Found at: http://www.anguillaguide.com/article/articleprint/5899/-1/135/

"Don't Blame Us...WE HAVE NO POWER" - Chief Minister

The Government of Anguilla, with the support of all political factions and the general public on the island, is hotly pursuing full internal self-government even at the cost of being forced into independence although this ultimate status is not yet on the cards.

L-R: Dame Lake, Hon. Victor Banks, ID Mitchell, CM Fleming, Lolita Richardson and Hon. Hubert Hughes

On Monday evening, April 28, Chief Minister, Osbourne Fleming, led a working committee comprising government and opposition parliamentarians, and a number of specially-selected persons, in conducting the first public forum in a new drive at constitutional modernisation. The meeting, at the Ronald Webster Park Pavilion, occupied a fairly large portion of the space. It provided an atmosphere of easy and effective communication as each of the speakers in the line up spoke at length and, at the appropriate stage, created much interaction between themselves and the attentive audience.

The pursuit of full internal-self government, a status which the British Government is unhappy about, follows two protracted attempts at constitutional and electoral reform spanning some six years. The committee and commission, as the first and second review bodies were called, were under the chairmanship of David Carty and Don Mitchell respectively and laid the foundation for much of the work today. The new thrust is not just a revision of the constitution but a virtual re-shaping aimed at considerably reducing the powers of the Governor and placing greater autonomy into the hands of elected representatives.

CM Fleming: Don’t Blame Us

Chief Minister Fleming put the Government’s quest for full internal self-government graphically when he commented on a statement by Dame Dr. Bernice Lake QC that Ministers of Government in Anguilla had nothing to do with many of the decisions taken on the island over the years.

He told the gathering: “There are things that the Government can do but we have no say in them … and these are the anomalies that we want to address. We don’t hire or fire civil servants. That is outside our jurisdiction…And so we are looking at a constitution whereby the elected members can bear the ‘right fault.’ So when there is a fault, blame us…Don’t blame us when somebody is appointed to work in the high school. That is outside our jurisdiction.” In other words, Mr. Fleming made the point that the Anguilla Government lacked the power under the constitution to handle a number of important areas of the island’s affairs and the new approach to the constitution was aimed at remedying the anomalous situation.

L-R: Dr. Lake, Hon. E. Rogers, Hon. K. Harrigan and J. Roberts

Mr. Fleming stressed that Anguilla was economically and financially supporting itself and he therefore held the view that the island could proceed to full internal self-government, but with the question of independence on the back burner for some time in the future. He reported that the Anguilla Government “had not received one cent” for the island’s recurrent budget from the British Government from 1983 or “one cent for the capital budget from 2005.” He added: “Despite the fact that we are carrying the burden of this country, there are things that we cannot question. How long do we want our country to live under this yoke? Do you see why we are so much in favour of full internal self-government? The fact is we are carrying our burden.”

Dame Lake: Constitutional Democracy

Dame Bernice Lake, widely known and respected for her constitutional knowledge and advice, largely set the tone for the meeting in a position paper she delivered during the meeting. She stressed that the consultative process, where a territory sought to engage the administering power into dialogue with respect to self-determination, found much favour with the United Nations and was therefore a matter to pursue. She stated: “If the Government of Anguilla should seek assistance from the United Nations’ agencies in advancing the consultative processes, there is the undertaking that the request [would be granted] with the UN calling on the British Government to honour its international obligations and to assist the territory with carrying forward the work of consultation so that the people can arrive at a determination as to how they should go forward.”

Dame Lake emphasised the importance of a meaningful constitution that safeguarded the democratic way of life and rights of a people, how they “expect their society to be governed and how those entrusted with government will be allowed to execute the responsibilities of governance.” She said that no society could be a democracy if the values were sent down from another power. She saw the self-governing society, to which Anguilla was aspiring, as one having values of free will, government by majority rule and a shared responsibility between the elected and the electorate secured by well-defined checks and balances.

Government Officials and members of the general public at meeting

“If the society is to be a colonial community, the values of free will and government by majority rule will fall away and in their place the values of government by subjugation and oppression of the will of the people will take centre stage by instrument,” she declared. Dame Lake noted that with regard to territories like Anguilla the British Government was against such forms of administration as integration and free association and favoured either deeper colonial status or independence.

She continued: “Our present status is that of a colonial territory in which the powers for the administration of the island are vested firmly and surely into the hands of the Governor ameliorated only by the disposition of the Governors from time to time to bring the elected representatives on board as partners in the discharge of the administrative functions. Indeed, the will of the people of Anguilla, as expressed through their elected representatives, can be over-bourne by the Governor acting under the guidance of instructions from the Secretary of State in England.

“When we look at that position we can see that although we have a document called a constitution, and although we have some advance in internal government, we really do not have the constitutional democracy. So long as the powers of the Governor are exerciseable in answer to the instructions of the Secretary of State, and so long as we are subject to that ‘thing’ which is called an ‘Order-in-Council’, all the provisions of your constitution can be whipped from under your feet in the twinkling of an eye.”

Dame Lake defined full internal self-government as an arrangement in which the people of Anguilla would be vested with the right to exercise full executive authority over all of their domestic affairs as was the case in the Associated States and the West Indies Act of 1967 and the constitutions enacted there-under. Such an arrangement would leave matters of defence, security and external affairs in the hands of the United Kingdom. It would secure the island’s fundamental rights and freedom; and honour the exercise of the democratic way of life “in which the power of those who govern rises from those who are governed in an open and participatory manner.”

