Why are we still thinking about what’s in (or missing) from our Constitution? Last September, our Premier asserted, “We have to progress with full-fledged constitutional reform. It is interesting because at this same time as well, many of the Overseas Territories are also revisiting their constitutional status and are seeking greater self-internal government. And so too we in Anguilla are along the same path.” [1]
Part of being a constitutional democracy means taking part in democracy! And one of the most elemental forms of democracy is when the People are empowered to have power through initiatives and referenda.

“Self-internal Government”: Putting Bills on Ballots
If you think Anguilla must be independent to exercise “self-internal government” by proposing our own laws or to demand the repeal of enacted laws, think again! None of the US states are independent nations, and yet, “…26 states provide for a statewide initiative process, referendum process, or both. Washington, D.C. also has an initiative and referendum process. These types of ballot measures are known as citizen-initiated ballot measures.” [2]
To propose new laws or amendments to state constitutions, the “initiative process” recognises the collection of citizens’ signatures to petition legislators and governors to allow voters to adopt or reject new statutes – and enact them, often without executive veto privileges.[2]
Many states also allow the People to retain or repeal bills after becoming laws. Thus, a “referendum process” establishes the mechanism for voters’ signatures to “ask voters whether to uphold or repeal an enacted law” as a ballot measure.[2]

Taking a Stand Standing the Test of Time
Among the US states that allow the People to propose and repeal the laws that govern them, South Dakota happens to have the oldest, as well as the most recent such amendments. Their first was enacted before 1900, and the most recent, some seventy-five years hence.
First proposed in 1897 and adopted in 1898, Article III of the South Dakota Constitution established the powers of a bicameral legislature with a state senate and house of representatives. That is, with the following stipulation, “However, the people expressly reserve to themselves the right to propose measures, which shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the state, and also the right to require that any laws which the Legislature may have enacted shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the state before going into effect, except such laws as may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions.” [3]
The latter exception for emergency powers exposes their citizens to capricious, rushed legislation. Nonetheless, it poses an interesting question of whether the right to submit a law to the voters “before going into effect” might not also be afforded to them thereafter.[3]

Self-governance ? with Specific Guardrails
South Dakotan voters can also exercise such rights of self-governance if their numbers reach a threshold. Whereby “Not more than five percent [5%] of the qualified electors of the state shall be required to invoke either the initiative or the referendum.”[3]
Lawmaking powers were also affirmed for lawmakers, as it continued, “This section shall not be construed so as to deprive the Legislature or any member thereof of the right to propose any measure.” However, their constitution restrained the executive from over-riding the People by stipulating, “The veto power of the Executive shall not be exercised as to measures referred to a vote of the people. This section shall apply to municipalities. The enacting clause of all laws approved by vote of the electors of the state shall be: ‘Be it enacted by the people of South Dakota.’” And the state representatives must ensure that the will of the People is followed, concluding, “The Legislature shall make suitable provisions for carrying into effect the provisions of this section.”[3]
This section of their constitution has notably remained a living document. Revisions and amendments have been proposed and rejected or adopted in seven cycles from 1914 to 1988.[3]

Provisions for the People to Amend their Constitution
In addition to the initiative and referenda powers for new laws or to repeal others, Article XXIII of the South Dakota Constitution states that, “Amendments to this Constitution may be proposed by initiative or by a majority vote of all members of each house of the Legislature. An amendment proposed by initiative shall require a petition signed by qualified voters equal in number to at least ten percent [10%] of the total votes cast for Governor in the last gubernatorial election.”[4] Such specifics lay a foundation for constitutional initiatives to be legally binding.
The text continues, “The petition containing the text of the proposed amendment and the names and addresses of its sponsors shall be filed at least one year before the next general election at which the proposed amendment is submitted to the voters. A proposed amendment may amend one or more articles and related subject matter in other articles as necessary to accomplish the objectives of the amendment, however no proposed amendment may embrace more than one subject. If more than one amendment is submitted at the same election, each amendment shall be so prepared and distinguished that it can be voted upon separately.” This section was amended in 1964 and refined through 2018, with the addition of the “single-subject” rule.[4] And a year helps ensure enough time to consult and fully inform the electorate on the issues.

Revision and Ratification
The South Dakota Constitution further provides for a “convention to revise this Constitution” if “called by a three-fourths vote of all the members of each house” – and it may be initiated by the voters. With its members “elected on a nonpolitical ballot in the same districts and in the same number as the house of representatives”. If a majority of members approve amendments or revisions, adoption would require a “special election in a manner to be determined by the convention.” [4]
However, regardless if initiated by a legislator, convention or petition, “Any constitutional amendment or revision must be submitted to the voters and shall become a part of the Constitution only when approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon.”[4] Should 11 members of our review committee have been elected by the People? And, once proposed, should any revisions contemplated by our current government also be put to the People for a vote? – perhaps starting with clauses to enshrine our self-governance rights to propose laws – and repeal them? Our Constitution lacks both.[5]

Referenda, Petitions…and the General Services Tax (GST)
And yet. “A referendum on separating from Saint Kitts and Nevis was held in Anguilla on 11 July 1967…[and] approved by 99.72% of voters.”[6] Imagine if that right to initiate or repeal laws was in our Constitution. The People signed petitions to block the Goods and Services Tax Act of 2021. The last petition was signed by more people than those who approved separation in 1967![7] Instead, the last election was our proxy for a referendum to repeal a repugnant law. In keeping with our most fundamental moment in history, does this unelected review committee have the vision to enshrine our right for a real referendum to finish the job to restore our civil rights and freedom of commerce?

Repeal General Services Tax – and pass a balanced budget bill. Now.
This article reflects issues raised on July 5, 2021, at the House Select Committee on GST Public Hearing.
[1]https://www.caymaniantimes.ky/news/anguilla-mulls-constitutional-reform; [2]https://ballotpedia.org/ States_with_initiative_or_referendum; [3] https://ballotpedia.org/Article_III,_South_Dakota_Constitution;
[4] https://ballotpedia.org/Article_XXIII,_South_Dakota_Constitution; [5] Anguilla Constitution Order 1982; [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Anguillian_separation_referendum; [7] https://www.caymaniantimes. ky/news/petition-against-new-anguilla-tax.

As Anguilla prepares for the excitement, pride and fierce competition of the Anguilla Day Boat Race on Monday 1st June 2026, one local artist is ensuring that this year’s winning vessel will carry home more than bragging rights.

Renowned shell artist and craftsman Iwassi-I has donated a striking hand-crafted sculpture to be presented to the winner of the Anguilla Day race — a deeply symbolic work carved from wood and local conch shells, celebrating both Anguillian identity and the island’s enduring revolutionary spirit.

The piece, which took considerable time and skill to create, features a wooden map of Anguilla crowned with intricate conch shell artistry. A sailboat, sculpted from polished conch shell, races ahead while a dolphin appears in pursuit, frozen in motion behind it.

“The dolphin is trying to catch up to the boat,” Iwassi explained with a smile during an interview this week. “This goes to show that even a dolphin can’t catch up with the champion.”

The sculpture also incorporates an Anguillian flag crafted from conch shell, tying together sea, culture and national pride into one distinctive creation.
For Iwassi, however, the gift is about far more than artistry. It is an offering from the heart.
“It is for the boat itself, not the captain or the crew. So whoever is the owner of the boat will have this in their home,” he explained.
The respected artist, who has become known for some of the island’s most intricate shell sculptures and handcrafted jewellery, has created more than 150 pieces over the years. His work, often shaped from local seashells and conch, has earned admiration for originality and unmistakably Anguillian character.

Yet despite the value of the piece, Iwassi insisted that profit was never his motivation.

“This would be very expensive if I were to sell it,” he admitted. “But money isn’t everything. I would love to know that I can be a sponsor for whoever wins the race. When I do things like this, I feel happy.”

The Anguilla Day race holds special significance for him because of its connection to the island’s history and the Anguilla Revolution.

What followed was not simply a reflection on history, but a deeply personal account of survival, patriotism and growing up far too quickly.

According to Iwassi, he was only 11 years when he became involved in the Anguilla Revolution – describing himself as the youngest soldier during that period.

“I wanted to fight for my country and for my people,” he recalled.

At the time, his mother was living and working in St. Martin, leaving him largely to fend for himself in Anguilla. He remembers being taught from an early age how to cook, wash and iron — skills that forced him into adulthood long before his years.

He painted vivid memories of evenings during the revolution when neighbourhood children would be called home by their parents as darkness fell across the village. But no voice ever called for him.

Instead, he said he would wait for revolutionary figures, including Charles “Charlie” Fleming and others, to arrive so he could join them.

The memories clearly remain close to him decades later, helping explain why the annual Anguilla Day race is more than just a sporting event in his eyes. For many Anguillians, the races represent national pride and community celebration. For Iwassi, they are also a living reminder of sacrifice, resilience and belonging.

As boats prepare to battle across the waters this Monday, his handcrafted sculpture will stand as a symbol of those same values — local craftsmanship honouring local courage.

And while only one vessel will claim victory, Iwassi said his greatest wish is simply for the races to unfold safely and joyfully for everyone involved.

When one stops to ponder what the significance of Anguilla Day really is, what should come to mind is the cause for which Anguillians were expediently forced to fight against the repressive, domineering “rule” of the pre-1967 St. Kitts regime.

Yes, the belligerent “rule” of the St. Kitts-led government, under the autocracy of the late Robert Lewelyn Bradshaw, had adversely marred the way of life for Anguilla’s people, resulting in unrelenting hardship and a dreary existence for a meek and mild population which, up until the 1960’s, had registered between some 5,000 and 6,000 residents.

Bradshaw’s aggressive rule upon the lowly affairs of this humble, underdeveloped people had caused Anguillians to be aggrieved over many successive years.

At this point, I would like to strike a contrast between the verbs “govern” and “rule”. Although the word “rule” and the word “govern” can be somewhat synonymous, technically, still there is a defining difference between the two. To “govern” implies the act of guiding national interests, administering national services fairly and accountably, and setting up systems that would oversee the functions of government at various levels or segments of society.

On the other hand, the act of “rule” brings to bear an awful, repressive kind of dominance that is, for the most part, self-serving to the ruler and victimizing to the ruled.

In context of the above definitions, it is evident that Robert Llewellyn Bradshaw was a “ruler” and not a “governor”. The many threats that he made against repressed Anguillians who had tried to call his attention to their dreary plight was more than repulsive. Although he had been a hard-core Labour Union president, he had no sense of sympathy for Anguillians’ dilemma. He just ruled with a heavy hand.

Bradshaw had threatened to turn our island into a desert; to put bones in our rice; and to put pepper in our soup – whatever all that meant. He had touted his power by declaring in glaring terms what would be considered today as political crimes against an already destitute people.

To say that Anguilla was taken advantage of by Bradshaw’s oppressive regime is an understatement. Prior to the 1967 Revolution, conditions under which Anguillian residents lived included, but were not limited to: rugged, rocky, dusty roads – a far cry from the paved roads of today; a lack of running water, limited only to a few stand-pipes in the central area of the island, the flow of which was often “on again, off again”.

The only electricity we ever knew was generated by a handful of well-off merchants who owned dilapidated diesel generators for their own domestic use; there were absolutely no communication services by telephone, nor no local radio information service – Anguilla’s only contact with the outer world was via air mail which took several days to reach recipients. Other than that, listening to AM radio broadcasts transmitted from a couple neighbouring islands was our means of contact with the world, a little bit beyond ours.

Our Wall Blake airport was, of course, a very far cry from the modern facility which we are blessed with today. Back then, in the 1960s and 1970s, the airport featured a backwater dirt strip for a runway, with just a small slither of pavement for an apron in front of a primitive terminal house that was no more than 40 by 30 feet.

Anguilla’s only thriving industry in the era of the 1960’s was the production of salt, mainly provided by the Sandy Ground Salt Pond. The salt was reaped manually by the weary hands of men and women, most of whom could not afford the basic conveniences of life. Upon harvesting, the salt was placed in huge heaps and eventually exported to Trinidad by locally built schooners to be used in the petroleum industry there.

For the most part, coming out of a slave society of the earlier eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, where most of the population was forced to work on sugar or cotton plantations, Anguillians in the 1960’s had remained in a state of abject poverty. Many men had to leave the island to migrate to places like the US Virgin Islands, St. Martin, Curacao, Aruba, the USA and the UK for meaningful employment, sending back home whatever subsistence they could to support their families.

Prior to the 1950s and 1960s, however, many young men sailed off to Santo Domingo, transported there by schooners, in order to find employment on sugar cane plantations in order to sustain their families.

