conduct, we should accept some blame for the crumbling of our social standards and values.

A Government has the responsibility to protect and promote human rights and the safety and welfare of citizens. Is the Government of Anguilla meeting its responsibility? The protection of human rights is usually enshrined in a country’s constitution and enforced through court proceedings. The safety of citizens is ensured by the creation of laws prohibiting criminal behaviour and by the establishment of a Police Force or Service.

But what of a government’s responsibility to protect and promote the welfare of citizens? How should this be achieved? Safety nets such as social security schemes can be established, allowing for occasions when persons are unable to work due to illness or a disability. Provision may also be made for unemployed persons. Such a safety net is usually funded by the regular contributions of employed persons, thus qualifying such persons to benefit should their circumstances require that they receive assistance.

The provision of public services funded by taxes paid by citizens and residents also serve to protect and promote the welfare of citizens. Education and health services are prime examples in this instance. School fees do not exist for students attending public primary and secondary schools in Anguilla. Taxes meet the infrastructural and personnel costs associated with providing education at the primary and secondary level in public schools in Anguilla.

Indigent persons are able to benefit from health services by virtue of assistance accessed through the Department of Social Development or Ministry of Social Services. Taxes paid by citizens and residents would fund these programmes. Assistance in accessing health services has now been extended under the Senior Shield to persons age 70 years and older. These persons can now access free medical services at public medical facilities. A similar programme, the Junior Shield, ensures that children under the age of 6 years who are resident in Anguilla receive free healthcare services at public medical facilities. Taxes paid by citizens and residents fund the Senior and Junior Shield Programmes.

In Anguilla new initiatives to protect and promote the welfare of citizens continue to be pursued. Electricity credits were enjoyed by eligibly households, in the recent past, to assist with electricity bills. Also, in the recent past residents of Anguilla, 70 years and older, received EC$500.00 as part of a cost-of-living support programme. The Government has now committed to subsidise any increase in the fuel surcharge for accommodation premises and all other categories of electricity users in specified amounts.

Is the Government of Anguilla simply meeting its responsibility to protect and promote the welfare of citizens or is our government going above and beyond? What are the pros and cons of the policy positions adopted by government? Is a possible con that an entitlement environment is being created so that citizens will expect to be rescued by Government and pay little heed to living with an appreciation that tomorrow will come and it may bring with it unanticipated challenges?

The government must fulfill its responsibility. Part of the responsibility of protecting and promoting the welfare of citizens should be to ensure that citizens have, not only the means but the desire, through their own initiative, to as far as reasonably possible, protect and promote their welfare and the welfare of those dependent on them.

Relief is always welcome, even by those who have no need for it, but maybe a line or lines should be drawn.

“Proud to serve. Trusted to deliver. A transformative strategy & action plan to deliver our reform commitments.” This is the tagline to the latest Public Sector Reform initiative, and it is very revealing. The need for reform indicates that it is recognised that many public officers are not proud to serve and cannot be trusted to deliver. This is good, as recognition is a necessary step if an issue is to be properly addressed.

Sadly, there is an apparent feeling, based on social media posts, that the hierarchy of the Anguilla Public Service cannot be “trusted to deliver” the transformative strategy and action plan expected to deliver the stated reform commitments. On the first page of the published document that outlines the transformative strategy and action plan the leaders of the Anguilla Public Service (Deputy Governor and Permanent Secretaries) have set out their commitment to reform and they boldly state – “We will make it happen by working in partnership.” As evidence of their commitment to the reform process, the Deputy Governor and Permanent Secretaries are pictured on page 2 of the reform document standing together, with their signatures appearing under the photograph.

With such a show of solidarity, why is there so little faith on the part of so many that meaningful change will be effected? The answer might lie in an examination of the stated purpose, vision, and mission of the Public Service as set out on page 4 of the reform document, and the juxtaposition of those, against the conduct of many of the signatories to the document.

The Purpose – “The Anguilla Public Service: committed to serving with dedication and professionalism.” This requires timely and substantive engagements. Is this reflected in the conduct of the Deputy Governor and Permanent Secretaries?

The Vision – “A stronger, more agile public service – working smarter, adapting faster and shaping a sustainable future for Anguilla.” Can the Deputy Governor and Permanent Secretaries be described as agile in the execution of their duties? Are they working smarter? How many forms and processes remain unhelpful to those they are intended to assist?

The Mission – “Our Public Service – leading with accountability, integrity and compassion to deliver meaningful results.” Does the Deputy Governor and Permanent Secretaries hold each other accountable? Are they serving with integrity? Integrity should see them only acting in ways that benefit Anguilla. Frustrating developers, entrepreneurs and persons accessing public services with delayed responses, poor information or the total absence of a response does not suggest integrity in the performance of duties and certainly demonstrates a lack of compassion for persons engaging with the Public Service.
In their commitment statement the Public Service leaders stated – “We understand that reform requires new ways of leading – listening more, empowering others and earning trust.” An immediate leadership change that some of the Public Service leaders can make is to let the ideals stated in the Purpose, Vision and Mission of the Public Service be reflected in their daily conduct. The most powerful leadership tool an individual has is his/her personal example. In this respect the chorus to Michael Jackson’ song – “Man in the Mirror” offers sage advice.
“I’m starting with the man in the mirror
I’m asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
If you wanna make the world a better place
Take a look at yourself and then make a change”

If the Deputy Governor, Permanent Secretaries and Department Heads take a look at themselves and make the necessary changes, there is no reason for the most recent Public Sector Reform initiative not to be successful.