Victor Banks: Public Opinion Is On Our Side

Minister of Finance, Victor Banks, spoke of the various powers of the Governor under the constitution in which he is not obliged to consult the Executive Council and of his authority to over-ride decisions of the Council. He said that there were powers which the Governor “do not necessarily exercise but which are contained in the constitution.” He acknowledged that the Anguilla Government has had the privilege of being able to collaborate and cooperate with Governors and did not have any serious problem putting forward the will of the Government. He observed, however, that the powers of the Governor were enshrined in the constitution and that it was important for Anguilla in moving forward with the reforms of the new constitution to ensure that those powers were taken out.

Government Officials and members of the general public at meeting

Mr. Banks went on: “The people should not only hear about the constitution but should know exactly where the power resides in the constitution and who the persons are who exercise those powers. I believe that the people who exercise the power should be answerable to the people. In other words, if the Governor exercises that power, there should be a mechanism within the constitution to make sure that he is answerable to the people. It is important that in going forward with this exercise that we examine our constitution very carefully and ensure that wherever those powers exist – for example Orders-in-Council - in particular, should be abolished.

“I think this is the right time to do it because public opinion is on our side. The [United Nations] Committee on Decolonisation is on our side and has been for a very long time; and, as a matter of fact, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is of the view that the people should have more of a say in what happens…[in cases where certain officials] are not answerable to the people; and that they should have a recourse in dealing with decisions made by those authorities who are not answerable to them.”

Mr. Banks also made the following statement: “I want to point out that even though we are not talking about independence, but more internal self-government, it does not mean, as Dame Lake pointed out, that the powers which the Governor now has, will be devolved to the locally-elected political directorate. It means that those powers will become part of a constitutional system of governance which clearly defines the powers that the elected representatives have, the powers of the Governor, and puts in place checks and balances which will enable us to ensure that neither the Governor nor the elected representatives are allowed to arbitrarily do things which infringe the rights of the people who they represent or the people who they govern.”

Hubert Hughes: Taking Self-determination

Opposition Member, Hubert Hughes, said: “I am very happy at this present time that the political leader, the Hon. Osbourne Fleming, has had the courage to take over this [constitutional reform] process and lead it. This is what I had expected all along and this is what pertains in every case of constitutional advancement in every colonial territory.”

Government Officials and members of the general public at meeting

Mr. Hughes made the point that constitutional development was different from a lot of the other Overseas Territories. “There is a provision in the Anguilla constitution for us to go independent,” he stated. “We are not asking Britain for independence at this stage. We are nonetheless are going to be blackmailed by the British that if we asked for those essential features of democracy, we must be pushed into independence. If Britain wants to push us into independence let her do so; but we are dedicated and determined to take, not to be given…complete internal self-government whatever the British may think. That is what our aim, our destiny is.”

Lolita Richardson: Raw Colonisation

Ms Lolita Richardson, who is assisting with a draft of the modernised constitution, told the meeting: “There is nothing modern about our present constitution. In my opinion, it is raw colonialism. The Governor has absolute authority. The fact that a particular Governor may or may not decide to use his authority or his power is not relevant. The point is he has that authority and that is not democratic… We may say we do not want independence now or in the next ten years but we must always make sure that it is an option for our children and grandchildren…Our aim at present is to improve the relationship with the United Kingdom to make our internal government more democratic, efficient and accountable and to prevent any occurrence or recurrence that has in the past strained our relationship with the administering authority.”

Ms. Richardson said the British Government had always told Anguilla that there were only two choices: either to give the Governor more power or the island should proceed to independence. “That position of the British is incorrect and it is a violation of the provisions of the United Nations agreement.., and we have a right to self-determination,” she stated. Referring to the separation of Anguilla from St. Kitts-Nevis in 1980, she said: “It is the amount of power that we gave back to the Governor in the 1982 and 1990 constitutional changes that really took us back to being a colony. I am a hundred percent sure that Anguillians were not aware of what was happening.”

She recommended that the revised constitution should give Government the primary executive role and limit the Governor to his special responsibility and his emergency powers as was done in the case of Gibraltar. She thought that the Governor should consult with the elected representatives in advance on any international agreement and should require the approval of the Anguilla Government if the agreement would affect internal policy or require implementation by legislation. She took the opportunity to report on some of the details which are being put forward in the draft constitution regarding a reduction of the Governor’s powers and other matters relating to constitutional advance.

Don Mitchell: Time Will Tell

During the question and answer period, Don Mitchell, former Chairman of the disbanded Constitutional and Electoral Commission, said that its recommendations had been so crafted that when they were read in their entirety they provided clear evidence of the wish of the people of Anguilla to move to full internal self-government. “The members agreed not to use the expression internal self-government because we were aware that the British Government didn’t want to hear any talk about that. We knew they were willing to give us as much full internal self-government as we can handle…but they have expressed openly in documents and in speaking…that they don’t want to hear anything about full internal self-government except in the context of a time-table for independence.

Mr. Mitchell said that with the new constitutional team now at work there was a new change of emphasis. He stated that everyone in Anguilla was thinking about full internal self-government but it was a question of tactics. “Do you insist on it clause by clause, function by function… and show the British that each of them must be considered within the context of the democratisation of Government in Anguilla?” he asked. He said there was widespread support of Anguilla’s position from British politicians, through their Ministers, Backbenchers and Foreign Affairs Committees…, the United Nations and everybody in Anguilla so we know where we are going.

“The question was – is it a better strategy to wave a big red flag in front of the bull or is it better to chop the ankles off one by one and let it fall?” he questioned. The Commission was of one view. This Committee is of another view. Time will tell which strategy was more successful. I am looking forward to that excitement in the months ahead of us.”

| Back to normal page view | Send this article to a friend |