Apologies to Lord Ahmad

Government published its draft new Constitution on its website on 24 September.  It is a perverse and distorted version of the original recommendation by the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee.

At the time of Government’s publication, they announced that there would be public consultations at the Teachers’ Resource Centre on 30 September and 1 and 10 October.  All members of the public were invited to attend.  They gave us just 2 weeks to register our objections and comments.  Then, it appeared, they intended to send it off to London with the good news that we all agreed to it, so could it please be now signed into law by the Privy Council.  There was no suggestion that the FCO was interested in speaking to the Opposition, far less the people, before bringing the new Constitution into effect.

A breath of fresh air, a point of light in the darkest tunnel of botched constitutional reform, has now appeared on the horizon.  It is found in a speech of the Chief Minister (by now dubbed the Premier) on 30 September reported in the 4 October 2019 issue of “The Anguillian” newspaper at page 2:

Premier Banks disclosed that a number of technical officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would be coming to Anguilla, in the middle of November, to participate in another round of public consultations.  He said constitutions were very complicated documents with far-reaching implications, and certain elements of the constitution must be in sync with the laws on our books.

This is the first indication we have that the British were not entirely hoodwinked by Government into passing Government’s draft new Constitution.  They would be coming to see for themselves what our attitude is to Government’s proposals for constitutional and electoral reform.

Three things need to be noted from the above announcement by Premier Banks.

1.   He says that the British technical officers will be coming to participate in another round of public consultations.  He must mean that the FCO’s lawyers are coming to Anguilla.  He seems to be suggesting they will sit in on the existing two-week period for “public consultations.”  That is hardly likely to be correct.

2.   When the FCO visits an Overseas Territory to discuss constitutional reform, they constitute what in Anguilla’s case will be called something like “The Anguilla Constitutional Conference.”  They expect their negotiating team to meet with a local negotiating team.  They invariably demand that the local team consist of representatives of government and the Opposition.

The two teams meet across the table from each other to negotiate.  The FCO do not consider only the representations of Government’s team.  They expect the local team to be fully briefed on local expectations for reform.  The local team must be able to put forward the public’s expectations.  The FCO team will have their own demands. 

Their proposals for reform may include new matters that the local team has never considered before.  They may, for example, be quite strong on rights issues that will be new to the locals.  These will include freedom from discrimination in marriage, and the right to a clean environment, and to education.  Yes, they will want gays and lesbians to have the right to marry.  This is because that right is now recognised everywhere as the fundamental right not to be discriminated against on the basis of one’s sexuality.

3.   The Premier seems to have been misled into believing that the new Constitution will need to be “in sync” with the 2019 Amendment Order.  This is a mistake.  The coming new Constitution will set aside the 1982 Constitution along with all amending Orders in Council.  A similar erroneous suggestion was made by the Hon Minister of Home Affairs in the last meeting of the House of Assembly.

This error is our clue that the draft new Constitution published by Government on its website was not prepared by qualified legal draftspersons.  These would know that there is no need for a new Act or Constitution to be “in sync” with a previous one.  This is especially so when we are speaking about a previous amendment.  These would know that a well-drafted new instrument sweeps aside all previous instruments.  The lawmaker is not constrained by any earlier legal provision, particularly an amendment to an instrument that is being replaced.

All the evidence indicates that the new Elections Act, the Anguillian Status Commission Act, and the new Constitution on Government’s website were drafted by persons who are not experts in drafting legislation.  We can hope and demand that the FCO will insist that they all be replaced with properly drafted instruments.

It appears that both Government and the Opposition underestimated Lord Ahmad and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.  It seems the UK officials recognise the need to consult with a representative body of Anguillians, not just a partisan incumbent Government, before making fundamental constitutional changes.  This is what the FCO normally does. 

Over the past months I have repeatedly accused Lord Ahmad of betraying Anguillians by ignoring the expected consultative procedure and going along with Government’s unilateral proposals.  This accusation may have been true about the 2019 Amendment Order.  It appears the FCO will do the right thing for the remainder of the reforms.  For doubting Lord Ahmad’s integrity in insisting on this procedure, I personally owe him an apology.

Meanwhile, a great deal of damage has been done by the 2019 Amendment Order and the Elections Act 2019.  But, if the FCO is now coming to Anguilla to meet with the Opposition as well as the Government to finalise a new Constitution, it is not too late to correct the errors.