But for the most part, Anguillians remained poor and desperate. Most children went to school bare foot, daily treading the stoney, dusty roads. Many of them experienced “crack toes” and other foot wounds due to walking on such rugged paths. As a result, some children spent just as much time at home healing as they spent in school learning.

Because there was no running water, Anguilla’s humble houses were built without bathrooms. Toilet facilities just featured a back yard pit latrine, or, short of that, people would “do their business” in backyard bushes – an unhygienic feature of our ‘ole time’ way of life.

To put it all in perspective, according to the writings of Colville Petty in his book Bless Our Forbears, “During the 1950s and 1960s, Anguilla remained relatively poor and undeveloped. It had a subsistence economy with agriculture – primarily mixed farming – being the largest sector.

“According to the 1960 census,” Petty says, “approximately 41% of the employed labour force was engaged in agriculture compared to 18% in services such as teaching, administration and health. There was 12% of the working class in construction; 12% in sea transportation; 5% in fishing; and another 5% in commerce, which was mainly the wholesale and retail of commodities.

Mr. Petty further noted that a few people were employed in the reaping of salt, during the months of July to September each year, at the Road Pond in Sandy Ground as well as the Long Pond and the West End Pond. He stressed that the 1960 census also showed that some 57% of the total labor force was unemployed.

In general, poverty had characterized the population. Through Bradshaw’s tyrannic rule, Anguilla was deprived of the basics for a decent economy. Bradshaw had engaged local agents who travelled throughout the length and breadth of the island, compelling people to pay the taxes which they hardly had. These were poor folk, indeed, who did not have the means of paying directly into the treasury, and consequently they resented being harassed by the loyal tax collectors.

Whether it was house tax, bicycle license fees, vehicle license fees, liquor license fees, or dog licenses, all had to be paid and funneled into the treasury in St. Kitts.

Then, all the monies which the tax agents gathered would be stacked in a securely locked wooden box and taken to the Forest Bay port under heavy security guard to be transported by boat to St. Kitts, twice every month. Bradshaw would then divide the proceeds between St. Kitts and Nevis and send back a meager pittance to Anguilla. This nominal amount was used for paying civil servants such as teachers, customs officers, nurses, policemen, etc.
An imminent freedom from the oppression of St. Kitts was a longed-for relief for which Anguillians had yearned over many years, but one which they knew not how to pursue. The socio-political and economic stifling that our forefathers endured triggered within them the longing and willingness to be released from the chains of bitter hardship and mundane misery, but they did not possess the ability to fight against Bradshaw’s ruthless regime.

Then came the potential of bringing on more “poverty on distress” (as the older folks put it) when the public learnt that plans were afoot for having Anguilla to actually join with St. Kitts and Nevis to become one associated state which would be known as St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla. Bradshaw had set out to pull a neglected Anguilla into submission, and had even devised an anthem song for the “trinity of islands”.

It was not until 1967 when James Ronald Webster rose up with a passionate flare of boldness that Bradshaw noticed how futile his efforts could be. Webster had become a thorn in Bradshaw’s flesh, and Bradshaw for several weeks had been commanding his policemen to capture him and arrest him, but the stealthy Ronald Webster had been evading them all the time.

Webster would be holding strategic meetings with his cohorts and making tactical plans for an overthrow of Bradshaw’s plot, but as far as those Anguilla-stationed Kittitian police were concerned, they could never find him.

Eventually, it suddenly happened. Webster was joined by a large number of Anguilla’s oppressed masses, all declaring with one voice that “enough was enough”. It was May 30th, 1967. This was the opportunity – the moment of truth. The time for deliverance had come – a breakthrough to freedom was here. After all, we had nothing to lose.

That day, Webster, his loyal armed foot-soldiers, and the crowds of Anguillians who rallied behind them initiated a massive rebellion against St. Kitts’ presence in Anguilla – the Kittitian Police Force. The police could not resist as a throng of revolutionists stormed the Police Headquarters in the Valley, and ambushed the policemen, taking them by surprise.

With a fierce and determined resolve, Webster and his allies, now turned militant supporters, compelled the helpless cops to leave Anguilla at once. It was a chaotic Tuesday morning in The Valley in May. Anguilla was about to change – a defining moment in Anguilla’s history.

Anguillians, under the command of James Ronald Webster, had been successful in evicting the St. Kitts police who were rounded up and forced to vacate the island. Two plane loads of aggressive officers, now humbled by Anguilla’s resolute masses, were flown out to St. Kitts by Anguilla’s renowned pioneer pilot, Captain Clayton J. Lloyd, aboard his Piper Aztec aircraft.

As legend would have it, Anguilla had become “the little mouse that roared”. And the world stood to listen. Since that day, Anguilla opted for self determination directly under British governance, void of any political affiliation with St. Kitts or Nevis.

God had seen Anguilla’s dreadful plight, and like the people of Israel, he had heard our plaintive cry over many generations. It was He who had been guiding the plans and strategies that Webster and his men had formulated to launch that notorious attack upon Police Headquarters on that memorable Tuesday morning, May 30, 1967.

The attack upon Police Headquarters was that kind of necessary action taken to mark the bloodless beginning of a Revolution that initiated the course of Anguilla’s freedom, paving the way for our nation’s future development.

May God continue to favour and bless Anguilla, and I wish a Happy Anguilla Day to all.

For some, Anguilla Day may be just another holiday. A day of parades, awards and relaxation. But to those who understand our history, it is far more than that. Anguilla Day is a celebration of courage, resilience, and the vision of those who fought to ensure the island’s economic and political self-determination. It is a day to honour the past, reflect on the present, and recommit to shaping a prosperous future for our island and its people. Mind you, the prosperity mentioned here is not limited to financial wealth, but extends to an abundance of kindness, care and love for all; those whose navel strings are buried here and those from elsewhere.
As Anguilla approaches its annual celebrations, it is vital for us to reflect on the true foundations of our path to self-determination. Many of us, myself included, were children at the time of the separation from St. Kitts and Nevis. From my childlike perspective, at that time, it seemed simply like a falling out of friends. I had little understanding of the economic realities and frailties that shaped our lives. It has been only in recent times that the deeper implications of what that separation meant became clear to me.

In light of the current global economic challenges, and thinking back to the challenges we faced in Anguilla, I can better appreciate the vision and courage of that revolutionary band. Their cause was not merely political; it was a determined effort to secure economic fairness, ensure local control over our ‘limited’ resources, and chart a sustainable path for Anguilla’s future; a path that continues to influence our journey decades later.
Paying close attention to historical events, one will realise that Anguilla’s separation was driven not by a division of peoples on two opposing islands. Rather, it was driven by a desire for economic fairness and control over the island’s way forward. Oral histories and records recount the frustrations felt by Anguillans who sought to see their island thrive, yet repeatedly faced a system that seemed to prioritise other interests. Earmarked opportunities for developments in Anguilla often failed to reach their intended purpose. The Revolution and the fight for separation were not acts of anger against St. Kitts or its people—but against the systems in place that served to stifle the people of Anguilla.

Even today, the impact of Anguilla’s Revolution is perhaps not fully understood. We celebrate Anguilla Day as a cultural tradition, without fully appreciating the underlying depth of struggle and sacrifice. Yet it is precisely because of the courage, foresight, and determination of those who showed up and fought for fairness and self-determination that we can celebrate the day at all. It is a reminder that our current successes, are not merely a political achievement—it is an ongoing commitment to our welfare, security, and opportunities.

Anguilla Day should serve as a bridge between Anguilla’s past and future. While we honour the struggles and victories of previous generations, we also acknowledge that it isn’t over; there is still work to be done. As Anguilla steadily forges a path toward sustainable growth and navigates economic challenges and opportunities, we should be guided by the lessons of the past, with careful planning, and a keen eye on the future.
This is more than a day of celebration; it is a call to remember that our freedoms, resources, and opportunities were hard-won––even as we celebrate that it was won without bloodshed. It is a day to reflect on our collective responsibility to honour the vision of those who came before us, ensuring that their struggle continues to bear fruit for generations.

For Anguillians, born here and resident here, Anguilla Day is a reminder of resilience, unity, and the ongoing effort to shape our island’s destiny. While we presently remain a British Overseas Territory, this day demonstrates that as a people we can exercise agency, protect our resources, and see a future that reflects our values, needs, and aspirations. It is a celebration of the courage of our ancestors, a reflection on how far we have come, and how far we aim to go. It is a commitment to a future where the island’s resources, opportunities, and the promise to build a new Anguilla, are first and foremost for its people.

By: Kareen Rogers

The word “reserves” appears twice in the Anguilla Constitution Order of 1982. In Section 9, “Her Majesty ‘reserves’ to Herself power, with the advice of Her Privy Council, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Anguilla”; and it described a Governor’s refusal to assent to a law.

That is, in Section 57, “…he ‘reserves’ the Bill for the signification of Her Majesty’s pleasure…any Bill which appears to him to be in any way repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the provisions of this Constitution…”[1] Repugnant? Inconsistent? The Goods and Services and the General Services Tax acts were repugnant – and inconsistent with expected rights – but “for the purpose of any tax”![1]

“Reserves” in Anguilla…
So, “reserves” refers to wielding power in our Constitution. The word “budget” doesn’t appear at all! By default, it is therefore constitutional in Anguilla to tax the People, take reserves and borrow for anything any government wants to spend without safeguards for the People, or any future generations. Notably, a deficit of EC$73M is anticipated this year, and it may be financed from “reserves” here in Anguilla, at the discretion of the Government for whatever they choose to spend.[2]

“Reserves” in Singapore…
In the Singapore Constitution, “reserves” appears 86 times, and “budget” 59 times.[3] Laws matter. In fact, creating constitutional guardrails to protect the wealth of its People and future generations has helped Singapore achieve financial independence as a tiny island nation. They built a sovereign wealth fund second only to China’s and the UAE, respectively with the second largest population and some of the largest oil reserves in the world.

The Singapore fund is comprised of specific entities, including: the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, Temasek Holdings, and the Central Provident Fund.[4] Imagine. Financial reserves ranked 3rd for a city-state of ~6 million ranked 115th in population and 177th of 197 countries in size, with 277.6 square miles, including inland water![5,6]

Presidential Safeguards…
And accountability is clear. Section 17 states, “There shall be a President of Singapore who shall be the Head of State. … it is also the function of the President to safeguard the reserves of Singapore and the integrity of the Public Services… and…perform this function according to… this Constitution…”[3]

Their President must also guard against contingent liabilities through leadership oversight, whereby “…no appointment to the office of chairman, member or chief executive officer of any statutory board …shall be made by any appointing authority unless the President, acting in his discretion, concurs therewith.” [3] Our Premier is lucky to be “consulted” on such matters in our Constitution.

And, once the boards have been appointed and approved, “The President, acting in his discretion, may refuse to approve any budget or supplementary budget of any such statutory board if, in his opinion, the budget is likely to draw on reserves which were not accumulated by the statutory board during the current term of office of the Government, except that if he approves any such budget notwithstanding his opinion that the budget is likely to so draw on those reserves, the President shall cause his opinion to be published in the Gazette.” [3] What can our Premier do if a statutory body overspends?

Past Reserves: Accumulated Before the Current Term of Office
For routine Government budgets, like our Appropriation Bills, they must prepare and pass a “Supply Bill, providing for the issue from the Consolidated Fund and Development Fund of the sums necessary to meet that expenditure and the appropriation of those sums for the purposes specified therein.” Budget overruns or new expenditures are likewise addressed as in Anguilla. As such, “supplementary estimates” [or a Supplementary Supply Bill] shall be prepared by the Minister responsible for finance and, when approved by the Cabinet, shall be presented to and voted on by Parliament” [3] – so fiscal discipline is enshrined in their Constitution. Ours has no mention of it.

The law also requires that “a Final Supply Bill containing any such sums which have not yet been included in any Supply Bill” be prepared as soon as practicable after the end of a fiscal year. But. “The Minister responsible for finance shall, in presenting to Parliament any supplementary estimates or statement of excess under clause (2), also present a statement stating whether the supplementary estimates or statement of excess, as the case may be, is likely to draw on the reserves which were not accumulated by the Government during its current term of office.” [3] Past reserves are thus sacred in Singapore.

Transactions, Transparency – and Balanced Budgets
Section 148 further protects the reserves from specific transactions: “It shall be the duty of the Auditor-General and the Accountant-General to inform the President of any proposed transaction by the Government which to their knowledge is likely to draw on the reserves of the Government which were not accumulated by the Government during its current term of office.” [3]

Their Constitution also requires that the President be given any information he requests from any Government ministry, company or statutory board. As with budgets, he must be informed for oversight of transactions – and to inform the Prime Minister and the People by Gazette if he approves spending beyond his term. Likewise, Government companies or boards must use resolutions and Ministerial oversight to account for any transfers between them based on when they were accumulated.[3]

So why all that attention to whether spending exceeds funds accumulated in the current term? Their constitutional framework helps ensure balanced budgets by spending no more than they generate. By protecting reserves, they have protected their People from the humiliation of conditional aid and policy-based loans during the Great Recession, pandemic and more. [7] You know. Like “grants” after Irma?

