In March 2017, the
Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee presented the government of
Anguilla with a 256 page Report. It
included a draft law to create a Boundaries Revision Committee and a draft
Elections Act designed to implement the recommendations in the 2017
Report. Also included was a draft new Anguilla
Constitution which was intended to show what the recommendations would look
like when enacted. The Report
acknowledged that experts would need to revise the submitted drafts.
Over
the following months, there were occasional announcements that government
accepted the Report and intended to ask the British to implement its recommendations. Then, in September 2017 Hurricane Irma
intervened, and this no doubt set constitutional reform back by several
months. There were no public meetings or
public discussions of any kind organised by any of government, the opposition,
or civil society to discuss the Report or its recommendations.
On
the evening of Thursday 24 October 2018, there began to be circulated in
Anguilla a draft Order in Council dated 22 October together with a related press
release. They revealed that government
had decided to make a proposal to the British to change our electoral system
and to amend the 1982 Constitution. The
press release invited the public to a meeting at the Teachers’ Resource Centre the
following Monday to discuss the proposed amendments to the law and the
constitution.
Noticeably,
the circulated draft Order in Council with the proposed reforms did not include
the entire package of recommendations made by the Committee. Additionally, it contained some new proposals
that are not found in the Report.
The
informed reader would immediately notice that the 22 October draft addressed matters
that were of interest only to a politician.
So, the franchise would be extended to foreign-born grandchildren of
Anguillians; the House of Assembly would
be increased by four members at large;
Executive Council would be re-branded as the Cabinet; the Cabinet would be increased from the
present four members to five; the
‘qualifying date’ for persons being added to the electoral list would no longer
be determined by the date the Supervisor of Elections published the list, but
would now be determined by the government on the basis of undisclosed
principles; and the Chief Minister would
now be renamed the Premier. None of the
“watchdog institutions” that were at the heart of the 2017 Report were
addressed. Prominent among these was the
Integrity Commission.
Up
to this point, government had not discussed and agreed with either the
Opposition or the public any proposal to introduce some only of the
constitutional recommendations, while deferring the others to a later date.
On
26 October came the real bombshell.
Government published five pieces of correspondence between the Chief
Minister and Lord Ahmad, the UK Minister with responsibility for Anguilla and
the Overseas Territories. On reading
them, one was struck by a number of things.
The Chief Minister informed Lord Ahmad that government accepted most of
the Committee’s proposals, but not all of them.
He gave no hint which ones his administration objected to. He also explained that he needed both the
Constitution and the Elections Act to be amended prior to the upcoming 2020
elections. After the elections, he wrote,
he would have more time to deal with the remainder of the recommendations for
constitutional and electoral reform.
But, these initial amendments were a few, he wrote, that were urgent.
On
the same day, government circulated a new version of the Order in Council dated
26 October 2018. This was to be
introduced into the House of Assembly the following week. There were indications that government wanted
the Order in Council signed into law at the December sitting of the Privy
Council.
The
intelligent reader would at once observe that there was nothing in the interim
proposals that was truly urgent. Great
political benefit would accrue to whichever political party could claim to be
the one that gave the franchise and other constitutional rights to
grandchildren. Changing the provision in
the Elections Act to permit government to decide what the qualifying date was
for new voters was capable of manipulation and misuse. And, anyway, this was not something proposed
by the Committee in its 2017 Report.
This
is where Pam Webster sprang into action.
She worked with Dr Ellis Webster, leader of the Anguilla United
Movement, and Sutcliff Hodge, leader of the DOVE party, to organise public
resistance to this effort to unilaterally amend our Constitution. She held strategy meetings with the other
political leaders. She wrote to the
Governor protesting the action contemplated.
She chaired a press conference at the Speaker’s conference room at the House
of Assembly, at which the united political opposition expressed their fears and
concerns. She chaired a public meeting
hurriedly called at the Teachers’ Resource Centre, which was well attended and
broadcast on at least two of the local radio stations. She wrote a letter to Lord Ahmad expressing
her concerns. The other opposition
parties also wrote to Lord Ahmad protesting the Chief Minister’s proposals.
Everything
went quiet. The Governor replied to her
letter saying it was out of his hands.
Lord Ahmad said nothing. Then,
towards the end of November the Chief Minister announced he was off to London
for a series of meetings which would include his proposals for constitutional
and electoral reform. We all held our
breath. The silence continued.
The
Chief Minister came back from London and resumed his usual activities in
Anguilla. He said nothing about what had
happened in London. The silence was now
deafening. You would think that the
Anguillian public who had paid for his delegation’s trip to London was entitled
to a trip report. But, up to this day,
nothing.
In
fact, we know what happened. We don’t
need a trip report. Though, it would be
decent of him to deliver it.
It
is a fundamental principle that the UK government will not permit a sitting
government of a British Overseas Territory to unilaterally alter the elections
law just before a general election. The
concern is that any such alteration is calculated to favour the incumbent
administration. That is why the
alteration always comes into effect after the next elections. On that basis, Lord Ahmad would have told the
Chief Minister that he could not agree to the proposed changes to the electoral
system, especially to be brought into effect before the next elections.
A
second principle is that the UK government will not permit a sitting government
to unilaterally make proposals for constitutional or electoral reform. The government must invite the opposition
leadership to accompany the government delegation to London. London will interrogate them to ensure that
the proposals have cross-party support, and, more importantly, general public
support.
These
are preconditions for the British government to start looking at proposals for
constitutional and electoral reform of a British Overseas Territory. By the time the Chief Minister arrived in
London, Lord Ahmad would have been well aware of the outrage being expressed in
Anguilla by the opposition and by the public at this attempt to sneak
politically expedient amendments into effect behind the backs of the
Anguillians.
The
Chief Minister would have been told to go back home and not to come back to
London with similar proposals unless he brought the opposition with him, and
with plenty of evidence that there was general public support for whatever
constitutional proposals he was making.
Pam
deserves our thanks and appreciation.
Her drive and persistence were necessary to bring the situation in
Anguilla to the attention of the British government. There is no doubt her initiative saved the day.