Any new Constitution will set aside both the old Constitution and all amending Orders in Council.  The opportunity to restore the integrity of the 2017 Report’s draft Constitution and its attendant draft Acts is there. 

It is much to be hoped that the FCO will also insist that the missing Acts necessary for giving effect to the watchdog institutions be prepared and put in place immediately after the new Constitution comes into effect.  These include (a) an Integrity Commission Act, (b) a Freedom of Information Act; (c) a Public Service Commission Act; (d) an Appointments Commission Act; (e) a Complaints Commissioner Act (or Ombudsman Act); (f) an Act for the Remuneration of the Speaker and the Members of the House of Assembly; and, (g) an Anguillian Status Commission Act.

The Constitution states that these provisions in the Constitution depend for their efficacy on the related Acts being passed into law.  Accompanying these Acts would be the Regulations and other statutory instruments necessary to make the Acts work.  Without them, no substantive reform will have been achieved.

Dr Ellis Webster, as leader of the biggest opposition political party, and his team including his legal advisers, should be invited.  Mr Sutcliffe Hodge, as leader of the third party, and his advisers must be there.  Mrs Pam Webster, as the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, and her advisers must be included.  Without each of them being present at the table, no eventual solution will be acceptable.

If the FCO is wise, their team will insist that any proposed new Anguilla Constitution that is negotiated must be submitted to the people for their acceptance before the draft is signed into law.  That is the only sure way to achieve a peaceful acceptance of what up to now has been a highly contentious and acrimonious process.  That acceptance or otherwise can be easily shown in a yes/no referendum.

Trump and Anguilla

One of the more bizarre Anguillian news events of the past few weeks involved US President Donald Trump.

On 23 August, a well-known US journalist, author, historian, and public speaker by the name of Paul Street wrote a tongue in cheek article on his Blog.  The article is a satire on Donald Trump’s style of international diplomacy by tweet.  It is headlined, “Trump Threatens Anguilla with Thermonuclear Liquidation.”

Some weeks earlier, a US tourist in Anguilla was charged with the manslaughter of a local hotel worker.  The story made the TV news in the USA.  Paul Street imagines an angry Trump tweeting in support of the US tourist, “They won’t be happy, The Anguillians, when their little ‘nation’ gets turned into a steaming pile of radioactive ash.”

He imagines Trump thinking “The Aguinados or whatever the Hell they call themselves are not capable of holding a fair trial for some rich white guy they probably hate just because he’s an American who worked hard for his money.”

He then imagines Trump warning, “If Agwala doesn’t drop this, a lot of people could die.  What have they got on Agwano, 10,000 people or something like that? . . . I don’t want to wipe out 10,000 people, even if they don’t belong there in their first place.  I really don’t.  But I can do it and I will if I have to.”

Anguillians don’t do sarcasm, or satire, very well.  We sometimes fail to appreciate literary allusions and figures of speech for what they are.  No matter how preposterous, we think they are factual pronouncements.  As a result of this trait, we are gullible to a fault, something our politicians use to their advantage.  Perhaps that is the reason most of our poets’ work does not progress as it should.  The poetic mind is foreign to Anguilla.  Good Anguillian fiction is too often the preserve of the non-natives among us.  If it is fiction, we may often assume that it must be worthless.  This is an aspect of Anguillian culture that needs explaining.

Literal interpretation of a satirical essay may have its roots in Anguilla's history with the island’s Baptist Church faith and tradition.  The Anguillian version of the Baptist religion is of the fundamentalist sort.  Our Churchgoers belong to the US Bible-belt variety of Christianity.  We attend churches with such titles as ‘Church of God’ and ‘Seventh Day Adventist.’  These are typical made-in-America devoted evangelicals.

In the 1920s, unemployed Anguillian men sought work among the US-owned sugar-cane plantations of Cuba and the Dominican Republic.  The plantation owners mainly followed the Protestant Christian religions of the southern states of the US where they came from.  The Anguillian workers brought their new-fangled religions back when they returned home.  The sleepy, old Anglican and Methodist churches were pushed into second place.  The shiny, new US Protestant fundamentalist denominations caught root and flourished.

Since then, many Anguillians are taught, from the time we can walk, that the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is literally true.  When Joshua commanded the sun to stand still so his forces could conquer Jericho, that is historical truth being expounded.  Maybe, the argument goes, in those ancient days the sun really did go around the earth.