The Anguilla Public Service is not held in high regard by members of the public. This viewpoint is unfair to some public officers who do a sterling job in fulfilling their public service duties. Despite this, it has to be accepted that it is the conduct of many public officers that justifies the low regard in which the Public Service is held.
Senior public officers are increasingly coming under scrutiny as many of them are perceived as “yes men or women,” as they are considered to be habitually agreeing with or obeying authority figures without question to gain favour with them. It seems that speaking truth to power is very rarely practiced in the Public Service and this, it appears is preferred by the authority figures.
In the face of a growing reluctance to speak truth to power this is an ideal time to re-publish the editorial published on 17th February, 2017 and titled “Speaking Truth to Power.” The value of speaking truth to power should never be denied.

“Speaking Truth to Power”
Societies, communities, families and businesses all have power structures which accord greater power to some than to others. Persons may command political power, economic power, financial power or administrative power. The exercise of such power, if unchecked, can be a very dangerous thing. In recognition of this, structures are usually established which require or afford other persons or institutions an opportunity to influence those who possess greater power. Additionally, persons at the pinnacle of power usually solicit the input of subordinates before making decisions, or subordinates by virtue of existing structures are required to provide input. The quality of the input provided can have a significant impact, with resulting long-term implications, on the decision of the person exercising power.

The motivation of persons, who are privileged to be able to influence the decisions of those in authority, can play a vital role in the nature of the advice or input they provide. Will genuine and well thought out advice be offered or will the advice offered simply be what it is assumed the authority figure wants to hear? Very often the answer to this question will depend on the nature of the relationship between the players. Is the subordinate or the institution dependent on the authority figure for their place in the organisational structure? It might also be that there is the belief that favours will be accorded to those who support the viewpoint of the authority figure? The answers to these questions can determine how subordinates or institutions respond to the opportunity or the need to speak truth to power.

In Anguilla today, there is the general perception that all vocal views are divided along political lines. Without reviewing the substantive points of any position adopted or promoted by a political party, party affiliates or supporters are believed to simply align themselves with that position. Then there appears to be a significant silent majority who offer no viewpoint. It is believed that this is for fear of incurring the ire of those currently in authority or those who can potentially assume authority, whose favour they might have to seek on a future occasion, in relation to a current or future business venture.

The circumstances set out above have relevance to both the public and private sector, and speaks to the potential for self-serving motivations to limit the likelihood of persons and institutions, with some influential power, speaking truth to power. In such situations the checks and balances on the power accorded to those in authority goes unchecked to the detriment of the institution, society or country over which authority is being exercised. A desire to put country above self, rather than a self-serving spirit, must exist in persons if the principle of speaking truth to power is to be effectively exercised.
The exercise of this principle is essential to the effective and proper functioning of individuals and institutions holding authority in Anguilla. To keep quiet or to actively support an obviously wrong viewpoint, decision or policy, which has the potential to negatively affect Anguilla, just to preserve a privileged position, is not only wrong it is patently unpatriotic.

Speaking truth to power is not an easy or a pleasant exercise but is a very necessary one for those who occupy influential positions or those who aspire to occupy such positions. There is the very real possibility for authority figures, left unchallenged, to become tyrants. This is a possibility that Anguilla does not need and no one, especially an Anguillian, should be willing to sacrifice Anguilla for their secured place in a regime where decisions or policies are likely to negatively impact our national development.

As Martin Luther King Jr. observed, “There comes a time when silence is betrayal.” Many Anguillians aspire to positions of influence and such ambition is to be admired. However, persons will be judged by their conduct once they achieve such positions, because we should rightly expect such persons to exercise their influence to promote the advancement of Anguilla and not to be solely concerned with maintaining their privileged position in relation to the balance of power.”

Board appointments in Anguilla are like musical chairs. With the election of a new administration, it automatically follows that board appointments will be terminated and new appointments made. Is there a rhyme or reason to such terminations save that the previous appointments were made by the outgoing administration? No other rhyme or reason is usually apparent.

Are board appointments made on merit? In most instances the appointments appear to be payback for the role (real or perceived) that the appointees are thought to have played in securing the win at the polls for the new administration. Are there no persons in Anguilla who are seen as desirous of wanting only the best for Anguilla and who are by virtue of qualifications and experience well suited to serve on a board without reference to their political leanings?

Is it idealistic or naïve to assume that it should be possible to identify good men and women to serve in Anguilla’s best interests regardless of their political leanings? Must appointments always be treated as payment for service to party? Many board appointees fail to function effectively without suffering any consequences. Ministers appear content, having appointed a board, to leave board appointees to their own devices without implementing any meaningful monitoring or evaluation structure. Chairpersons do not assume the responsibility of apprising the appointing authority of the failings of any appointees so that more suitable appointments can be made.

Governance training has in the past been stipulated as a requirement for board appointments. Is this still a requirement and if it is, who ensures compliance? In the past, directors who failed to pass the mandated Governance course retained their appointments.

Anguilla’s game of political musical chairs extends to the appointment of its United Kingdom Representatives. The two main parties rotate between two individuals in that space. Would Anguilla be better served by the appointment of an individual who serves despite any change in administration, following a general election?

While there have been brief moments of hope, maturity in politics in Anguilla remains elusive. The electorate and political aspirants all seem consumed with a desire to win and following the election to trash talk each other. Very rarely do we witness occasions of well thought out contributions to national conversations by politicians and their supporters in social media posts. Instead, we can expect regular attacks and counter attacks by elected officials, political aspirants, and their supporters.

The game of musical chairs will not serve to advance Anguilla. Measured consideration of the abilities and likely contributions of individuals should be the guiding factor for appointments. Which political party will bite the bullet and face the ire of its supporters by ensuring the appointment of qualified and experienced individuals rather than the sole qualifying factor being that an individual is a party supporter.

Anguilla deserves better than to have its appointment of board members compared to the party game of musical chairs. Who will take the lead in ensuring Anguilla gets what it deserves?

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?