Showing posts with label Conflicts of Interest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conflicts of Interest. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Privateering


War between the European powers was not always detrimental to Anguillian enterprise.  War provided economic opportunities for those Anguillians who dared to take the risks.  The surviving documents in the Anguilla Archives show Anguillians participating in the physically dangerous and financially risky enterprise of privateering.  The industry seems to have peaked in the later wars of the eighteenth century, just outside our period.
A privateer is a privately owned and manned ship, commissioned by a government to fight or harass enemy ships.  The commission, also known as a ‘letter of marque’, empowered the person to carry on all forms of hostility permissible at sea by the usages of war.  This authorised him, if he could put up sufficient security to guarantee his correct conduct, to sail as a private man-of-war, at his own risk, against the King's enemies.  He was able to attack foreign vessels during wartime and seize them as ‘prizes’.  A captured ship was subject to condemnation and sale under ‘prize law’ in a Court of Admiralty.  The proceeds of the sale in Anguilla were divided between the ship-owner, the captain and crew, and the court.  Normally, a share would go to the Crown as issuer of the commission.  In Anguilla, the Crown had no representative other than the deputy governor who was also the judge of the ‘Court of Admiralty’.  If the deputy governor also owned the privateering ship, and if his son or son in law was the captain of it, most of the proceeds of the sale could be kept in the family.  Needless to say, that is just what happened in Anguilla.
Privateers were a large part of the total military force at sea during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.  In the First Anglo-Dutch War of 1652,[1] English privateers in European seas attacked the trade on which the United Provinces of the Netherlands depended, capturing over 1,000 Dutch merchant ships.  During the subsequent Anglo-Spanish War of 1654,[2] Spanish privateers captured 1,500 English merchant ships, helping to restore Dutch international trade.  English trade was also attacked by Dutch privateers in both the Second Anglo-Dutch War of 1665[3] and the Third Anglo Dutch War of 1672.[4]  During the Nine Years War,[5] the French encouraged privateers to attack English and Dutch shipping.  England lost roughly 4,000 merchant ships during that war.  In the following War of Spanish Succession,[6] privateers took 3,250 English merchant ships.
When the Emperor Charles V died in 1700, his closest heirs were members of the Austrian Habsburg and Bourbon families.  The acquisition of the Spanish Empire by either of them would threaten the European balance of power.  Charles left his throne to the French Philip of Anjou, and he was proclaimed King of Spain the same year.  His right to the Spanish throne was recognised by England and the Dutch.  A Grand Alliance of other European powers promoted Archduke Charles, the younger son of the Habsburg Emperor Leopold, as their candidate for the Spanish throne, and war broke out in Europe in 1701.  In 1711, England, or Britain as she now was after the 1707 Union with Scotland, was tired of the war.  When Archduke Charles on the death of his older brother succeeded to the Habsburg throne, Britain withdrew from the war, and the Treaty of Utrecht followed in 1714.