Forbidden Fiscal Fruit Guarded for Future Generations
Indeed, in Section 142, they specifically safeguard reserves by forbidding access to ”50% of the net investment income of the financial year that is derived from the past reserves of the Government… [which] shall accrete and be deemed to form part of the past reserves of the Government…”[3]

Other fiscal powers and procedures given the supremacy of constitutional clauses also include the management of Contingencies Funds, Parliamentary oversight, Supply (budget) bills, and loan guarantees, further reflecting the discipline that has secured Singapore’s financial independence.

…and the General Services Tax (GST)
Instead, our Constitution has allowed future laws to poison our People. From pernicious powers retained in the General Services Tax Act,[8] which allowed this government to keep its election promise and nothing more, too many keys remain in the locks but for “any law” and “satisfaction of any tax” in our Constitution. Such exceptions have legalised whatever degree of capricious enforcement this or any future Comptroller wishes to inflict to take and spend as much as they please.[1]

So. That law hangs over our People and businesses like a venomous snake dangling from a tree. Now, imagine if our Constitution demanded that our leaders “safeguard the reserves” of Anguilla. An annualised shortfall, notably what they now spend every three weeks, may have never befallen us, nor speciously allowed that demonic law and its serpentine scion to slither through our hallowed House.

Repeal General Services Tax – and pass a balanced budget bill. Now.

This article reflects issues raised on July 5, 2021, at the House Select Committee on GST Public Hearing. [1] Anguilla Constitution Order 1982; [2] 27 April 2026 Letter to LOO, Hon. Premier Richardson Hodge; 3 – The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, 31 Aug 2025; [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_ wealth_funds_by_country;[5] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/singapore-population/; [6] https://georank.org/size/singapore; [7] Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s speech at the Debate on the Motion on Public Finances in Parliament on 7 February 2024; [8] General Services Tax Act, 2025.

The morning of Thursday, May 7th, 2026, saw Anguilla’s former Minister of Education and Social Development, Ms. Dee-Ann Kentish Rogers, being admitted to the Bar of Lawyers. The swearing in ceremony took place in the Anguilla Circuit of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, in The Valley.

Making prime application with commendations on behalf of Ms. Kentish-Rogers was her aunt, Attorney Joyce Kentish-Egan, KC. Ms. Kentish-Rogers comes from a pedigree of solicitors. Her great aunt, the renowned late Dame Bernice Lake, QC; her Aunt Joyce Kentish-Egan, KC, and her cousins, Kerith, Kendrickson, and Nakishma, have all made their mark in the legal arena, making her a third generation solicitor. What’s more, her dad, Kenth Rogers, who resides in the Virgin Islands, is himself also a lawyer.

In petitioning the Honourable Justice Raulston Glasgow regarding Attorney Kentish-Rogers’ qualities and qualifications, Attorney Kentish-Egan testified in part: “This application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant, Dee-Ann Kendra Kentish-Rogers, who is over the age of twenty-one.

“She is a British citizen and a belonger of Anguilla, and here I hold exhibits that support that fact… She has earned a Bachelor of Law degree from the University of Birmingham, as well as a certificate which evidences her call to the Bar in England and Whales by the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple.

“There is evidence that following her call to the Bar in England, she returned home to Anguilla, the place of her birth, and she did an aggregate of six months pupilage under your humble servant. During that period of time I can certify that she demonstrated the acumen, capacity and dedication to deal with the tasks that were assigned to her.

“Having taken a detour into public service; on May 26, 2025 she returned to the Chambers of Joyce Kentish and Associates and did a further pupilage under her cousin, Kerith Kentish.”

She continued: “I can say that the applicant is a person of good character, she has paid into the treasury, she has not been required to pay any fines, she has no convictions, and a copy of her Police Certificate is evidence of that…Her application is further supported by an Affidavit of Identity submitted by Senior at the Bar, Ms. Yvette Wallace.”

Attorney Kerith Kentish, the applicant’s cousin, also commended her to the Honourable Justice Glasgow. “Your Lord, I respectfully rise to present this application before this Honourable Court on behalf of my cousin, Dee-Ann Kentish-Rogers, to be admitted as a barrister/solicitor in the Anguilla Circuit of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court.

“Your Lord, I do so with enormous pride and confidence and a profound sense of personal joy. I am here today not only as Council Kerith Kentish, but as Dee-Ann’s cousin, and truthfully one of the first sisters I have had in this life of forty years.

“I have known her all my life, Your Lord. I have known her in childhood; in mischief; in triumph and in disappointment; in public life; in private life; and most recently in her pupilage. I have had the privilege from May 26th, 2025 until now of helping to guide her formal entry into this noble profession…

“Dee-Ann was a member of the Literary Debating Society while attending the Albena Lake-Hodge Comprehensive School. She joined early, she excelled, and she represented Anguilla with distinction throughout the Leeward Islands. She was adjudged the Best Speaker in Tortola in 2011, and led the Anguilla team to victory in 2012 while being the President of that Society…

“She was raised in a family of lawyers, and indeed she was much closer to the law that I ever was… Dee-Ann was born on January 13th 1993, and by August of that same year, there was already a playpen for her in her mother’s office at Lake & Kentish Chambers in The Quarter. Dee-Ann’s day-care was in chambers; her after-school programme was in chambers; her playground was in chambers; the lawyers and staff at Lake & Kentish all played a role in raising her…My Lord, it is therefore fair to say that Dee-Ann was raised by the profession itself.”

Mr. Kentish also outlined Dee-Ann’s qualifications relative to her Specialist Mediation training and her Bachelors Degree which she attained from her schooling in the UK, as well as her achievement in making history in 2018 as the first black woman to be crowned Miss Universe Great Britain.

Words of commendation and congratulations were also extended to Dee-Ann from another cousin of the legal cloth in Antigua, who made a brief address via video feed. Kendrickson Kentish, KC, also spoke to how Dee-Ann had grown up, naturally, within the law.

In responding, His Lordship Justice Glasgow accepted the application and then invited Attorney Dee-Ann Kentish-Rogers to come before him to take the oath. With the Holy Bible lifted in her right hand, she swore: “I, Dee-Ann Kendra Kentish-Rogers, make oath and say that that I will well and faithfully demean myself in the performance of my duties as a barrister of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in the Anguilla Circuit to the best of my ability and knowledge, so help me God.”

Following the oath, Ms. Kentish-Rogers was fitted with the Barrister’s Robe by her Cousin Kerith Kentish. A special welcome and acceptance speech was delivered by President of the Bar Association, Ms. Merline Barrett. Many of her colleagues rose to offer sentimental remarks and congratulations for Ms. Kentish-Rogers joining the Bar of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in the Anguilla Circuit.
By: James R. Harrigan

When most people think about sport in Anguilla, baseball is rarely the first thing that comes to mind.

Cricket still carries deep roots across the island. Football dominates schoolyards and community fields. Basketball, netball and volleyball all command loyal followings of their own. Yet somewhere between those established sporting traditions, another game has quietly managed to carve out space for itself over the years — not as a passing novelty, but as a sport steadily building its own identity within Anguilla.

And perhaps the most interesting part is this: baseball in Anguilla no longer feels like an outsider sport.

For years, the game has largely been associated with the Dominican Republic community, and understandably so. In the Dominican Republic, baseball is not merely entertainment; it is culture, ambition and national pride rolled into one. Children grow up with bats in their hands the same way many Caribbean children grow up with footballs or cricket bats. Across towns and villages, makeshift baseball diamonds are as common as corner shops, and dreams of reaching Major League Baseball are shared openly among young players.

The Dominican Republic’s influence on the sport globally is undeniable. Despite its relatively small size, the country has produced hundreds of Major League Baseball players and some of the sport’s biggest international stars. Baseball there is woven into daily life, and for many families, the sport represents opportunity as much as recreation.

That passion naturally travelled with Dominican communities abroad, including those living in Anguilla. In many ways, they helped lay the groundwork for baseball’s continued presence on the island long before wider interest began to grow.

But what feels different now is that baseball in Anguilla is beginning to move beyond being seen as “the Dominican sport”.

More young Anguillians are being introduced to the game through organised programmes, camps and training sessions. In particular, the Anguilla Little League, headed by Lyndon Webster, has played a major role in that development, creating opportunities for children to learn the sport in a more structured environment while encouraging discipline, teamwork and confidence.

At the same time, the Department of Sports has also become increasingly involved through baseball camps and youth activities designed to expose more children to the game. That level of institutional support matters. It signals that baseball is no longer existing solely through community passion and volunteerism, but is slowly becoming part of the island’s wider sporting conversation.

International support has further strengthened those efforts. As previously reported, individuals and organisations from the United States have donated gloves, bats, balls, uniforms and other equipment to young players in Anguilla. Coaches and trainers have also travelled to the island to help conduct training sessions and skill development programmes.

In many respects, Anguilla’s baseball story mirrors the wider Caribbean experience. While the sport may be viewed internationally as distinctly American, some of the world’s greatest baseball cultures are found throughout the Caribbean basin. Cuba, Puerto Rico, Venezuela and, of course, the Dominican Republic have all produced generations of elite players who transformed the sport internationally.

So perhaps the bigger question is not whether baseball belongs in Anguilla. But rather, why the idea may still feel surprising to some people.

Anguilla has already proven that international sporting success is possible despite the island’s small population. Zharnel Hughes became one of Britain’s premier sprinters on the Olympic and world stage, while Shara Proctor competed at both the London 2012 and Rio 2016 Olympic Games, and Omari Banks played Test cricket among others.

Decades ago, the idea of athletes from a small island like Anguilla competing among the world’s elite may have seemed unlikely to many people as well. Today, it is reality.
That same possibility now quietly exists within baseball.

No one can say whether Anguilla will eventually produce a professional baseball player or even a Major League prospect. But the infrastructure, exposure and interest now developing around the sport suggest that such a dream no longer feels impossible.

And if an Anguillian player one day walks onto a professional baseball field in the United States wearing the flag of Anguilla somewhere close to his heart — it will not be a sudden miracle story. It will be the result of years of quiet groundwork laid by communities, volunteers, coaches, overseas supporters and young players willing to embrace a sport that once existed largely on the margins of the island’s sporting culture.

Baseball may never overtake cricket or football in Anguilla. But it is possibly doing something meaningful – steadily creating a place of its own.

By Janissa Fleming

The conversation around money in Anguilla is an ever present one and on Friday, 24th April 2026, it pressed on further when the National Commercial Bank of Anguilla (NCBA) hosted its Family and Finance Panel event, part of the institution’s 10-year anniversary celebrations. What unfolded was not just a discussion about dollars and cents, but a thoughtful, deeply relevant exploration of how families can secure their futures in an increasingly complex world.

The panel brought together a mix of professional voices and lived experience, featuring Dr. Justin Ram, Keesha Fleming-Lake, Thomas Astaphan K.C., Tonae Simpson-Whyte and Sharmaine Vaughan. Together, they tackled issues many Anguillian families quietly grapple with — how to balance household needs with business ambitions, how to navigate legal and financial obligations, and how to build something sustainable across generations. The concept of a “Family Finance Makeover” framed the session, inviting attendees to rethink not only how they manage money, but how they plan their lives.

Central to the evening was a compelling presentation by Dr. Justin Ram titled “Why Family Financial Planning Matters.” Rather than approaching finance as something to be addressed only when challenges arise, Dr. Ram urged a more holistic and forward-thinking perspective. He introduced what he described as a “lifecycle approach to financial planning,” a framework that follows a family’s journey from before a child is even born through to end-of-life considerations.

“It is one family, but there are multiple timelines competing for financial priorities,” Dr. Ram explained, capturing a reality familiar to many households. In a single family, there may be parents striving for career advancement, children preparing for university, and elderly relatives requiring care all at once. This overlapping of responsibilities, he suggested, makes financial planning not just important, but essential.

Dr. Ram described a financial plan as “a roadmap that connects resources, goals, and timelines across generations.”

Preparation cannot be postponed. “The time for preparing for emergencies is not when the emergency happens,” he said, a reminder that proactive planning is the difference between resilience and crisis. Yet, he also emphasised that financial stability is not solely about survival. Families must leave room to “enjoy life,” recognising that well-being includes both security and quality of living.

Beginning at the earliest stage of life, Dr. Ram pointed out that financial decisions start even before a child is born. From prenatal care to health insurance coverage, prospective parents must assess their readiness not just emotionally, but financially. Once a child arrives, expenses quickly multiply. Childcare, nutrition, education, and healthcare are not one-off costs, but ongoing commitments that require careful planning and discipline.

