On or about 1 October 2010, Anguillians
learned that the Hon Chief Minister of Anguilla, Mr Hubert Hughes, had met with a noisy delegation
outside his offices at the Government Secretariat in The Valley in
Anguilla. He had, we were told, addressed
the demonstrators, expressing his support for their demands. That evening, we were astonished to hear his
voice on the evening news programme on Radio Anguilla angrily demanding the
removal from office of the Registrar of Lands, and her deportation to her
native Trinidad. I was away in Saint
Lucia at the time, but I was sent a recording of what he said. What I knew about the circumstance behind the
demonstration, and the Chief Minister’s reaction to it compelled me to write
and to publish the following article on my Corruption Free Blog. I reproduce it here as a lesson to my law
students, and for the future: http://corruptionfreeanguilla.blogspot.com/2010/10/abuse-of-office.html
THE POWER OF PUBLIC OFFICE MUST NEVER BE USED
TO PROMOTE PRIVATE INTERESTS
Though no money changes hands, the misuse of
public office to promote private interests is one of the most insidious forms
of corruption in public office that exists.
It has been said that most men enter
national politics for only three reasons: love of money, hope for increased
sexual opportunities, and the enjoyment of power. These three primal forces are not necessarily
evil in themselves. They may even work
on occasion for the public good. They may also be misused, and be corrupting
influences. What I have to write today
involves an alleged case of the use of public power to promote a private
interest. You will decide if it is
corrupt.
Many years ago, I had a professional
involvement in the matter in question and have some personal knowledge about
it. There are some serious issues of
principle that arise in these recent developments. Assuming what I have heard to be essentially
correct, I am forced to write about it.
In about the year 1982, the late Dr
William V Herbert and I represented two contending families in a land
dispute in the High Court. I represented
one family and Dr Herbert represented the others. The land in question was situated in Long
Bay Village in Anguilla.
Before the trial began Dr Herbert was
appointed by the government of Dr Kennedy Simmonds to represent the
newly independent Federation of St Kitts and Nevis at the UN and the
OAS. He was no longer able to appear in
the High Court to represent parties in litigation. The members of the family that had retained
him were instructed to find another attorney to appear for them in court.
On the day set for the trial in the High
Court, Mr Hubert Hughes, then out of the Assembly and out of government,
appeared in court. He told the trial
Judge that he had been requested to speak for the family. He asked the Judge to permit him to speak and
to put questions to the witnesses. The
Judge told him and the family that it would be safer for them to retain an
attorney. She adjourned the case for a
few days to give them a chance to find a new lawyer.
When the trial of the matter resumed, the
family appeared again with Mr Hubert Hughes. They insisted that they wanted him to
represent them at the trial. The Judge sought my view. I said I had no objection to his
cross-examining my witnesses, but that the family would clearly be better off
with an attorney especially as this was a complicated land dispute. The family persisted in requesting that Mr
Hughes represent them in the matter.
The trial proceeded, and the result was that
the judge declared that the family represented by Mr Hughes was not the owner
of the land, but the opposing family was.
The losing family appealed to the Court
of Appeal and subsequently to the Privy Council, in both of which
they lost. Both they and my clients were
by this time represented by other attorneys. The losing family subsequently had an attorney
file one or more new cases attempting to re-litigate the issues. These cases were all dismissed. The family that succeeded are registered in
the Land Registry with title absolute to the lands in dispute.
The family represented by Mr Hughes has never
accepted the finality of the judgment of the court. They have continued to file case after case in
the High Court. They have done
everything in their power to obstruct the successful family from enjoying the
fruits of their judgment. There have
been violent demonstrations at Long Bay Village. Cutlasses have been waved in the air. Threats of death have been issued. Road
construction and land development have been physically blocked. Tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs
have been wasted.
Mr Hughes is now, as of early this year,
back in office as Chief Minister of Anguilla. His Minister of Lands is from the West End and
Long Bay area. The Minister has
reportedly admitted in a news broadcast that he is “an interested party”.