God made the Earth on 14 October 4115 BC, or 6,119 years ago, according to the numbered dates in the Biblical text.  The fossil record is evidence of the one great flood.  When Moses parted the Red Sea to allow the Israelites to escape from Pharaoh’s forces, the sea really did stand still until they were all safe.  There is, in the eyes of the Anguillian pastors and their flocks, nothing but the literal truth in the story. 

A people who literally interpret all they read may understand Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” to be a recommendation for cannibalism.  The decision to be a person of faith is deeply personal.  Seeing biblical stories through the eyes of faith is a time-honoured choice.  But this does not mean that all stories are literally true. 

With a mindset narrowed and constricted in this way, the average Anguillian could not reasonably be expected to read Paul Street’s article other than as a factual narrative of Donald Trump’s threats to Anguilla.

We fail to see any humour in the piece about Trump’s style of government.  Comments posted at the foot of the article are mainly from Anguillians.  High school teachers posted in the comments section of Mr Street’s article emotional objections to Donald Trump’s threats as relayed by him.  One writes, “I can’t believe the British Government will sit by and allow this fool to threaten our beautiful island . . . I can’t express anymore the anger I am feeling.”

A prominent politician (and part-time Baptist preacher) spent nearly three hours live on radio condemning Trump’s threats.  He asked the British government to position battleships around Anguilla if they had any true commitment to the safety of the island’s people.  Prayers for the island’s deliverance were offered up at Sunday church services.  We all held our collective breath and waited for the bomb.

Anguillian Status Commission

One of the first lessons in the Public Law course at the Albena Lake-Hodge Comprehensive School deals with the topic of “ultra vires”.  Students learn that ultra vires is a Latin term meaning, “acting in excess of or outside of one's powers or area of authority.”

In public law, an action of a government authority (including the House of Assembly) is ultra vires, null and void, when the authority does not have the power to perform that action.  The court has the duty in appropriate circumstances to declare an action of a Government agency, even an Act of the House of Assembly, ultra vires the Constitution.  When the Assembly passes an Act purporting to give someone the power to do something which the Constitution gave to someone else, the court can declare the Act ultra vires, null and void.

Some years ago, Anguillian Dr Cuthwin Lake was employed by the Government of Antigua and Barbuda as Medical Superintendent of the Holberton Hospital.  Under the Constitution, only the Public Service Commission had the power to hire or to fire a public servant employed in Antigua.  Despite this, Prime Minister Lester Bird terminated Dr Lake’s employment.  Dr Lake sued.  The court had no difficulty in ruling that the termination was unlawful, and he was restored.

Section 80 of the Anguilla Constitution gives the Anguillian Status Commission the power to grant Anguillian status to a person who meets certain qualifications.  The Constitution does not give the power to anyone else.  Only the Commission can perform those functions.

Recently there appeared on the government website a new Bill for an Anguillian Status Act.  Government appears to want to bring this Bill into effect swiftly, before the upcoming elections.  The Bill seems to have been prepared very hurriedly.

The Commission consists of a Chairperson, the PS Immigration; the Chief Immigration Office; the A-G; and two members appointed by the Minister (one after consulting the Leader of the Opposition).  This is a body that is top-heavy with members of the administration.  They are subject to the biases of the administration.  Additionally, the Minister has the power to remove any of the two non-government members for any reason or for no reason at all.  They have no security of tenure and are subject to pressure if they wish to keep their position.  There is nothing independent about this Commission.

Section 6 of the Bill says that, in accordance with the Constitution, the Commission is responsible for granting Anguillian status and issuing certificates of Anguillian status, etc.  No one else but the Commission has the power to issue any certificate relating to Anguillian status.

But, section 5 of the Bill provides that, where the Chairperson of the Anguillian Status Commission is satisfied that an applicant is an Anguillian, the Chairperson may issue that person with a “general certificate of Anguillian status.”  There is no explanation what a “general” certificate is, or in what way it differs from a certificate from the Commission.  There is no explanation how the Assembly gave the Chairperson the power to issue the certificate.

Then, at section 7 there is an even stranger provision.  It reads that “on payment of the prescribed fee the Chief Immigration Officer may, by letter, certify at any time that a person is an Anguillian.”  This conflicts with section 6 which says only the Commission may grant a certificate.  These types of discretionary and unsupervised powers given to bureaucrats are always open to oppressive behaviour.

