Pandora's Box

 

In Greek mythology, Pandora was given a box by the gods and warned that she must never open it.  But Pandora was curious and the urge to open the box overcame her.  She looked in it.  Horrible things flew out of the box.  These included greed, envy, hatred, pain, disease, hunger, poverty, war, and death.  All of life’s miseries were let out into the world.  Pandora slammed the lid of the box back down.  Only hope remained inside the box.  Ever since, humans hold on to this hope to survive the wickedness that Pandora let out.

So, we warn against opening Pandora’s box.  This means that when someone makes a single, simple miscalculation it can be a source of endless complications or trouble.

Today, Thursday 22 October, members of the Constitutional Reform Committee, including me, received an email from the Ministry of Home Affairs with a draft Order in Council attached.  It says it will be signed by the Privy Council on 11 November 2020.  That is barely 14 days away.  It will amend our 1982 Constitution.

It is true that the proposed amendment appears to be of minor significance.  It merely prohibits the House of Assembly from appointing one of the two ex-officio members, the Attorney-General or the Deputy Governor, to serve as Deputy Speaker.  In future, the Deputy Speaker must be one of the elected members who is not a Minister of government.  It is not a big issue.  That is not the point.  It is the way the government is going about amending our Constitution that is the concern.

No one has explained to us what is so wrong about one of these ex-officio members being called on occasionally, in case of the Speaker’s illness or absence from Anguilla, to act as Speaker.  Nor has anyone explained why it must be a sitting member of the House who acts as Deputy Speaker.  There are several qualified, experienced, and unemployed ex-Speakers.  Any of them would, presumably, be willing to donate their services in case of emergency for a day or two.  In exchange, they might be entitled to be called “Honourable” for the next five years.

There is no issue of principle against a person from outside the House being elected Deputy Speaker.  The Constitution permits the Speaker herself to be elected from outside the House.  The present one is elected from the community.  We originally did it that way because the numbers in the House are so few.  If an elected government member is appointed Speaker, the number of debaters is reduced.  The quality of debate is diminished.  What if the government has a majority in the House of only one?  The proposed amendment would destroy that majority if no opposition member agrees to be elected Deputy Speaker.

Instead, we could have the Constitution amended to allow any person who is qualified to be elected to the House to be made the deputy Speaker, like the Speaker herself.

It is apparent that that our government has with the British government come up with this, in my opinion, meaningless and unnecessary plan without any warning or explanation to us.  No doubt, it was instigated by either or both the A-G or the DG.  They must have felt they were being imposed on.  They must have put pressure on the government to do this thing.

There was not a hint this amendment was coming.  The draft is dated 30 September 2020, so they have been working on it in secret for some weeks or months.  During all that time, our government did not think it fit to consult with us the public or to get either our input or our consent to the amendment.

It is an insignificant amendment, someone will say.  That is not the point.  A Constitution is a contract between the people and the government it elects.  A contract is made between two or more parties.  It is not permissible for one party to unilaterally amend a contract.  No, not even to change one word of it.  This is not written in the Constitution.  It is a fundamental, unwritten principle of modern British colonial constitutional law.

The British government has promised us repeatedly in the past that they will never permit our government to go behind our backs and negotiate a constitutional amendment without our approval.  If the amendment is so insignificant, why not try first to secure our approval.  If we were asked, it would not be difficult for us to show our agreement.

First, explain to us why the amendment is a good idea.  Explain what ill it is intended to cure.  Explain exactly what in the present structure is inconvenient.  As a lawyer, I may understand what the amendment is intended to achieve.  But the average Anguillian on Island Harbour beach or the South Valley main road needs to understand too.

Do not make the same mistake the previous Administration made and rush to make an amendment without consultation and agreement.  There is no indication even that the Administration intends to submit the proposed amendment to and seek the approval of the House.

The first time our government tried to amend our 1982 Constitution without public consultation and approval was in the year 2007.  The proposed amendment was to change the name of the Royal Anguilla Police Force from “Force” to “Service”.  We learned of the proposed amendment just days before the Order was to be signed in London by the Privy Council.  Our government apparently considered the amendment so minor that they made no effort to inform or seek the consent of the people.  I wrote an article about it on 17 January 2007.

The public uproar at that arbitrary and arrogant act on the part of our government was so loud that the Privy Council heard it.  They withdrew the draft Order just 10 days before it was intended to be signed.  In the end it was never signed.  There is no doubt that if we had been consulted, we would have agreed to the change.

We recall that just last year the previous Administration, in cahoots with Lord Ahmad of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, amended our Constitution without real public consultation.  They deleted some of the provisions recommended for deletion by the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee.  But they did not do all the recommended deletions.  They inserted some of the new provisions recommended by the Committee.  But they did not do all of them.  And they invented some new provisions of their own.  These were not recommended by anybody.

We were never given any real explanation why the proposed provisions of this 2019 Amendment Constitution were so important that they had to be rushed just before the general elections.  It was obvious to all of us that the intention of the amendments was to try to give the outgoing Administration a political advantage before the elections.

The result was a fiasco.  We ended up with a miserable abortion of an Amended Constitution.  And the government lost the election.  This betrayal of the people was, in my view, one of the main reasons why the past Administration were defeated at the polls.

There are barely two weeks between this first revelation of the proposed amendment and the day it will come into effect.  Explain to us why the amendment is so urgent and critical that it must be rushed in this way.  We are not so dumb that we cannot understand.  We are not sheep who can be forced to accept any arrogant act by government.

We endured enough secrecy over the past five years.  We did not appreciate this treatment.  The present Administration should be concerned about being compared to the last one.

We can learn from previous mistakes.  We can take the time to explain.  Ask us to accept the amendment.  Perhaps consider all the amendments that are needed and bring them all into effect at the same time.  There is no rush.

The precedent was set by the 2019 Amendment Constitution.  This Administration now feels free to negotiate constitutional change with the British government without consulting us.  Yes, there has been an announcement on the daily news bulletin that the Order in Council is going to be signed on 11 November.  But that is hardly consultation and agreement.  There is a political price to pay for perceived arrogance.

Those that wish to take advantage of us will now say that Anguillians do not place any value on the need to be consulted before our Constitution is amended.  There is nothing now to stop the British government from arbitrarily amending it in the future without even our government’s consent, far less ours.  We have opened Pandora’s Box.