As children grow, the financial demands grow along with them. Adolescence, in particular, brings a sharp increase in expenditure, especially around education. Dr. Ram shared a humorous yet relatable anecdote about receiving messages from his children abroad, noting that they often signal more than a simple greeting. “It is not just ‘daddy, how you’re doing,’” he joked, “but ‘daddy, I need this.’” Beneath the humour lies a serious truth: education represents one of the most significant financial investments families will make, often peaking before young people begin earning their own income.

He stressed that preparing children for independence is just as important as funding their education. Encouraging savings habits early, he noted, can shape how young adults approach major milestones such as purchasing their first home.

That transition into adulthood, however, brings its own uncertainties. Dr. Ram recounted a conversation with his daughter, who questioned whether her generation would ever achieve full financial independence. It is a concern that resonates with many young people navigating rising living costs and evolving career paths. But, according to Dr. Ram, the answer lies in discipline — managing spending, avoiding “lifestyle inflation,” and investing early.

For those entering the stage of building their own families, the pressure can be at its highest. Mortgages, vehicles, children’s education, and daily expenses converge, often creating a financial balancing act. Dr. Ram described this period as one where “multiple obligations converge,” making it crucial to increase savings, diversify investments, and maintain adequate insurance coverage.

As life progresses towards retirement, priorities shift once again. The focus turns to risk management — reducing debt, planning for healthcare, and safeguarding assets. Retirement itself also introduces a new challenge: sustaining income rather than generating it. Managing savings wisely becomes essential, ensuring that individuals can maintain their lifestyle without exhausting their resources. Yet even here, Dr. Ram encouraged a balanced approach, urging retirees to plan for travel, hobbies, and the freedom to experience life after decades of work.

Perhaps the most sobering part of the discussion centred on end-of-life planning, a topic often avoided but deeply consequential. Dr. Ram spoke candidly about the difficulties families face when loved ones leave behind unclear financial arrangements. Without proper planning, relatives may encounter legal complications, delays, and emotional strain. He emphasised the importance of wills, clear asset distribution, and practical strategies to ease transitions. “Planning reduces financial and emotional stress for survivors,” he said, offering both a warning and a call to action.

In closing, Dr. Ram urged attendees to align each stage of life with appropriate financial tools—from savings accounts and insurance policies to investments and mortgages. He encouraged especially younger generations to take an active interest in investing, advising them to “start earlier rather than later” and to explore opportunities beyond their immediate environment.

Planning is not a single act, but a continuous process. Financial stability is not built overnight, but with intention, foresight, and a willingness to have conversations that matter.

The conversation now turns to the delicate act of balancing family, business and financial goals — an issue many Anguillians know all too well. In the next instalment, panellists unpack the realities of managing enterprises while maintaining stable households.

By Janissa Fleming

As we reached the final sections of the 1982 Anguilla Constitution Order, while some might question what was included, other constitutions may reveal omissions or clarifications to strengthen our democracy. Of note is the concept of supremacy, which has been heralded as a hallmark of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996).[1] In its Founding Provisions, it states, “This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid, and the obligations imposed by it must be fulfilled.”[2] The words are clear: “is” and “must” are not equivocal.

Constitutional “Supremacy” for Anguilla – Except for “Any law”?
The supremacy of the Anguilla Constitution Order is implied by the monarch’s ultimate power “as to the interpretation of this Constitution” in any civil or criminal proceedings, which would logically include any claims of inconsistencies. The supremacy of the Anguilla Constitution is also implied as an “Order” by “Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty in Council”; whereas other powers are derived from the Order, including those of the Governor and Assembly to pass “any law” under its auspices. [3]

That said, “any law” is mentioned repeatedly in reference to how future laws could present conditional changes to our Constitution, once passed.[3] As such, while supremacy may have been intended, the language is frequently vague and would require extraordinary resources and luck to challenge the constitutionality of any law.

Constitutional “Supremacy” in South Africa – Except for Section 36?
Chapter 2 of the South African Constitution establishes human rights and begins, “This Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of democracy in South Africa. It enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom…The state must respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights.”[2]

The “Application” section continues, “The Bill of Rights applies to all law, and binds the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and all organs of state…” But. Too good to be true? It continued, “The rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to the limitations contained or referred to in Section 36, or elsewhere in the Bill.”[2] Before reading Section 36, let’s look at some of the rights they included.

Progressive Protection of Human Rights
The South African government describes its Constitution as, “…one of the most progressive in the world and enjoys high acclaim internationally. Human rights are given clear prominence in the Constitution [and it]…is the supreme law of the land. No other law or government action can supersede the provisions of the Constitution.”[1] Many of the “freedoms” in the Anguilla Constitution are consistent with those in South Africa; however, the latter articulates more rights with seemingly more clarity.

Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
Similarities with our Constitution include “equal protection and benefit of the law.” While ours cites “race, place of origin, political opinions, colour or creed, or sex,”[3,4] their additional exclusions forbidding state discrimination include “pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin,… sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.”[2]
Other examples of South African rights that may be implied but not enshrined in the Anguilla Constitution include: … “bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right ¬to make decisions concerning reproduction; to security in and control over their body; and not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent.”[2]

And “…Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have their person or home searched; their property searched; their possessions seized; or the privacy of their communications infringed.”[2] That’s it. Our privacy clause has five subsections of exceptions, including “for the purpose of any tax”.[3] Thus, “constitutional” property searches may seem harmless for packages at ports for duties, but this exception also allows warrantless, random business searches, seizure of records, and computers, for GST and now, General Services Tax! [5] What else could be searched for a future tax?

Rights Beyond Our Rights and Freedoms…
In fact, there are South African rights beyond those enshrined for Anguilla, too many to mention here. However, notable entries include, “an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being”; to “enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis”; “access to adequate housing…[and] No legislation may permit arbitrary evictions.” They also include, “access [but not free] to ¬health care services, including reproductive health care; sufficient food and water; and social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance”; and “No one may be refused emergency medical treatment.”[2] Know anyone sent to the bank before an xray?

Numerous, clear rights for children [under 18] are followed by the right to a “basic” education. And they allow “anyone acting in their own interest…on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name… acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons… in the public interest; and an association acting in the interest of its members” to approach the court to protect their rights.[2] As such, “class action” challenges appear to have standing. Hmm. A class of taxpayers?

Moreover, transparency is enshrined with “the right of access to ¬any information held by the state”; whereas, any arrested, detained or accused person has the right not to provide information, to remain silent, and not “to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in evidence against that person.” And, such persons have the right to, “a legal practitioner assigned to the detained person by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly… and not to testify during the proceedings.”[2] Not so in Anguilla!

Limitation of South African Rights
While our Constitution is muddled by “save as may be authorised by law” or “to the extent that the law makes provision” exceptions, some include “the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health.”[3] The South African Section 36 states that rights, “may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including the nature of the right; the importance of the purpose of the limitation; the nature and extent of the limitation; the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and less restrictive means to achieve the purpose…” They also enshrined the “Constitutional Court” where at least eight judges have final say as to the constitutionality of other laws, amendments, whether Parliament or the President is negligent…[and] “any issue involving the interpretation, protection or enforcement of the Constitution.”[2] But who has the resources to even challenge “constitutional” powers to infringe on rights we thought we had for a tax imposed against our will?

…and the General Services Tax (GST)
So. Apart from the absence of forced oaths, self-incrimination, property searches and seizures and countless threatened GST penalties made legal “for the purposes of any tax” [3] – perhaps the most elegant distinction from ours is in the preamble to the South African Constitution: It states the intent to, “lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people, and in which every citizen is equally protected by law.”[2] GST was passed against the will of the people, and the General Services Tax Act of 2025 continues its legacy of intrusive powers that remain against the will of the people, and in which every citizen is at the mercy of one civil servant.[5]

Repeal General Services Tax – and pass a balanced budget bill. Now.
This article reflects issues raised on July 5, 2021, at the House Select Committee on GST Public Hearing. [1] https://www.gov.za/constitution website; [2] Republic of South Africa Constitution (1996); [3] Anguilla Constitution Order 1982; [4] 1990 Anguilla Constitutional Amendment; [5] General Services Tax Act, 2025.

The courtroom was formal, the robes pressed, the language ceremonial. But beneath the decorum of Wednesday morning’s Special Sitting of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, the occasion carried a recognition that Anguilla’s justice system is operating under strain, and that the arrival of an experienced judge comes at a critical moment.

On 29th April 2026, members of the judiciary, government, the Anguilla Bar Association and more gathered to formally mark the assignment of His Lordship, the Honourable Justice Raulston Glasgow. He had officially assumed office on 1st April.

Justice Glasgow brings nearly 30 years of legal experience across the Caribbean. Called to the Bar in Guyana in 1999 and later in Saint Lucia, his career has included private practice, legislative drafting, and senior advisory roles within Attorneys General chambers in Saint Lucia and Grenada. Since joining the High Court bench in 2017, he has developed a reputation for independence, strong legal reasoning, and a willingness to hold the State accountable where constitutional principles demand it.

For many present, his appointment was seen not simply as a routine judicial posting, but as a potential turning point for the administration of justice in Anguilla.

Attorney General Ms. Rachel Spearing, KC, acknowledged the weight of the moment in her address, noting that Justice Glasgow’s arrival coincides with a difficult period marked by recent incidents of violence. She stressed the importance of restoring public confidence in the justice system.

Quoting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., she reminded those gathered that “true peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice.” Without the supremacy of law, she warned, society risks disorder. Her remarks underscored a central message of the Sitting: justice must not only be delivered, but seen and trusted.

Ms. Merline Barrett, President of the Anguilla Bar Association, painted a detailed picture of Justice Glasgow’s judicial record. She described him as disciplined, precise, and firmly committed to fairness.

She highlighted his expertise in constitutional and administrative law and referenced several landmark decisions, including rulings that protected workers’ pension rights, struck down corporal punishment despite constitutional challenges, affirmed the right to be heard, and exposed weaknesses in environmental oversight and government transparency.
Taken together, she said, these decisions demonstrate a judge prepared to apply the law rigorously and to hold public authorities to account when necessary. She also noted his commitment to legal education, mediation, and professional development within the legal community.

Members of the Bar echoed support while offering their own perspectives. Mr. Thomas Astaphan, KC, emphasised judicial independence, warning against any executive interference and urging vigilance in protecting that principle.
Ms. Yvette Wallace described Justice Glasgow as steady and disciplined, setting high professional standards in court while Ms. Eustella Fontaine of Fontaine & Associates welcomed him in the spirit of Caribbean legal unity and shared values.
Ms. Nakishma Rogers of KCW Carty & Rogers highlighted his influence on younger attorneys, describing him as a “old school” jurist who demands preparation, discipline, and respect for the court. Mr. Carlyle Rogers reflected briefly on fairness and integrity as the foundation of judicial service. Representing the junior Bar, Mr. Theon Tross expressed optimism that his leadership would strengthen the profession.
When Justice Glasgow rose to respond, he began with humour, noting that after the praise he felt like he was having “an out-of-body experience… wondering, who’s this chap?”
His tone soon shifted to reflection.

“It is a humbling occasion,” he said, “to be dressed in these robes, to adjudicate on matters of justice.” He emphasised that judicial robes are not symbols of status, but of responsibility – describing the purpose of the justice system as broader than dispute resolution alone. “It’s about ensuring that the state does not condescend into violence,” he said, noting that responsibility is shared across the judiciary, Bar, law enforcement, and wider justice system.
One of his most poignant remarks reframed the role of legal professionals, describing them as “glorified servers of justice… in the business of serving the public.” The focus, he suggested, must remain on the people who depend on the courts for fairness and resolution. While affirming judicial independence, Justice Glasgow cautioned that independence should not be mistaken for isolation. Effective governance, he argued, requires cooperation between institutions, even as constitutional boundaries are maintained. Dysfunction, he suggested, often arises not from collaboration, but from its absence.

He also set firm expectations for the legal profession. Preparation, discipline, and professionalism, he said, are non-negotiable. “I don’t accept shoddy work because I don’t accept shoddy work of myself,” he stated.

A significant portion of his address focused on legal reform. He pointed to outdated legislation and procedural inefficiencies, urging urgent modernisation of the system. “This is 2026. We have to get on with it,” he said, calling for mechanisms to reduce delays and improve access to justice.
His comments reflected concerns long expressed within the legal community about case delays and procedural bottlenecks affecting the efficiency of the courts.