There are other questionable provisions in this Bill.  So, the long title of the Bill says that it provides “for Anguillian status as established by the Anguilla Constitution (Amendment) Order, 2019” (“the Amendment Order”).  This is legal nonsense.  It is the 1982 Constitution “as amended” that provides for Anguillian status.  The Amendment Order merely amends the Constitution.  Equally oddly, the Bill defines the Constitution of Anguilla as being the Amendment Order, which again is legal nonsense.  The Amendment Order has no standing on its own.

Section 2 creates a new definition of domicile.  It provides that, “Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, domicile is satisfied if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Commission that he or she has made Anguilla their permanent abode.”  This is a definition of domicile that is unknown to law.  There are several types of domicile, starting when we are born with our “domicile of origin”.  This is followed by our “domicile of choice”.  Domicile in the general law is a mixture of fact, history, background and intent.  It is not determined by any one factor such as where your permanent abode is.  This definition narrows the stream of persons otherwise qualified at law to enjoy Anguillian status.  I have searched the Constitution to see where it gave the Assembly the power to create a limited meaning of domicile for the purpose of Anguillian status.  I have not been able to find it.

Section 5 gives the Chief Immigration Officer power to filter out applications for Anguillian status before sending those he approves of to the Commission.  Only if the Chief Immigration Officer considers that an applicant may be an Anguillian, is the Chief Immigration Officer obliged to forward the file to the chairperson of the Commission.  The Constitution has already decided that only the Commission can certify who is an Anguillian.  One might not be an Anguillian until the Commission considers that he is so.  Note that in case of error or abuse, there is no power of appeal.  There is not even a right to be heard or to be represented by counsel before the Chief Immigration Officer decides in private not to pass on the file to the Commission.

Section 8 of the Act gives the Commission power to withdraw Anguillian status in certain circumstances.  However, the section states they have a discretion whether to conduct a hearing before deciding to withdraw the status.  The natural meaning is that the Commission is not bound to give the person affected by their decision an opportunity to be heard.  This provision conflicts with our natural justice right to be heard whenever a government agency proposes to take away a status, licence or certificate we hold.  As every Anguillian high school law student knows, the right is referred to as the “audi alterem partem” rule, or the requirement to hear the other party before taking away his rights.  This draft Bill offends against not only the language of the Constitution but against the rules of natural justice.

Section 13(2) of the Bill is perhaps the most offensive section in the entire Act.  It provides that, “Any decision [of] the Commission shall be final and conclusive and shall not be called in question before any court of law.”  This is what lawyers call an “ouster clause.”  It attempts to oust or set aside the jurisdiction of the court to intervene in the case of oppressive behaviour of the Commission.  So, not only can he not appeal the decision, but he has no right to have representations made on his behalf before a decision is made.  Let the Commission try telling any judge who receives a claim that the Commission acted in breach of the rules of natural justice, or contrary to a provision of the Constitution, that the court’s jurisdiction has been ousted by section 13(2).  Any high school law student will be able to tell you the likely outcome.

We are all Anguillians now.  In case you ever need to prove it urgently, I hope you are on the good side of the Chief Immigration Officer, the PS Home Affairs, and the A-G.  Otherwise, if this law goes through without thorough vetting, you may be in for a rough ride.

Constitution - Government's Proposals

A Review of Government’s Constitutional Reform Proposals as published on the Government website on 24 September 2019

By Don Mitchell (former chair of the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee)

The UK’s system of government is traditionally described as a “Constitutional Monarchy.” In more recent years the UK’s constitution is said to feature “Parliamentary Supremacy.”  Cabinet is answerable to Parliament.  Even the Queen is subject to ordinary legislation.  After centuries of strife it is now established that Parliament is the supreme branch of government, with the judicial branch remaining independent and impartial.

By contrast, Anguilla’s system of government is best described as a constitutional dictatorship.  Under the 1981 Anguilla Act of the UK Parliament, the UK government maintains a ‘nuclear option’ to rule Anguilla by an Order in Council imposed without any discussion, far less consent by the governed.  The UK government may intervene unilaterally in any aspect of the government of Anguilla.  Additionally, the UK-appointed Governor, Attorney-General and Deputy Governor sit in Executive Council and (in the case of the latter two) in the Assembly with oversight and the right to intervene whenever the Assembly appears to be diverging from Britain’s interests.