I now hear from my correspondent that the Registrar
of Lands of Anguilla has recently been the object of abuse by both the
losing family and the Hon Chief Minister. The Chief Minister is said to have been on the
radio yesterday chastising the Registrar of Lands for her conduct in relation
to the performance of her duties in the Land Registry. Those duties may be related to the registered
title to the land in question. It is not clear, but she would appear to have
been trying to act in conformity with the Order of the Court. The losing family may have been attempting to
coerce her to act contrary to the Order of the Court. She may have been refusing to do so. According to my informant, the Hon Chief
Minister has now told the Registrar that she must recuse herself from further
dealing with the matter as she is not competent.
I am also told that the Chief Minister has
made a public statement, broadcast on radio yesterday and today, describing the
original court decision as a “tapestry of justice”, and that the Supreme Court
itself must be investigated.
As any one of my A-Level law students can
tell you, there are three branches of government: the legislature which
makes laws, the executive which makes and administers government policy,
and the judiciary which adjudicates on disputes between citizen and the
state and citizen and citizen. None of
these branches is permitted to infringe on the jurisdiction of the other. This is called the doctrine of the separation
of powers. In modern political thinking this doctrine is considered a
cornerstone of democracy and essential for the protection of our civil rights.
The only branch of government which is
regularly investigated is the judiciary. Every decision of a judge is subject to
investigation. This is called an appeal.
Even the appeal is subject to further
investigation. In this instant case the
judge's decision was investigated by the Court of Appeal. After investigation, the decision of the High
Court in favour of the winning family was approved by the Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was
further investigated by the Privy Council. The decision of the Court of Appeal was
approved by the Privy Council. There
have already been repeated investigations of this decision of the High Court. It is an impertinence to suggest that some
other investigation is called for. The
same cannot be said for most decisions of the executive branch of government.
Under our system of government public
servants are supposed to be insulated from political pressure. This rule of non-political interference in the
administration exists for the protection of the average citizen, who may
otherwise be subject to victimisation. I
cannot understand how a Minister of Government could put pressure on a
Registrar of Lands in Anguilla to recuse herself from performing her
administrative duties. Such a
development would signify a low point in the government of our island. I sincerely hope that our Chief Minister would
never act unconstitutionally to instruct some other public servant to intervene
and to change the registered titles to these areas of land.
It would be worrying if the Governor and
Deputy Governor were to be seen to permit a Minister of Government to harass a
senior public servant in the performance of her duties. This is particularly so if she had been
refusing to countenance the flouting of a longstanding and repeatedly upheld
Order of the Court. Will they rise publicly and vociferously to the defence of
the Registrar of Lands in this matter? We
are not holding our breath, only bating it.
I can only hope that I have been
misinformed. It would be bad enough if a
Chief Minister were to be seen to be encouraging citizens to act in an illegal
manner. It would be a vicious blow
against the principle of the Separation of Powers if a Chief Minister
were to be thought to be encouraging a flouting of an Order of a Court. It would be destructive of the Rule of Law
for any Chief Minister or Prime Minister to be known to be disparaging the
integrity of the Supreme Court itself. More damaging, we in Anguilla would be
demonstrating unfitness for any extension of the powers of internal
self-government, as we have been demanding.
Who would be obliged to pay the substantial
damages and costs that may eventually be awarded against the government if this
fiasco is not brought to an immediate end? We the people, of course.
A final question that we the members of the
public might ask is, if these fears are justified, what, if anything, would the
Anguilla Bar Association be prepared to do to defend the integrity and
independence of our judicial branch of government, and to uphold the finality
of an Order of the Court from an attack by a Minister of Government?
First published 2
October 2010
Republished 14 July
2015
Post script:
I am pleased to say that the Registrar of Lands stood her ground on the occasion, and
refused the Chief Minister’s demands that she alter the title documents to the
disputed lands. The Governor and the
Deputy Governor must have backed her decision to uphold the rule of law against
the lawless demands of the Chief Minister, since she is still in office to this day as Registrar of Lands. The Chief Minister and his political party
lost office earlier this year after their 5-year term came to an end. In fact, their political party lost every seat in the House of
Assembly.