Yet amid institutional themes, Justice Glasgow also offered personal reflection. He described his appointment as “almost a homecoming,” referencing family ties to Anguilla. He paid tribute to his father, acknowledging the sacrifices that shaped his journey in law.
As the sitting concluded, a broader sense emerged that Anguilla’s justice system stands at an important juncture. The challenges it faces — from delays to public confidence — are immediate and widely felt.
In Justice Glasgow, the island has gained a jurist with extensive regional experience, a strong constitutional record, and a clear focus on reform. However, as speakers repeatedly emphasised, meaningful progress will depend not on one individual alone, but on the collective effort of the entire justice system.

In addition to elusive “freedoms” and the Governor’s, Deputy Governor and Attorney General’s powers, the 1982 Anguilla Constitution Order also established the House of Assembly and the Public Service. In Chapter VI, the Public and Judicial Service Commissions are enshrined, along with their roles.[1] Guess which appointee gets to appoint the ones who appoint appointees?

Public Service Commission (PSC)
The Governor! Section 65 proclaims, “There shall be in and for Anguilla a Public Service Commission which shall consist of five [5] members of whom three [3] shall be appointed by the Governor, acting in his discretion, and two [2] shall be appointed by the Governor, acting after consultation with the public service staff associations.” [1] But such “associations” are not defined.

It continued, “The Governor, acting after consultation with the [Premier], shall appoint one of the members of the [PSC] to be Chairman …[but must not be] …a member of, or a candidate for election to, the Assembly, or holds or is acting in any public office.” [1,2] So, the Premier has no say in the members, only the Chairman, regardless of whether the Premier finds any of them suitable, at all?

Further, “The office of a member of the [PSC] shall become vacant—at the expiration of two [2] years from… appointment or such earlier times as may be specified” or through resignation, or becoming an Assembly member, candidate or public office holder – or if the Governor “directs that he shall be removed” at his discretion if unable to perform or “for misbehaviour.” That is also left to the Governor’s discretion, where he can appoint a replacement to serve “until he is notified” by the Governor that the “circumstances” of the appointment no longer apply; however, if the Chairman is removed, “consultation” with the Premier is indicated but not required for a replacement.[1,2]

And, the competition for paid board seats seemed well entrenched by 1982, in lieu of patriotic service from self-sustaining community leaders. Section 65 concludes: “There shall be charged on the revenues of Anguilla and paid there out to the members of the [PSC] such emoluments as may be prescribed by any law… Provided that the emoluments of a member of the Commission shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.”[1] Never reduced? Of course not! Let the taxpayers working hard to feed their families and pay their loans make sure such lofty appointees never share a single sacrifice, no matter the economic context! And – it seems there are no rules to prevent re-appointment for “continuance”!

Power to appoint, etc., to public offices
Section 66 stays true to form: “Power to make appointments to public offices and to remove and to exercise disciplinary control over …such offices shall vest in the Governor, acting in his discretion in relation to the offices of [the Deputy Governor] and Attorney-General and …all other offices acting after consultation” with the PSC; however, the Governor must also “consult” with the Premier to appoint “a permanent secretary or head of a department…” [1,2,3] Translation: He can legally ignore that input.

In turn, having appointed all its members, he may also engage the PSC in “consultation” and publish “regulations” that allow him to “delegate to any member of the Commission or any public officer or class of public officer …as may be prescribed in the regulations, any of the powers vested in him by the last foregoing subsection…” with the exceptions of judicial officers (Section 68) and “any office in the Police Force below the rank of Assistant Superintendent to the extent that the Chief of Police or some other officer of the Police Force is empowered by any law…”[1]

So “any public officer” could be allowed to “make appointments to [most all] public offices and to remove and to exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in such offices” but not the Premier or any Minister? That’s the law, except for General Orders, but that is a topic for another installment.

Judicial Service Commission
In case anyone else ever wondered, Section 67 established the, “…Judicial Service Commission which shall consist of—the Chief Justice, who shall be Chairman; another judge of the Court of Appeal or the High Court nominated by the Chief Justice after consultation with the Governor; and the Chairman of the [PSC].”[1] For those interested in liberal democracy,[4] having the Chief Justice merely consult with the Governor when choosing another judge is a hint of independence for the judiciary from the executive bodies in our government. Well done!

Power to appoint, etc., to judicial offices
But. Section 68 withdraws such independence! It reads, “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.” Applicable “offices” span from the “Magistrate, to any office in the public service of any registrar or other officer” from the High Court “…to such other offices in the public service, for appointment to which persons are required to possess legal qualifications…”[1]

Commissions, Public Servants…
While Section 66 vested appointment powers with the Governor, including discretion to “delegate” to PSC members, mere “consultation” may be ignored – even for the judiciary, as stated in Section 68.
We are reminded of Section 28 (2), which affirmed, “The Governor shall not be obliged to consult with nor act upon the advice of the Executive Council with respect to… the appointment (including the appointment on promotion or transfer, appointment on contract and appointment to act in an office) of any person to any public office, the suspension, termination of employment, dismissal, or retirement of any public officer or taking of disciplinary action in respect of such an officer, the application to any public officer of the terms or conditions of employment of the public service (including salary scales, allowances, leave, passages or pensions) for which financial provision has been made…”[1] Hmm. At what point do the Governor’s salary powers constitute taxation without representation?

The Premier, PSC…and the General Services Tax (GST)
So, a British appointee without the Premier or Executive Council can appoint a public officer through an appointed PSC – and pass laws after a single reading that can revise the “freedoms” of the Constitution, as in the General Services Tax Act of 2025. By law, an appointee without legal qualifications can legally: access premises (including law offices); seize books, records or computers without a warrant or notice; place anyone – regardless if liable for tax – under oath; make assessments 5 years after becoming “aware” of a claim; issue statements “with the effect of a civil judgement”; demand 50% of any disputed amount to “consider” it; demand security, seek court orders to prevent travel, seize goods (and sell them); delay taxpayers for months to appeal to other appointees, to merely pay interest if they prevail, with the burden of proof on anyone pursued by the public officer who can institute criminal charges and levy fines, and more![5] And public officers made the People wait months to simply exempt goods from GST, making a mockery of our leaders by replacing it with the General Services Tax – with all of its predatory powers! Ta dah!

Apart from accommodations taxes, which should be reinstated as they were, General Services Tax is no longer necessary due to AI revenues. Why? Salaries and expenses are now fully dependent on them, beyond any tax. So how much longer will our leaders leave the General Services Tax Act in place – with no say in an appointee appointed by layers of appointees? And… With all that AI money, why don’t they stop GST – and its powers for audits, fines, and what feels like extortion – while compounding bills from soaring oil costs, wars and tariffs for struggling families? Why?

Repeal General Services Tax – and pass a balanced budget bill. Now.

This article reflects issues raised on July 5, 2021, at the House Select Committee on GST Public Hearing. [1] Anguilla Constitution Order 1982; [2] Anguilla Constitution (Amendment) Order 2019 [3] Anguilla Constitution (Amendment) Order 1990; [4] https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberal-democracy; [5] General Services Tax Act, 2025.

Walk into many shops in Anguilla and prepare to be quoted a price in US dollars first. It doesn’t matter that you’re standing on Anguillian soil, that the bill for your groceries will ultimately be tallied in Eastern Caribbean dollars (EC$) — the official currency of Anguilla — you still get quoted in USD first.
I’ve even caught myself tempted to hand over EC$11 when the clerk tells me that “your total is eleven dollars,” fully aware they mean USD. It’s petty, I know — but it begs a bigger question: why are we so quick to put someone else’s green paper over our own?

Anguilla, along with seven other members of the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union (ECCU), uses the EC dollar as the currency of record. It is issued and managed by the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank (ECCB), anchored by law and by regional agreement. The EC dollar replaced the British West Indies dollar in 1965, and since 1976 it has been generally fixed at EC$2.70 to US$1 – though it may differ slightly in certain areas here.
That fixed rate is important. It means the EC dollar does not fluctuate wildly against the US dollar. It provides stability for trade, investment and tourism. And crucially, it means that paying in US dollars does not make goods cheaper locally.

And yet, in everyday life here in Anguilla, the rhetorically dominant currency you hear at the checkout, on credit card machines, in menus and in tourist-facing pricing isn’t EC$, it’s the US dollar.
Why? Because that fixed relationship makes it easy.
But, also because tourism remains the dominant force.
One does not have to be an economist to see what’s happening: tourism and foreign exchange matter. American visitors arrive accustomed to thinking in US dollars. Many hotels, restaurants and tour operators price exclusively in US$ to make it seamless for guests. Even locals who work in the private sector — particularly in hospitality — are often paid in US dollars.

Meanwhile, teachers, nurses, civil servants and many others in the public sector are paid in Eastern Caribbean currency. Grocery stores price primarily in EC. Utilities are billed in EC. The official currency, in other words, anchors everyday domestic life — yet a de facto foreign favourite often leads the conversation at the point of sale.

It’s a bit like living in the UK and being quoted prices in euros before pounds; it just feels off.

Other countries manage multiple currencies differently. In the United States, you simply cannot pay in anything other than the US dollar. In the United Kingdom, you won’t find a café that welcomes euros at the counter. Our French and Dutch neighbours in St. Martin/St. Maarten handle euros, guilders and US dollars, but even there the local currency often receives visual priority in many spaces. That’s not quite the case in Anguilla.

So why does it feel as if the US dollar gets priority here?
There is no single answer and opinions may differ between persons. But part of the answer lies in the economic architecture of the region. The EC dollar was born out of a shared understanding that small island economies benefit from monetary unity. When the tie to the US dollar was formalised in 1976, it was designed to stabilise our economies against global uncertainty and provide confidence for investors and visitors alike.

When a currency holds steady, importers know what they are paying, governments can plan, and tourists can budget. The tie is not accidental dependence; it is deliberate policy. But it also means that the US dollar functions as the reference point against which our own is measured.

There is also a psychological component. In a place where tourism accounts for a significant portion of GDP, a host culture develops to accommodate the spending habits of visitors. In practical terms, that means menus, price tags and tills often display US$. In social terms, it means many of us come to think in US values first, EC second.
The US dollar carries global weight. It is more recognisable internationally and often perceived as stronger, even though the EC dollar’s stability is precisely what allows that perception to exist. Quoting in US can make prices appear cleaner, more familiar, perhaps even more marketable.

But this raises a deeper question: when the default pricing language shifts away from the currency that anchors local life, what does that show? Not about monetary weakness — because the EC dollar is stable — but about habit and hierarchy.

Are we, consciously or not, reinforcing the idea that the US dollar is the “real” money, and ours is simply the local translation?
This is not an argument for banning US dollars. That would be impractical and economically unwise. Tourism is an essential pillar of Anguilla’s prosperity. Welcoming visitors means accommodating them.
But there is a difference between accommodation and automatic prioritisation.
Currencies are more than instruments of trade; they are symbols of confidence. The EC dollar has reinforced regional stability for decades. It pays our public servants. It circulates through our communities. It represents a shared Caribbean monetary identity.

Perhaps the question is not whether we accept US dollars. It is whether we have grown too comfortable thinking in them first.

And if the first price we hear, the first number we process, and the first currency we default to is always someone else’s — what message are we quietly sending to visitors and to ourselves?

By Janissa Fleming

There was a time in Anguilla when the only surveillance system we knew was Miss Iris by her window and Uncle Leon sitting on his gallery after 6 p.m. If you went “dung South Hill doin’ X, Y and Z”, rest assured somebody’s aunty saw you. In many ways, that still holds true. We pride ourselves on being a small island where everybody knows everybody — or at least knows somebody who knows them.

And yet, in recent years, that familiar refrain has rung hollow when it comes to crime.

To repeat that Anguilla has experienced a noticeable rise in criminal activity, particularly gun-related incidents, may feel like labouring at this point. But it is a reality that has unsettled the national psyche. For all our supposed closeness, when shots ring out or vehicles speed from a scene, the silence that follows can be deafening – yet often complicated. Loyalty to friends or family, fear for personal safety, and lingering mistrust in institutions can sometimes make speaking up feel risky even with the anonymous reporting avenues the Royal Anguilla Police Force has in place. Still, there is a growing sense that neighbourly watchfulness alone is no longer enough.

Enter CCTV.

Many banks, supermarkets and private businesses have operated their own camera systems. What we have not had are government-operated surveillance cameras mounted across public roads and spaces as a permanent fixture of island life. That is now set to change.

At a Government press conference – held on 23rd March 2026 – the Hon. Minister Jose Vanterpool revealed that a “major technical meeting” had taken place involving MICUHITES, Finance, the Royal Anguilla Police Force, I.T. and E-Government Services and Digital. The focus was not merely on putting up cameras, but on finalising system specifications — camera locations, backup power, data storage and AI analytics — with an eye on strengthening security ahead of the Anguilla Summer Festival.