The capture of St Eustatius by the British fleet in 1781.[7]
The Fourth Anglo-Dutch War of 1780-1784 is just outside our period.[8]  Locally, the most important impact was the capture in 1781 by Admiral Rodney of the neighbouring Dutch international free-trade entrepot of St Eustatius (Statia). 
Anguillian privateers in the earlier part of eighteenth the century were not able to get their captures lawfully declared prize of war by a Court of Vice Admiralty in Anguilla.  That was very inconvenient for deputy governor Gumbs,[9] one of the chief privateering financiers through the period.  So, we see him defending a case brought in 1756 by Captain John Watts before the Anguilla Council. From the record in the Anguilla Archives, it appears that George Brooks was the captain of either a schooner or a sloop owned by deputy governor Gumbs.  The deputy governor was in the happy position of being able to issue a commission to Mr Brooks to operate as a privateer.  Brooks captured the Brigantine Lucretia, captained by John Watts and owned by William Moore,[10] and brought it into port in Anguilla.  It is not clear from the record where Lucretia was registered, but from the names of her owner and captain she does not sound French.  Before Gumbs, sitting as his own informal Court of Admiralty, could confiscate the vessel and order it sold, Watts and Moore brought an action before the Anguilla Council for the release of the vessel.  Their claim was that their vessel was not engaged in enemy trade, and that it was unlawfully being detained and kept in Anguilla when it should be immediately brought before a Court of Vice Admiralty so that they could establish Lucretia’s true status.  The Anguilla Council, after hearing the parties, decided that governor Gumbs had done all in his power to persuade the Governor in Chief in Antigua to establish a Court of Vice Admiralty in Anguilla, but this had not yet been done.  So, it was not governor Gumbs’ fault that the Lucretia could not be either confiscated or freed.  Watts’ and Moore’s case was thrown out and they were moreover penalised by an order to pay the costs of the law suit.  This finding of no liability is no surprise when we consider that these are deputy governor Gumbs' own Council members sitting as a Court of Common Pleas.  It is not clear what happened to the Brig Lucretia in the end.  It was only some years after this incident that the Governor-in-Chief appointed the deputy governor and his Council to act as a Court of Vice Admiralty for Anguilla, but the exact date of the establishment of the court is not known.  The consequence of this appointment was that the court in Anguilla could now legally order foreign (which in Anguilla’s case always means ‘non-Anguillian’) ships confiscated and sold.  Once established, the Anguillian Court of Vice Admiralty was kept busy hearing appeals by outraged traders whose vessels were seized by Anguillian privateers.
Anguilla's most famous privateer of our period was Captain Edward Richards.  He moved to Anguilla from Antigua in about the year 1757 during the Seven Years War, and settled here.  He married well, choosing Tabitha, deputy governor Benjamin Gumbs' daughter.  Now well-connected, he lived in Anguilla for a several years during the 1760s.  He purchased land at Crocus Bay, Anguilla’s main port of entry, and just down the hill from the deputy governor’s house which doubled as the Council room and the Courthouse.  He engaged in trade when not privateering, and from time to time he acted as a court-appointed arbitrator in trading disputes over shipping accounts.
There are a number of documents of the period preserved in the Anguilla Archives that deal with Edward Richards’ career as a privateer.  In deputy governor Gumbs, he had a merchant and planter willing to invest in equipping his boat with guns, ammunition, supplies and men, in the expectation of sharing in the profits of his capture.  He would have received his letter of marque from the same deputy governor Gumbs.
Once he captured a prize he would bring it to Anguilla for trial before the Court of Vice Admiralty.  If the vessel was condemned, the Court would itself receive a part of the value of the prize for the King's revenue.  This would include the judges' own fees and expenses.  It is likely, given this arrangement, that many unlawfully seized ships were ordered to be sold.
At no time during this period was any account kept of the King’s revenue in Anguilla.  Needless to say, any revenue earned by the Court went into the judge’s pocket.  That is how Anguillian judges of the day were expected to be paid.  It might have occurred to Richards, therefore, that it would be somewhat advantageous to him to have as President of the Court of Vice Admiralty his own father-in-law and co-investor in his venture.  However, we do not know from the sparse records  whether this arrangement ever resulted in any great profit to Richards.
When Richards died in 1765, his young widow was left to pay his debts.  His simple will of that year left her all his estate, both real and personal.[11]  She was obliged to mortgage the family property in 1767.  The mortgage was only paid off fifteen years later in 1782 after she recouped her fortune by marrying the wealthy St Martin merchant, Morgan Beaumour Marchant.  Mr Marchant also conveniently resided at least part of the time in Anguilla and served on deputy governor Gumbs' Council.[12]
In return for the letter of marque, a privateer was expected to put up a bond with two sureties to guarantee that he would only seize legitimate enemy ships.  In the Anguilla Archives for 1762 we find Edward Richards giving a typical privateering bond.  Why are we not surprised to see that the two sureties signing the bond with Richards are none other than deputy governor Gumbs’ captain George Brooks and the local merchant Joseph Burnett?  They bind themselves in the sum of fifteen hundred pounds sterling.  The condition of the bond is for the lawful performance by Richards of his commission, or letter of marque.  This commission authorises him to arm and equip the sloop the Fry to seize and take ships of the French.
We see another bond in the Archives for the sloop the Lyon, of thirty tons.[13]  This was again captained by Richards.  In other documents in the Archives, we see him captain of the sloops War Trial and the Hawke.  At various times during his career, he captured several ships including the Dirkinsen Sara, the sloop Three Friends, the snows[14] Justice and Gereghteyheidt, and the privateer Amazon.
There is also in the Archives a 1758 bond of the Hon Benjamin Gumbs, Peter Harrigan and Richard Rogers for Jacob Gumbs, to be captain of the 30 ton privateer Rebecca.  Jacob Gumbs along with John Smith also owned the sloop Diamond.  Jacob Gumbs was probably deputy governor Benjamin Gumbs’ uncle who is recorded as killed before 1760, probably in a naval action which went wrong.  There is no record in the files as to whether he made his fortune at privateering before he died.  We can be sure that he would have received a sympathetic hearing concerning any prize vessels he brought into Anguilla prior to his death to be tried before his nephew’s prize court.
There are few other specific references to other Anguillian privateers during our period, 1650-1776.  Given the dearth of Anguillian records, we can be sure that those who are memorialised in the Anguilla Archives are not the only ones who tried their hand at this venture.  There is for example, a later privateering commission of October 1782 issued by the Court of Vice-Admiralty at Antigua to Richard Browning of Anguilla, commander of the brig Revenge.  This authorises him to seize the shipping of the revolting American colonists and against British ships trading with them.  There is also the later 1782 privateering commission issued by the Court of Vice-Admiralty at Antigua to Richard Browning of Anguilla, commander of the brig Revenge, against the shipping of the revolted American colonists and against British ships trading with them.[15]
We can be reasonably certain that, with her long tradition of ship building and sea faring, Anguilla produced her share of privateers in all the wars of our period.  From Richard Browning’s commission it appears that by 1782 the authorities decided to end Anguilla’s authority to issue commissions.  Anguillian privateers were now obliged to obtain their letters of marque from the Governor in Chief in Antigua, and to bring their prizes in to St John’s where they could be tried in an independent court.  Deputy governor Gumbs and his successors were deprived of a lucrative source of additional income.  This was not to be the last time that the greed and excesses of Anguilla’s leaders in flouting international norms and laws in pursuit of lining their own pockets was to lead to the slapping down of some of the more borderline Anguillian enterprises.  But, that is another story.