The Executive Council established by the 1982 Constitution of Anguilla (“the 1982 Constitution”) governs the people without any oversight or need for further consultation of the people.  Executive Council has total control of all policymaking (and the execution and enforcement of those policies) by controlling the House of Assembly (“the Assembly”).  This control is assured by the fact that the governing party always holds most of the seven elected seats in the Assembly.  Additionally, the unelected Attorney-General and Deputy Governor sit in the Assembly with a right to vote in support of government.  The Assembly is subordinate both to the UK Government and to the local Executive Council.  It takes orders from both.

The most recent example of cabinet dictatorship is the present process of constitutional reform.  On September 24 government published on its website a new Constitution.[1]  What was published is the draft contained in the 2017 Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee Report, (“the 2017 Report”).[2]  Deletions and additions have been made to it without any explanation making it difficult to follow.  Government has announced that there will be public consultations at the Teachers’ Resource Center on 30 September and 1 and 10 October to which all members of the public are invited.  They have given us less than 2 weeks to register our objections and comments on their new draft Constitution.  Then, they will send it off to London with the good news that we all agree to it.

During the public consultations leading up to the 2006 Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission Report (“the 2006 Report”)[3] and the subsequent 2017 Report, it became apparent that most Anguillans who participated in the public discussions emphatically wanted to see an improvement in the democratization of Anguilla.  The resulting two Reports contained dozens of proposals that, if enacted, would achieve this end.  These include, without being exhaustive,

1.           Reducing the administration’s control over the Assembly by (a) depriving ex-officio members of the Assembly of the right to vote; (b) removing the undemocratic nominated members; (c) revising the existing Voters List; (d) increasing the number of elected representatives in the Assembly from the present seven (7) elected members to thirteen (13) members;

2.           Increasing the size of the Assembly.  Presently four (4) elected members of the Assembly are also Executive Council Ministers.  The fifth is the Parliamentary Secretary or junior minister with responsibility for assisting the Minister of Tourism.  The sixth is a Ministerial Assistant with responsibility for assisting the Minister of Home Affairs.  That leaves only one of the seven elected members of the legislature with no ministerial appointment.  There is no one else to challenge legislative initiatives introduced by the administration.  In such a system, the Assembly cannot be said to be of equal status, far less superior to the Executive Council.  The result is that Anguilla is not a parliamentary democracy but truly a Cabinet dictatorship.

3.           Strengthening the role of parliament by, among other things (a) guaranteeing that the Public Accounts Committee (“the PAC”) can function effectively by providing it with a budget and other resources; and (b) establishing other Standing Committees of the Assembly.  We have seen that after a short period of activity, the PAC has been successfully shut down by government depriving it of all resources needed to function.

4.           Improving public financial management standards by taking the rules out of various Acts and entrenching them in the Constitution.

While some of the Constitutional Reform Proposals published by the Government of Anguilla on 24 September 2019 are acceptable, others are more questionable.  In particular,

(a)         Section 35 (Executive Council) proposes to restore the term “Executive Council”.  The 2017 Report proposed abolishing the old colonial name Executive Council and replacing it by the more modern name “Cabinet”.  There is no explanation given for this reversal.

(b)         The original recommended section 35 proposed abolishing the right of the unelected Attorney-General and Deputy Governor to vote in Cabinet.  This provision has now been removed.  There is no explanation offered for its removal.

(c)         Section 45 (Summoning of Cabinet and transaction of business) unexpectedly restores the name “Cabinet”.  It is preferable for the sake of consistency that the term “Executive Council” should be replaced wherever it exists in this draft.

(d)         Also, the section bears a marginal note that subsection (2) “should be reviewed to ensure there is no conflict” with the Anguilla Constitution (Amendment) Order 2019 made in April 2019 (“the April 2019 Order”).  It is not clear what this can mean.  The intention of the original 2017 Report was to replace the 1982 Constitution with a new Constitution.  The intervening April 2019 Order was a transitional Order.  It was an amendment to the 1982 Constitution.  When a principal Order, eg, the 1982 Constitution, is replaced, all amending Orders will fall away with it.  Thus, there can be no conflict between the new Constitution and the old Constitution or any amendment to the old Constitution.

(e)         Section 54 (Qualifications for elected membership) has been amended to remove the proposed requirement for three (3) years’ residence before a person is qualified to be elected.  Under the 1982 Constitution there was no residence requirement.  During the consultation process, it was apparent that Anguillians thought that there should be some period of residence before a person could be nominated for election.  There is no explanation offered for this deletion.