Importantly, the Minister acknowledged a truth often lost in heated debates: “We know that cameras themselves don’t stop crimes. But when crimes do take place, it’s a source of evidence.” That distinction matters. CCTV is not a magical shield; it is a tool. Its value lies less in prevention and more in detection, deterrence and accountability.

The proposed system goes far beyond grainy footage stored on a hard drive. Automatic number plate recognition is among the features being considered. As the Minister explained, cameras must have sufficient frame speed to clearly capture a vehicle in motion and the ability to zoom at distance. In practical terms, if police receive a report that a black car fled a particular area between certain times, officers could filter footage to identify all black vehicles passing that point within that window.

There is also talk of AI-driven pattern tracking. At large public events — J’ouvert, for example — cameras could monitor crowd behaviour and flag unusual changes that might indicate conflict before a 9-1-1 call is ever placed. Rather than relying on an officer to manually scrub through hours of footage, artificial intelligence could assist in highlighting moments of concern. As the Minister noted, previous temporary carnival cameras required constant human monitoring — a resource Anguilla simply does not have in abundance.

Around the world, CCTV has become a standard feature of modern life. Cities like London are often cited as among the most surveilled in the democratic world, with extensive public camera networks used to assist policing and counter-terrorism efforts. Studies in the United Kingdom have shown that CCTV can have a modest but meaningful impact on certain types of crime, particularly vehicle-related offences in car parks. However, research has also suggested that cameras alone do not significantly reduce violent crime without broader policing strategies and community engagement.

That nuance is important for Anguilla. We are not London. We do not have millions of residents or sprawling underground networks. We are a small island of just over 15,000 people, where familiarity and informality shape daily life. The psychological shift may be as significant as the technological one.

Some residents will likely welcome the added layer of security, particularly in the wake of incidents that have shaken public confidence. The knowledge that there is an objective record — that a vehicle’s licence plate can be traced, that movements can be reconstructed — may offer reassurance.

Others will understandably raise concerns about privacy and overreach.

To that end, Minister Vanterpool indicated that consultation has already begun with the Attorney General’s Chambers and that legislation will be required to govern access and data protection. “Not everyone will be able to access the recordings,” he said, emphasising that protocols will dictate who can request footage and under what circumstances. The cameras, he stressed, will be deployed in public areas and are “largely for the protection of the public”, not for intrusion into private lives.

Still, the boundaries will need to be clearly drawn and transparently communicated. Who stores the data? For how long? Under what legal threshold can footage be accessed? Will AI be able to make detections accurately? What safeguards prevent issues? In larger jurisdictions, data protection laws and independent oversight bodies help answer such questions. Anguilla will need frameworks suited to our scale but robust enough to inspire confidence.

In the initial phase, 30 locations across the island are expected to receive cameras. The exact cost has not yet been disclosed.

So, what does all this mean for us?

It means Anguilla is stepping into a new era — one where our traditional social surveillance is supplemented by digital oversight. It means that the phrase “somebody saw you” may increasingly refer not just to a neighbour, but to a lens mounted above a junction.

Will we get accustomed to it? Likely, yes. Around the world, public CCTV has moved from novelty to normality within a generation.

But acceptance should not equal complacency.

If CCTV is to become part of Anguilla’s landscape, it must do so with clarity of purpose, legal safeguards and measurable outcomes. We should ask not only whether cameras are installed, but whether they lead to improved detection rates, swifter justice and ultimately, safer communities.

Technology can support policing, but it cannot replace trust, cooperation and the moral courage to speak up.

By Janissa Fleming

Earlier this year, on January 22nd at the Davos Economic Forum in Switzerland, President Donald Trump inaugurated what he called his “Board of Peace’. It was described as an international organization with the stated purpose of promoting “peacekeeping” around the world.

The Board of Peace (BoP) was established by Trump himself, initiated particularly by his interest in seeing peace between Israel and the Palestinians over a longstanding period of conflict that had spanned generations. Mr. Trump proclaimed that he is the Chairman of the Board for life, with the body consisting of many countries, each of them being required to pay as much as one billion dollars for a three-year validation.

So ambitious was he in its establishment, that Trump took the bold liberty to declare that the Board of Peace could potentially replace the United Nations. He described it as “the most prestigious Board ever assembled, at any time, in any place”. He even purported that the BoP would soon take over the functions of the UN.

But with all of the conflict in the world today, the major part of which has been generated by Trump himself, it is obvious that by his own whims and fancies he has willfully pioneered adverse global disturbances that run counter to any semblance of peace as we know it.

So what really is the function of the Board of Peace? Now with the on-going war which Trump and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu have initiated against Iran, this Board of Peace has, in my view, become a paradox when we consider the President’s belligerent military actions. The Board of Peace stands to make a mockery of its initiator.

Ironically, when the President took up office as America’s 47th Commander in Chief on January 20th 2025, he proudly proclaimed that he is indeed a “President of Peace”. Donald James Trump pledged to be a “peacemaker and unifier,” stating that it is his goal to end wars and that his “proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker”. Upon entering the presidential scene for the second term, as a “savior” of sorts, he had expressed a desire to be remembered for creating peace and unity, promising to focus on ending military conflicts around the globe.

But on the contrary, there is a massive war raging now in the Middle East. This is “Trump’s war” – Trump’s disruption of peace. It’s a war of instinct which he has engaged just to please his partner, Prime Minister Natanyahu of Israel. It’s a wretched war that has global implications, with the potential to plunge America into an economic depression, or even a recession, not to mention the potential loss of soldiers’ lives. The effects of this war will drive major countries like the UK into chaos, and smaller countries like Anguilla into potential socio-economic hardship.

But let’s go back to just before this US/Israel conflict with Iran. Television newscasts, podcasts and reels had recently demonstrated stories which depicted the brutal treatment of ordinary American folk, by Trump’s ordained Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

Trump had determined to use ICE to execute brutalities in his own country, purporting that he was utilizing them as a combat force, practicing against criminal immigrant elements in America. In essence, selected American states, most of which were Democratic instead of Republican, had become, as it were Trump’s battle grounds.

But it turned out that ICE unleashed more hostility against innocent American citizens whose only “crime” was to protest against the way in which the agency was brutally treating law-abiding residents of America.

Obviously, nowhere were there more unrests and protests against the vicious injustice of the ICE brutes than in the state of Minnesota, a state that had historically always voted for democratic presidents. Here, during last January, both René Good and Alex Pretty were shot and killed in cold blood simply because they were standing up for victims, their fellow-citizens, who were down trodden by ICE.

All of this mayhem was sparked by Trump’s initiative. But my question is how can this President tout to be “a peace-keeper” and “a unifier”, when he has caused America to be so chaotic and divided? And how can he establish the Board of Peace for governing international tranquility when his deliberate aim was to instigate such misery, dread and catastrophe upon his own people in his own country. What an image of a “peacemaker and unifier” is that?

Trump induced the unrest, as he vowed to have his military style ICE agents “practice” their warlike tactics on his own American communities, instilling fear and dread in the hearts of ordinary US citizens in the guise of eradicating illegal aliens. What an image of a “peacemaker and unifier” is that?

Today, the results of Trumps instructions for ICE to execute military tactics in American cities, are that thousands of persons have been rounded up like animals for the slaughter and bundled off to detention centers where their inhumane treatment runs counter to any hope of the “American Dream”.

So how can these innocent detainees be “at peace” when they are forced to live under such deplorable conditions, with little or no hope for a brighter tomorrow? Does such conditions gender peace with a unifying fervor from a President of goodwill? And how does the Board of Peace advocate for the peace and contentment of these detainees who have been held for so long with little or no hope of relief? Is this the America which we call the “Home of the Free”?
What is even more depressing is that Trump has earmarked funds for the purchase of warehouses all across America to serve as misery holding quarters for even more captured immigrants, whether are not they have been making efforts to regularize their immigrant status.

A survey shows that these innocent people are simply not criminals, but like many members of Trump’s own German and Scottish ancestry, they had endeavoured to accept the offer of Lady Liberty in the New York Harbour whose words of welcome still ring out: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

If the intent of President Trump was to be an agent of peace for human kind in this world, it is evident that his plans to this end have miserably failed.
The induction of his “Epic Fury” War with Israel against Iran; his sudden “Absolute Resolve” incursion on Venezuela which deposed its national leader; his “Mid-Night Hammer” attack on Iran, which he claimed had obliterated its nuclear potential; his fierce threats to dominate Canada and Greenland; and the national chaos and discontent which he instigated upon his own America; all point to the maxim that his paradoxical “Board of Peace” bears no real significance. It appears only as a facade of the President’s imagination which engenders willful wars contrary to any semblance of peace.

Chapter V of the 1982 Anguilla Constitution Order addressed not only making laws, but also for a Governor to “return” bills with “any amendment which he may recommend” in Section 58. Whereas further sections defined additional House of Assembly members’ duties. [1]

Return of Bills by Governor
The Governor’s power to assent or “reserve” any bill he deems “repugnant or inconsistent” with the Constitution – or ascribing “privileges, immunities or powers of the Assembly or of its members” (unless authorised by the Secretary of State) are expanded in Section 58: “The Governor may return to the Assembly any Bill presented to him for assent, transmitting therewith any amendment which he may recommend, and the Assembly shall deal with such recommendation.”[1] “Shall”? – not “may”?

Earlier sections repeatedly undermined “freedoms” as subject to “any law” in the future. However, later sections conferring Governors’ powers rarely mentioned future laws – or like Section 56, asserted supremacy: “notwithstanding any provision of this Constitution or of any other law… or of any rules of procedure of the Assembly”; such powers are subject to revocation only by the Secretary of State.[1] Here, elected representatives “shall deal” with the Governor’s wishes, period. Why the farce after Section 56 said the Governor can enact any bill after just one reading – without a single vote?

Disallowance of laws
Section 59 states: “Any law to which the Governor has given his assent may be disallowed by Her Majesty through a Secretary of State…[and] Whenever a law has been disallowed… the Governor shall, as soon as practicable, cause notice of the disallowance to be published in the Official Gazette and the law shall be annulled with effect from the date of the publication…”[1]

Notably, such references to Secretary of State powers provided a glimmer of hope to the Concerned Citizens when they sought disallowance of the Goods and Services Tax Act of 2021.[2] It was not only inconsistent with illusory Constitutional freedoms in the early sections of the Order, but it reversed a pivotal election promise, was culturally intrusive and fiscally unnecessary for a shortfall of $22Million EC with the borders closed during the pandemic. And, after the last administration shattered spending records, we see that so many have suffered so much for a GST ‘gap’ that is now a rounding error.

These factors were compounded by the People being lectured, not listened to, in public consultations. As well as the repeated dismissal of petitions and the Deputy Governor and the Attorney General failing to recuse themselves on such a fraught bill, especially after the AG advised the Speaker right before his vote. To name a few reasons they expected the Secretary of State to disallow that law.[2]

Section 59 also cited prior law instead of future bills: “The provisions of section16(1) of the Interpretation Act 1978, shall apply to the annulment of any law under this section as they apply to the repeal of an Act of Parliament, save that any enactment repealed or amended by or in pursuance of that law shall have effect as from the date of the annulment as if that law had not been made.”[1] Ah, if only that could have been the case following that fateful night in July 2021.

Oath of allegiance
Section 60 required a commitment to the monarch, but not the People: “Except for the purpose of enabling this section to be complied with, no ex-officio, nominated or elected member of the Assembly shall be permitted to take part in its proceedings until he has made before the Speaker an oath of allegiance in the form set out in the Schedule to the Constitution.”[1,3]

Privileges of Assembly and members
Section 61 is puzzling, because it suggests powers to regulate the Assembly by Ministers’ votes: “A law enacted under this Constitution may determine and regulate the privileges, immunities and powers of the Assembly and its members, but no such privileges, immunities or powers shall exceed those of the Commons’ House of Parliament of the United Kingdom or of the members thereof.” However, Section 56 required the Governor’s Assembly oversight, authorised by the Secretary of State. [1]

Sessions
Sections 62 and 63 required just one meeting per year, saying, “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the sessions of the Assembly shall be held at such places and begin at such times as the Governor may from time to time by Proclamation appoint…[and] There shall be at least one session of the Assembly in every year, so however that there shall be an interval of less than twelve months between the last sitting in one session and the first sitting in the next session.”[1] Why should they meet at all, unless ours will be the fourth BOT constitution to limit Governors’ powers?

Prorogation and dissolution
And, Sections 64 to 66 provide for at least one election every 5 years, as well as snap elections: “The Governor, acting… with the advice of the [Premier], may at anytime, by Proclamation… prorogue the Assembly…[and] may at any time… dissolve the Assembly…[and] The Governor shall dissolve the Assembly at the expiration of five years from the date when the Assembly first meets after any general election unless it has been sooner dissolved.”[1,4]

General elections
Section 67 further required: “There shall be a general election at such time within two months after every dissolution of the Assembly as the Governor shall by Proclamation appoint.”[1] As such, elections could theoretically take place multiple times per year but in no case fewer than once every five. Hmm.