[1]       1652-1654. To protect its position in the Americas, in October 1651 the English Parliament passed the first of the Navigation Acts, which mandated that all goods imported into England must be carried by English ships or the vessels from the exporting countries, thus excluding the mostly Dutch middlemen. This led to a number of skirmishes between the vessels of both nations, culminating in the declaration of war by the Commonwealth on 10 July 1652.
[2]       1654-1660. This was a conflict between the English Protectorate under Oliver Cromwell and Spain. It was caused by commercial rivalry.  Each side attacked the other’s commercial and colonial interests in various ways such as privateering an dnaval expeditions.  In the West Indies, the most significant development was the capture in 1655 of Jamaica by Penn and Venables.
[3]       1665-1667. The year after the 1666 fire had gutted London’s commercial centre, the Dutch fleet under Admiral de Ruyter sailed up the Thames Estuary and set fire to the ships of the English fleet. The Dutch victory had a major psychological impact throughout England. This, together with the cost of the war and the extravagant spending of Charles’ Court, produced a rebellious atmosphere in London.  King Charles ordered his envoys at Breda to sign a peach quickly as he feared an open revolt against him.
[4]       1672-1674. Without much public enthusiasm, Charles II joined the French Louis XIV in his attack on the Republic. Admiral de Ruyter gained several strategic victories against the Anglo-French fleet and prevented them from invading the Netherlands.  After these failures, parliament forced Charles to make peace.
[5]       1688-1697. This war was initially caused by King Louis XIV invading the German Palatinate, resulting in William of Orange, the Dutch-born King of England to form a Grand Alliance against France. The war raged across Europe, but France did not have the resources to defeat both the English and the Dutch, and peace was at last concluded by the Treaty of Ryswick.
[6]       1701-1713. This mainly European conflict was triggered by the death of the childless King Charles of Spain in 1700. His closest heirs were members of the Austrian Habsburg and the French Bourbon families. Acquisition of an undivided
[7]       The reason for the inscription at the top reading from right to left is that this painting is a ‘trompe d’oeil’. It is meant to be viewed in reflection in a mirror, when it would be easily readable.
[8]       1780-1784. It was caused by the Dutch Republic supporting the Americans who had rebelled against the British Crown.  The Dutch sided with the Thirteen Colonies in the American War of Independence, 1775-1783, when the mainland colonies in America declared independence as the United States of America.  Some of the southern island colonies in America, particularly Jamaica, seriously considered joining the war on the side of the mainland colonies.  But, in the end, they all remained loyal to the Crown.  Their trade was badly affected by the British blockade of the rebelling colonies, and the economies of all of the islands were badly hit.
[9]       Deputy governor of Anguilla from 1750 to his death in 1768.
[10]     Both good St Kitts names of the period.
[11]     Anguilla Archives: Edward Richard’s 1765 Will.
[12]     Chapter 17: The Council.
[13]     Anguilla Archives: A selection of 1762 privateering bonds.
[14]     A snow is a square-rigged sailing ship with two masts.
[15]     October, 7th, 1782. Bancroft Library, University of California.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Abuse of Office



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.