(f)          Section 65 (Qualification of voters) has been substantially amended.  In addition, there is a marginal note referring to other amendments introduced by the earlier 2019 Order, which appears again to suggest that the 2019 Order will continue to co-exist with the proposed new Constitution.  As earlier explained, there should be only one Constitution.  All references to the 2019 Order should be removed.

(g)         The original proposal that any new Elections Act should include provisions for the regulation of campaign funding has been removed without any explanation.  Anguillians are agreed that the present system of unregulated spending on election campaigns is an encouragement to bad behaviour.  Removing from the Constitution even the possibility of introducing campaign funding regulation is a retrograde step.  It is not in accordance with the thrust of the new Constitution to promote higher standards of public life than presently exist.  Without such constitutional protection, any stand-alone statute will be problematic.

(h)         Section 67 (Elected Members) has been amended to remove the provision for Anguilla to be divided into nine (9) electoral districts.  It proposes to retain the present seven (7) as the minimum number.  One of the principal reforms originally proposed was that the Assembly should consist of nine (9) district representatives and four (4) members elected at large, resulting in a total of thirteen (13) members.  Not only would this increase in numbers encourage deeper debate on legislative proposals, it would ensure that with a Cabinet of six (6) members, the Assembly would not be dominated by members of the Executive.  With the recommended abolition of the Parliamentary Secretary, and the removal of the vote of the ex-officio members, an Assembly of thirteen (13) elected members would always consist of a body where the executive members of the Assembly were in the minority, thus promoting parliamentary sovereignty.  One notes with some concern that not only is it proposed to retain the Parliamentary Secretary, but the Assembly may continue to consist of a mere seven (7) elected members.  There is no explanation offered for this retrograde proposal.  Additionally, it seems clear that the recommendation for a Boundaries Commission to divide Anguilla into nine (9) approximately equal districts has been dropped without any explanation.  A stand-alone statute enabling boundaries re-districting without constitutional protection is problematic.

(i)           Section 99 (Anguillian Status) has been substantially amended.  There is no explanation offered for any of the amendments.

(j)           Chapter 10 (Public Finance) is stated to be still under review by the Committee of the Whole House.  The whole point of Chapter 10 is (a) to take the present rules for the management of the public finances set out in the Financial Administration and Audit Act and other Acts, and (b) to enshrine the proposed draft Anguilla Public Finance Order 2015 (the draft 2015 Order) which, as a result of negotiations with the Anguilla government, was never brought into effect as an Order in Council.  Anguillians want the draft 2015 Order given constitutional effect for the proper management of our public finances.

(k)         The Chief Auditor has never been able to issue an unqualified audit opinion on Anguilla’s public accounts.  Typically, in his report on the 2013 accounts he complains,

“Section 43 of the Act states that the Minister of finance may, by advance warrant under his or her hand, authorize the Accountant General to make advances from the Consolidated Fund . . .  Advances made in 2013 were not authorized by the Minister of Finance.  I therefore qualify my audit opinion as advances were not authorized in the manner required by the Act.”[4]

His Certificate which prefaces the 2013 Audit Report consists of four (4) pages of similar complaints about the ways in which the Act and other financial regulations are flouted.

(l)           It was the view of the majority of those participating in the public consultations that led up to the 2006 Report and the 2017 Report that the statutory financial regulations were being ignored with impunity by the relevant officials of the government of Anguilla, as described by the Chief Auditor.  There is a need to give those regulations the status of constitutional provisions.  Any attempt to weaken Chapter 10 should be strenuously opposed by all concerned Anguillians.

The alterations complained of above constitute serious threats to the efforts made in the 2017 Report to reduce Anguilla’s democracy deficit.  Unless we make our disapproval of these anti-democratic changes felt both locally and internationally in the short period for review given to us, there is nothing to stop the government from trying to persuade the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that we are in complete approval of the constitutional and electoral reform proposals put forward by government.

If I were 16 years old, I would go on strike from school and sit outside the Premier’s office every day with a placard reading, “No to the Government’s new Constitution” until they agreed to restore the people’s version.

---

[1]   http://www.gov.ai/documents/constitution/Anguilla%20Constitution%20March%202017%20draft%20(amended%20by%20AC(A)O%202019%20and%20HA%20instructions).pdf

[2]      http://www.gov.ai/documents/anguilla_constitutional_electoral_reform.pdf

[3]      http://www.gov.ai/constitutional_reform.php

[4]      http://www.gov.ai/documents/hoa/Government%20of%20Anguilla%202013%20Accounts.pdf