The Constitution, Disallowing Laws – and the General Services Tax (GST)…
Remember hoping the Secretary of State would disallow a law that effectively nullified an election? It was a master class in why this Constitutional review and every new law must be taken so seriously.

The UK response was firstly delegated to an underling, “…I have been asked to reply on their behalf.” He then asserted, “The GST Bill passed by the House of Assembly on 29 July 2021 was in compliance with Anguilla’s constitutional provisions…” despite “…significant debate…” And, “Under the Constitution, the Attorney General and Deputy Governor are [House] members… with the ability to make it quorate by their presence and can move and vote on legislation….[and that] The Governor must act in accordance with the Constitution, and she gave assent in accordance with its terms.” As if we couldn’t read? He concluded, “The United Kingdom does not plan to take any steps to disallow this Act.” [5]
Then, public servants serving the Crown curated and replaced that law driven by another election promise. It continues to threaten warrantless searches, forced oaths, self-incrimination, and countless costs, fees, fines and imprisonment as if never repealed.[6] Meanwhile, AI revenues are hoarded for pay raises and projects, private matters are vulnerable to capricious audits of lawyers and accountants, and parents struggling to educate children must pay ANGLEC, phone and Internet bills inflated for a bloated government while subsidising offsets to those who need them the least.
So, how much longer will the General Services Tax Act remain a mockery of rights so many thought were in the Constitution, especially now that AI revenue can replace it? …An Order amended by any such repugnant, constitutionally inconsistent law at any time, with powers for a Governor to enact them with “any amendment which he may recommend” – without any votes at all?

Repeal General Services Tax – and pass a balanced budget bill. Now.

This article reflects issues raised on July 5, 2021, at the House Select Committee on GST Public Hearing.
[1] Anguilla Constitution Order 1982; [2] https://theanguillian.com/2021/09/concerned-citizens-awaiting-reply-from-uk-officials-on-gst/; [3] Anguilla Constitution Order 1982 S.I. 1982 No. 334; [4] Anguilla Constitution (Amendment) Order 2019; [5] FCDO Letter, 18 October 2021; [6] General Services Tax Act, 2025.

On Thursday, March 5th, I had the privilege of delivering an impactful session on “Teamwork: The Role of Gender in Team Performance and Development” to a cohort of 18 trade union leaders from across the Caribbean. This facilitated session was a focal point of the recent Trade Union Education and Gender Education Workshop hosted by the Caribbean Union of Teachers (CUT).

My presentation provided a deep dive into how gender dynamics operate within the workplace, outlining actionable strategies to achieve equitable team balance without relying on traditional stereotypes.

Rather than a standard lecture, the cohort was highly instrumental to the session’s success. The participants actively engaged with the material, sharing their unique regional views through robust discussions and collaborative group work. Together, we navigated critical frameworks and regional data, focusing on:
• The Basics of Team Development: Utilizing Tuckman’s stages of development (forming, storming, norming, and performing), we highlighted how societal expectations and gender norms actively influence conflict resolution and team cohesion.
• The Caribbean Context (2020–Present): We placed a spotlight on regional disparities. While women in the Caribbean outpace men in educational attainment by 86%, their labour force participation lags by over 20%. We identified the “unpaid care gap”—where women spend up to three times more of their day on domestic labour—as a systemic barrier that prevents women from taking on the extra, unpaid ‘hustle’ often required to reach top leadership roles.
• Gender’s Influence on Teamwork: We unpacked the divide between ‘task’ roles (driving projects forward) and ‘maintenance’ roles (organizing schedules, taking notes, keeping the peace). Society often conditions women to take on these vital yet invisible maintenance roles, which are frequently overlooked in promotions.
• Leadership Styles: We emphasized the need for diverse teams to balance both transactional and transformational leadership styles to truly thrive.
• Barriers to Gender Equity in Teamwork: We discussed implicit bias and stereotyping, the double burden, microaggressions, and a lack of sponsorship.
• Implications on Team Performance: We examined the loss of diverse perspectives, decreased morale and engagement, and inefficient talent utilization.
• Strategies for Inclusive Team Development: We explored actionable steps, such as defining roles by skill rather than stereotype, rotating maintenance tasks, implementing structured communication, and fostering continuous awareness.
• The Role of Educators and Unionists – Moving Forward: Finally, we addressed the crucial role educators and unions must play in breaking down these barriers to shape a more balanced future.

My experience
Although I attended the workshop as a presenter and an executive of the CUT Status of Women’s Committee, the experience was truly a two-way learning opportunity. Connecting with 18 leaders from across the region reminded me that, despite our different islands and systems, we share many of the same concerns as educators and trade unionists.

The conversations we had strengthened my belief in the importance of unionism within our organizations. Our unions give us the collective voice we need to advocate for fair compensation, equitable policies for both men and women, and safe working environments where teachers are protected from harassment and burnout. One issue that came up repeatedly was educator mental health. It was a powerful reminder that, as leaders, we must work together to close the gaps and actively support our teachers’ well-being.

I am sincerely grateful to the Caribbean Union of Teachers for giving me the opportunity to participate in the Education and Union workshop. The experience has helped me grow both as a union member and as a leader.
Perhaps the biggest lesson I took away was the value of networking. Building relationships across the region strengthens solidarity, allows us to learn from each other’s advocacy strategies, and fosters genuine camaraderie. I look forward to sharing what I learned with our local union so that we can continue working toward stronger collaboration, better recognition of the invisible workload teachers carry, and a more inclusive and supportive organization for everyone.

As we move on to Chapter V, the 1982 Anguilla Constitution Order enshrined powers to “make laws” beginning with Section 47, “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Assembly, may make laws for the peace, order and good government of Anguilla.” [1] So, only an appointee can “make laws” – limiting elected members to advise, agree or disagree?

Royal Instructions
Section 48 links back to the monarchy, saying, “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Governor and the Assembly shall, in the transaction of business and the making of laws, conform as nearly as maybe to the directions contained in any Instructions under Her Majesty’s Sign Manual and Signet that may from time to time be addressed to the Governor in that behalf.”[1]

Rules of procedure
Section 49 gives latitude for House rules, then retracts it: “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and of any Instructions under Her Majesty’s Sign Manual and Signet, the Assembly may … make, amend and revoke rules of procedure …and the despatch of business, and for the passing, intituling and numbering of Bills for the presentation thereof to the Governor for assent; but no such rules … shall have effect until the Governor, acting in his discretion… approves them.”[1]

Presiding in Assembly
Section 50 requires, “(1) When the Assembly first meets after a general election, or after the office of Speaker has fallen vacant for any [other] reason… and before…any other business, the Assembly shall elect a… Speaker… from among persons who are qualified for election…” but not from Executive Council.[2] Electing a Deputy Speaker was later included, as would be another member’s election for a single sitting if both are absent.[2,3] Conditions that “vacate” their offices include: dissolution of Assembly; resignation; two-thirds vote; ceasing to be a member (Section 39); joining Executive Council; or if not a member, if the Speaker becomes disqualified for election under Section 37. [3]

Assembly may transact business not-withstanding vacancies
Section 51 is ironic: “The Assembly shall not be disqualified for the transaction of business by reason of any vacancy… and any proceedings therein shall be valid notwithstanding that some person who was not entitled to do so sat or voted in the Assembly or otherwise took part in those proceedings.”[1] Ironic? See Section 56. Laws can be made without any Assembly at all!

Quorum
However, Section 52 allows “any member of the Assembly who is present” to object to “the transaction of business” without a quorum (two-thirds) and for “the person presiding” to “adjourn the Assembly” once the rules for confirming quorum status are followed.[1] Sounds good but see Section 56.
Voting
Section 53 has another pesky key left in the lock, saying, “Save as otherwise provided in this Constitution,[!!] all questions proposed for decision… shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting.” And the presiding member, “shall not vote unless… the votes are equally divided, in which case he shall have and exercise a casting vote.”[1] Most expect Speakers to vote down fraught legislation. Nonetheless, they are clearly empowered to single-handedly impose it.
Summoning of persons to assist Assembly
Section 54 simply allows, “The Speaker or other person presiding” to “summon any person to a meeting of the Assembly notwithstanding that that person is not a member” and that such individual(s) can participate in the proceedings relevant to their summons, except they can’t vote.[1]

Introduction of Bills
Section 55 states, “…any member may introduce any Bill or propose any motion for debate in, or may present any petition to, the Assembly… according to the rules of procedure.” However, it reserves powers of taxation whereby “Except on the recommendation of the Governor, the Assembly shall not—proceed upon any Bill [or motion – or receive any petition or amendment…] which in the opinion of the person presiding…makes provision for imposing or increasing any tax, for imposing or increasing any charge on the revenues or other funds of Anguilla or for altering any such charge otherwise than by reducing it or for compounding or remitting any debt due to Anguilla.”[1] Okay to reduce them? Hmm.

Section 56: Governor’s legislative reserved power
Section 56 turns an important key: “If the Governor considers that it is expedient in the interests of public order or public faith (which …include the responsibility of Anguilla…and all matters pertaining to the creation or abolition of any public office …) that any Bill introduced or motion proposed, in the Assembly should have effect, then, if the Assembly fail to pass the Bill or to carry the motion within such time and in such form as the Governor thinks reasonable and expedient, the Governor, acting in his discretion, may, at any time that he thinks fit, and notwithstanding any provision of this Constitution or of any other law in force in Anguilla or of any rules of procedure… declare that the Bill or motion shall have effect as if it had been passed or carried by the Assembly either in the form in which it was introduced or proposed or with such amendments as the Governor thinks fit which have been moved or proposed in the Assembly or any Committee thereof; and the Bill or the motion shall be deemed thereupon to have been so passed or carried, and the provisions of this Constitution, and in particular the provisions relating to assent to Bills and disallowance of laws, shall have effect accordingly.” [1,2]
This notably requires instructions from the Secretary of State, unless he judges it too urgent for such instructions. Reports and objections may follow, giving final discretion to the Secretary of State.[1,2]

Assent to Bills
Section 57 underscores the clarity of 56, saying, “A Bill shall not become a law until—the Governor has assented to it in Her Majesty’s name …or Her Majesty has given Her assent to it through a Secretary of State and the Governor has signified Her assent by Proclamation.” It continues, saying the Governor shall declare his assent, or that “he reserves the Bill” for [His Majesty’s] pleasure for “any Bill which appears to him to be in any way repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the provisions of this Constitution; and…any Bill which determines or regulates the privileges, immunities or powers of the Assembly or of its members…unless he has been authorised by a Secretary of State to assent to it.”[1] One wonders if either governor read the Constitution before assenting to GST or its offspring? [4,5]

And the General Services Tax (GST)…
Remember July 29, 2021, when the DG and AG nullified elected Ministers’ votes? ’Seems no one read Section 56, which empowered the Governor to enact GST without any votes, once the Speaker allowed the first reading. And would Section 55 permit replacing General Services Tax with Accommodation Tax while “reducing it” to zero for other services, now that AI is funding the government anyway?
Notably, the “UK retains the right to make law for all the Territories” – yet three such constitutions do not allow the Governor to make laws.[6] Will our amended Constitution will be the fourth? And will this Government put the People First by sharing AI revenue for more relief and restore the People’s rights by repealing that outside child of a fraught, repugnant law?

Repeal General Services Tax – and pass a balanced budget bill. Now.

This article reflects issues raised on July 5, 2021, at the House Select Committee on GST Public Hearing.
[1] The Anguilla Constitution Order 1982; [2] The Anguilla Constitution (Amendment) Order 1990; [3] Anguilla Constitution (Amendment) Order 2020; [4] Goods and Services Tax Act, 2021; [5] General Services Tax Act, 2025; [6] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9583/

Hon. Tara K. Carter is the Speaker of the Anguilla House of Assembly and was appointed on 11 March 2025. She is a distinguished barrister and solicitor.

Anguilla’s parliamentary history began with the 1976 Constitution, which established the first Legislature where laws were made with the advice and consent of the Assembly. This year, Anguilla’s House of Assembly celebrates its 50th Anniversary of Parliamentary Democracy.

In July 2025, the Administration Committee of the Anguilla House of Assembly successfully applied for a grant from the Commonwealth Parliamentarians with Disabilities (CPwD) network to fund the development of its website: www.houseofassembly.ai, which was developed by the Anguillan company Design Elements (www. digitalelements.ai).