Monday, March 13, 2006

Ethics and Integrity in the Government of Anguilla


I have a good friend in Anguilla.  His name is Osborne Fleming.  I hope he will forgive me if I appear to be picking on him today.  Indeed, I hope he will still be my friend after today.  I pick on him deliberately.  It is a good rule of management that says that if you are going to criticize bad behaviour, if you are going to single out someone to make an example of, you start at the top of the ladder, not at the lower rungs.  You start with the leadership, because the lower ranks are only following the example shown to them.  You can’t get much closer to the top in a British Overseas Territory than the Chief Minister.  So, by all the rules I am forced to pick on Osborne Fleming. 


Mr Osborne Fleming, Hon Chief Minister of Anguilla
In Bermuda, or in the British Virgin Islands, I am certain that you cannot imagine that a businessman Member of Parliament would continue to be a serving director of a company after he had been appointed a Minister of government.  If he did so, there would be a howl of protest from the public in your territories.  In the United Kingdom, it would constitute a grave criminal offence.  Far from continuing as a director, in some Commonwealth countries a Minister of government is not even allowed to continue to hold shares in either a public or a private company.  On being appointed a Minister, the law there requires him to transfer all his shares and other property into a “blind trust”, over which he has no control, while he continues to be a Minister.  This rule is designed to ensure that the Minister does not allow any possibility of a conflict of interest to raise its head while he is discharging his public trust as a Minister.
Certainly, those of you from the UK would be outraged if you learned that Tony Blair had been revealed to be an active member of the Board of Directors of a major UK bank while he was Prime Minister.  More, you would be overwhelmed with incredulity if you learned that he was the Chairman of the bank’s Board of Directors.
 CCB 2001 Annual Report cover
You would expect him to resign as Prime Minister immediately this information got out.  You would not be surprised if he went to gaol.
CCB 2001 Chairman, Hon Osborne Fleming
Yet, for years the Hon Chief Minister of Anguilla has openly served as the official Chairman of the Board of Directors of a commercial bank in Anguilla.  That means that he chairs the regular meetings of the bank’s Board of Directors.  He draws a salary for it.  He participates in the discussions.  He joins in the decision-making of the bank.  We can be sure that, as Chairman of the Board, the Chief Minister imagines that his sworn duty is to preserve and protect the interests of the bank and its shareholders against all threats, including those coming from government.
Can you imagine the conversation in Executive Council?  Government has to borrow US$10,000,000 as a bridging loan to cover a shortfall in revenue.  The Ministers are worrying over what rate of interest they will have to pay.  The Chief Minister turns to his colleagues and says reassuringly, “Don’t bother about that.  We can lend it to you for only 10%.”  Whose interest can he be representing at that point?  And, even if he excuses himself from the official ExCo meeting, who of us knows what goes on in the private corridors between meetings?
Or, can you imagine the conversation at the bank’s Board meeting?  “Mr Chairman, there is rumoured to be a proposal before the Executive Council for the increase of taxes on banking transactions.  Can you tell us, what is the Chief Minister going to do about it?”  When he answers, which hat is he supposed to be wearing?
In Anguilla, we have an alien’s landholding licence law.  A foreigner cannot acquire or hold an interest in our scarce and precious supply of land without first obtaining a licence from the Executive Council.  This is supposed to give ExCo an opportunity to check out the background and credentials of the prospective foreign landowner before he is permitted to join our community.  ExCo personally vets these applications for licences, and some are refused.  It is quite a competitive business.  These foreigners vie with each other to see who can obtain his licence with a minimum of bother and a maximum of speed.  The lawyers and real estate agents bring pressure on government ministers to make a favourable decision relating to their clients.  ExCo, meanwhile, is the last hurdle protecting the public interest.  They are supposed to be checking who is Mafia and who is not.  Integrity is the order of the day.  We depend on our Ministers to act on our behalf in vetting these applications and to only allow the most worthy of foreigners into our midst.  We have enough scamps among our own relatives!  We don’t need more of them to be imported!  At the very least, acting in the public interest in such a matter requires complete independence and freedom from undue influence.  The whole process is subverted if a Minister goes into the real estate or land development business.  If a minister can make money, significant money, from selling land to foreigners, how can we expect him to act properly, in our interests, in vetting alien landholding licence applications?