The new website ensures that constituents with visual, auditory or other disabilities can access information about their Parliament’s work with the same ease as any other citizen. In a small community like Anguilla, where personal relationships matter deeply, it was particularly important that its digital presence reflected its commitment to inclusion.

Anguilla’s commitment to continuous improvement was reinforced by its participation in the CPA’s Benchmarks for Democratic Legislatures assessment in February 2020. This comprehensive review of its parliamentary practices identified areas where it excelled and, more importantly, highlighted opportunities for development. The assessment report’s recommendations on transparency, accessibility and the need for better record-keeping resonated strongly with its aspirations for the House of Assembly. One particularly pressing recommendation concerned the considerable backlog in producing official records of parliamentary debates. This challenge became a catalyst for innovation.

Building on this foundation, the Anguilla House of Assembly took an even bolder step and engaged the services of another local company, Evoluut AI (www.whosaidwhat.ai), to develop and implement an AI-driven transcription platform, known as the Hansard AI Together with the audio recording services of For The Record – FTR (www. fortherecord.com), the Hansard system works in real-time. As debates unfold on the floor of the House, audio is captured and immediately transcribed. An editor/ transcriptionist receives this live feed on their platform, allowing for verification and quality control even as the words are being spoken. Simultaneously, every Member of the House of Assembly has viewer access to the transcription on their own devices, enabling them to follow the debate with unprecedented clarity.

Most remarkably, the AI platform automatically generates the Hansard format transcript immediately upon conclusion of proceedings. What once took days or even weeks can now be accomplished in hours, providing constituents with rapid access to the official record of their Parliament’s work.

This innovation carries particular significance for Anguilla on two fronts. First, Anguilla is known as the birthplace of the .ai internet domain. While many around the world now recognize .ai as synonymous with Artificial Intelligence, it was originally, and remains, the Country Code Top-Level Domain for Anguilla. Anguilla’s implementation of sophisticated AI technology in its Parliament demonstrates that Anguilla is not merely the custodian of a valuable digital asset, but an active participant in the technological revolution it represents.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, this system advances the core values that must underpin any healthy democracy: accountability, transparency and fairness. When citizens can access the record of parliamentary debates immediately, when Members can review their own contributions and those of their colleagues in real-time, and when the process of creating the official record is both rapid and reliable, democracy is strengthened.

In December 2025, the Anguilla House of Assembly was honoured to host a formal launch of this innovative system, attended by CPA Secretary-General, Stephen Twigg and former CPA Head of Programmes, Matthew Salik. Their presence underscored the significance of this achievement not just for Anguilla, but as a potential model for other small Legislatures facing similar challenges. The launch represented the culmination of Anguilla’s efforts to address the recommendations of the benchmarks assessment while positioning Anguilla at the forefront of parliamentary innovation.

For small Parliaments like Anguilla that operate under resource limitations, the AI transcription system addresses a practical challenge. With limited staff managing multiple competing demands, traditional manual transcription had created significant backlogs that undermined transparency and accountability. The new system has proven effective: a single transcriptionist can now produce in hours what previously took weeks, while retaining essential human oversight for accuracy and parliamentary conventions.

Anguilla was honoured to share its experience at the CPA UK Post-Election Seminar in Bermuda from 26 to 28 January 2026. The session on exploring the use of AI and technology in Parliaments provided an excellent forum for exchanging ideas with colleagues from across the Commonwealth, including representatives from Turks and Caicos Islands, Jersey and the Isle of Man. The Anguilla delegation included the Speaker of the House of Assembly, Hon. Tara K. Carter and the Clerk, Mr. Lenox Proctor, who both made presentations on the advancements in Anguilla.

The Anguilla House of Assembly’s journey does not end with this achievement. In November 2025, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association co-hosted, with the Inter-Parliamentary Union and UNDP, a landmark conference in Malaysia on ‘The Role of Parliament in Shaping the Future of Responsible AI’. The resulting Kuala Lumpur Declaration provides a comprehensive framework for parliamentary action on AI, with thirteen specific recommendations covering everything from AI readiness assessments to the establishment of oversight mechanisms and the promotion of responsible AI use within Parliaments.

The Administration Committee in Anguilla’s Legislature is committed to conducting regular assessments of the AI transcription system while ensuring clear ethical boundaries and governance. The recommendations from both the CPA Democratic Benchmarks assessment and the Kuala Lumpur Declaration will guide Anguilla’s ongoing work to ensure that its use of AI remains responsible, transparent and firmly in service of democratic values.

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has been instrumental in supporting this development, both through direct funding and through the networks and knowledge-sharing it facilitates. Anguilla encourages other Parliaments to embrace new tools to advance technology in the parliamentary process.

Anguilla’s Parliament is small, but it continues to advocate for transparency, accessibility and effective democracy with the same fervor as any large Parliament in the Commonwealth. Through the combination of CPA support, Government of Anguilla investment, local innovation and a commitment to its values, Anguilla has proven that size need not limit impact.

Editor’s Note: This article was written by Tara K. Carter, Speaker of the Anguilla House of Assembly, and originally published in The Parliamentarian, the journal of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The publication has served Commonwealth parliaments and parliamentary professionals for more than 100 years. The article highlights Anguilla’s advancements in parliamentary accessibility and innovation through technology and artificial intelligence. It is reproduced here in full with permission of the author.

Written by: Honourable Tara K. Carter, Speaker of the House, Anguilla

When Carl Webster, Jr. (CJ) walks through the streets of Anguilla, you don’t need to see his face to be able to point him out. The first thing that stands out is his quintessential Indiana Jones-style hat. It is a symbol of the adventure that has defined his passion from an early age for uncovering, preserving, and sharing the rich history of his island.

CJ’s fascination with Anguilla’s past started at home, even before he could fully grasp the significance of the island’s history. Growing up, his father Carl Webster, Sr., would share stories and lessons that he learned from CJ’s great grandfather, Ranny Webster (Pappy). “My dad would always start his life lessons with the phrase ‘as the old people would say…,’” CJ recalls. “He’d tell me everything Pappy told him. Naturally, I started wondering, ‘If my Dad knows all of this, what else is out there for me to learn?’

As CJ listened to his father’s recollections of people, places, events, and even trees planted decades earlier, he began to see the island in a new light. “The stories he told gave me a personal attachment,” CJ explained. “You realize how close everything is and how connected you are to it.” Through those shared memories, CJ understood the dramatic differences between his and his father’s generation. He has come to appreciate his own upbringing with modern amenities which contrast sharply with his father’s life of tending animals, fetching water, and after all that was done, walking to school.

For him, discovering Anguilla’s history became an adventure. He likens it to the exploits of Indiana Jones: “Like in the old-time movie—Indiana Jones, he would go out exploring and gathering information. That’s how it started for me¬¬, information gathering.”

Yet this passion goes beyond exploration. It is driven by a sense of urgency. CJ worries about the parts of Anguilla’s past that are fading from memory: pre-Revolution Anguilla, Arawak sites and practices, significant landmarks, maritime trade history, unique slavery practices, traditional ways of life, and Anguilla’s place in the region’s aviation industry. He has a concern for long standing trees that silently bear witness to centuries of change. “Imagine if a tree could talk,” he says. “It would tell you stories of life in Anguilla hundreds of years ago.”

He continued: “Of Anguilla’s history, most people can only recall the Revolution, but even its true meaning has been lost or politicised. Few remember the salt-making era, the migration of families to places like Curacao and Trinidad, or the lives of those who refused to leave the island during difficult times.” He also noted how modern life has changed daily practices and relationships with the environment: “Back then, people relied on livestock and gardening for food, and on large trees, which were cut down for shipbuilding and fuel. Now, everything is Americanised, and traditional ways are fading.”
CJ sees history as a guide for the future. His message to young people: “You need to know where you come from to know where you are going.” For him, understanding the past helps communities make better decisions and appreciate the richness of their heritage.
Preserving Anguilla’s history, CJ argues, requires more than passion and curiosity; it requires action, funding and active participation. He is an advocate for stronger legislation to protect historical buildings, landmarks, and trees, and for active community participation in passing oral traditions to the younger generations. “The more heritage is embraced by the population and younger generations, the more it survives,” he says.

Finally, CJ sees the preservation of history as a tool for understanding identity and guiding the future.
CJ’s journey into Anguilla’s history started with family storytelling, curiosity, and a desire to know more about his history, and became personal through the tangible connections he made to places shared through his father’s stories. His desire is to preserve and share the past before it’s lost––reminding us that history isn’t just about dates and events—it’s about people, stories, and connections that shape our identity.

There are burdens in Anguilla that cannot be measured by bank accounts, electricity bills, or the price of groceries. They do not show up in headlines or parliamentary debate. Yet they are carried quietly every day inside homes, churches and ordinary conversations that end with “I’m good” even when the truth is far more complicated. Emotional strongholds, those unseen weights of guilt, fear, shame, worry, and unforgiveness, remain some of the most powerful forces shaping how people live, love, and hope.

The theme emerged with striking clarity during reflections inspired by a presentation at the 13th Biennial Conference of the Anglican Church Women Association, where Dr. Michelle Queeley challenged listeners to think about prison in a different way. Not the kind with concrete walls and iron bars, but the kind people carry in their minds. Her message lingered beyond the conference setting because it spoke directly to something deeply familiar in life – the habit of appearing strong even when hurting.

She began with a simple question: have you ever visited someone in prison and how did it feel? The answers were immediate and emotional – sad, heavy, overwhelming. Everyone understood that kind of confinement. But the deeper question followed quietly: what about the prisons no one can see? The ones built from regret, rejection, disappointment, or fear of tomorrow. Where resilience is almost a cultural expectation, those invisible cells are easy to hide behind politeness, laughter, and Sunday morning clothes.

The uncomfortable truth is that many people are walking around free in body but bound in spirit. They go to sleep with the same thoughts that trouble them all day and wake up carrying them again, performing strength for the world while privately feeling stuck. Silence makes the struggle heavier. When pain has no language, healing has no doorway. And when entire communities learn to hide hurt, misunderstanding quietly replaces compassion.

Part of the difficulty is recognising what emotional strongholds really are. They are not just bad days or passing moods. They are patterns – ways of thinking and feeling that settle in so deeply they begin to feel normal. A voice that keeps replaying old mistakes. A constant expectation that something will go wrong. A refusal to release past hurt because letting go feels like losing justice. Over time, these patterns shape decisions, relationships, and even dreams. Freedom becomes harder to imagine, not because it is impossible, but because captivity has become familiar.

Across generations, the same inner battles repeat themselves. Guilt whispers that you should be further along in life. Worry steals sleep with problems that have not even happened. Unforgiveness keeps old wounds fresh, as though time never moved. Shame tells people their past has cancelled their future. None of these voices shout, yet all of them influence how a person walks through the world, what risks they take, what love they accept, what future they believe they deserve.

These strongholds rarely appear without reason. They often grow out of real pain – harsh words spoken in childhood, relationships that broke trust, opportunities that disappeared, grief that never fully healed. Experiences become thoughts, thoughts become beliefs, and beliefs begin steering the direction of a life. When fear or falsehood sits in the driver’s seat, the journey bends accordingly. That is why emotional and spiritual wellbeing can never be separated from the renewal of the mind.

Renewal sounds simple, but it is deeply intentional work. It asks a person to challenge the stories they have believed for years and replace them with something truer, something kinder, something rooted in faith rather than failure. It does not pretend pain never happened. Instead, it dares to ask whether pain might still produce wisdom, strength, or purpose. The question slowly changes from “Why me?” to “What now?” – and that shift, small as it seems, can open space for healing.

But healing has never been meant to happen alone. Caribbean life is built on community – family members who show up unasked, church sisters who pray without being told the full story, neighbours who notice when something feels off. There is quiet power in that togetherness. Sometimes freedom begins not with a grand breakthrough, but with someone sitting beside you long enough for honesty to feel safe. Strength is often remembered in the presence of another person who refuses to let you forget it.

Perhaps the most hopeful image to emerge from this reflection is the idea that the prison door is already open. Not that suffering is imaginary, but that release is closer than it feels. Freedom may begin with a difficult conversation, an apology offered, counselling accepted, or truth finally spoken aloud. Small steps, almost invisible at first. Yet every step weakens the walls that once felt permanent.

People are becoming more willing to talk about mental health, trauma, and emotional resilience, though stigma still lingers in quiet corners. The growing openness matters. A healthier nation is not built only through roads, policies, or economic plans, but through people who are emotionally whole enough to love well, lead wisely, and hope again.

Freedom, then, is rarely dramatic. More often, it is gentle and stubborn – arriving in moments of honesty, forgiveness, faith, and community. And as more people find the courage to walk out of their invisible prisons, the island itself becomes lighter. Not perfect, not pain-free, but freer in the ways that matter most.