Mr Fleming’s billboard at Seafeathers Bay
Yet, here in Anguilla, we see a billboard erected on the main road.  This is at the junction of the side road that leads to the Hon Chief Minister’s home at Seafeathers.  The Chief Minister is developing a tract of land at Seafeathers.  He has a real and significant financial interest in leasing and selling lots of land at Seafeathers.  I can tell you that they are not cheap lots.  This is not a public service development for low or middle-income citizens.  These are vacation houses.  They are luxury villas.  The Chief Minister intends to sell them for good money to foreigners.  He has a real interest in ensuring that no prospective buyer is turned down by ExCo.  No, Sir, not for any reason!  Our Minister of Public Works, my good friend Mr Kenneth Harrigan, also does a thriving real estate business.  This is in addition to his very successful construction business.
You can imagine the conversation in ExCo on a Thursday morning.  The Governor is presiding as Chairman of ExCo.  He is there, we are told, to ensure that Britain’s interests are protected, and that the highest standards are maintained in the public service in Britain’s Overseas Territories.  The Hon Chief Minister addresses his Ministers, “Gentlemen, you will see the next item on the Agenda is an application by Mr X of Las Vegas for a licence to buy a lot of my land.  He is paying me one million dollars.  I have children to send to university.  Of course, I would not want that to influence your vote.  Indeed, I shall not vote on it.  I shall abstain.  I have a conflict of interest.  I do not want my presence to influence you in any way.  I shall step out of the room for the discussion.  Please make your decision with a completely clear and uncluttered mind.”  As His Excellency the Governor escorts the Hon Chief Minister to the door, he turns back to address his colleagues, “And, when we come to the next application, Mr Minister of Public Works, which I see is one of yours, you can expect that I will act with the same independence of mind and impartiality.”
I ask you to imagine the conversation at the expatriate water-hole at happy-hour the following Friday.  Mr X from Las Vegas has a broad grin on his face.  He asks the person next to him, “Well, Joe from Toronto, did you get your Aliens Landholding Licence approved?  No, you didn’t!  How come I got mine approved?  Well, it may have helped that I bought my land from the Chief Minister, you idiot!  What do you think?  That is the way you do things in Anguilla.  And, I gave the Minister of Public Works the contract to build my house.  I signed the building contract the same week that I signed the purchase contract with the Chief Minister.  What, you did not know that the Minister had a construction company?  What sort of lawyer do you have?  That was the first piece of sensible advice my attorney gave me.  Fire your idiot legal adviser!  Let me introduce you to mine.”
There is a wide-spread perception that corruption is on the rise in Anguilla, despite the evidence as to the destructive force it unleashes.  When important decisions are determined by ulterior motives the political, economic and social costs are high.  Corruption-control is therefore not simply an end in itself, but is crucial and instrumental in reaching the broader goal of more effective, fair and efficient government for the benefit of us all.
We all know that corruption is a major cause of poverty as well as a barrier to overcoming it.  The two scourges feed off each other, locking their populations in a cycle of misery.  Corruption must be vigorously addressed if the UK administration of an overseas territory is to make a real difference in freeing people from poverty.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London owes a duty to the people of our Overseas Territories to insist that our governments increase the resources and political will for anti-corruption efforts.  Our Constitutions and laws must be changed to enable greater public access to information about budgets, revenue and expenditure.  Any aid must be combined with support for recipient-led reforms.  Our governments must be encouraged to promote strong coordination among themselves, the private sector, and civil society to increase efficiency and sustainability in anti-corruption and good governance efforts.
Conflicts of interest, nepotism, and cronyism have to be rejected by the people of all our islands.  We must demand openness, fair competition, and clean business in both the public and private sectors.[1]
This calls for an integrated anti-corruption strategy.  Initiatives are required to address illegal financial transactions that presently affect our countries’ executives, legislatures, and political parties.  We have to take practical steps to reduce vulnerabilities in our institutional framework.  We have to restrict the present excessive freedom of our governments to appoint political appointees to occupy positions in the State’s management.  In the event of a scandal affecting our government, the response must be the swift establishment by the Governor of a Commission of Inquiry, if the lasting effect of these incidents is to be minimized.  Political financing laws must be put in place and enforced.  Ways must be found to allocate public funds to the media to enable them to perform their investigative and reporting functions.  The committees designated to oversee the execution of our budgets have to be funded and staffed and insulated from executive manipulation.  State and civil bodies must be actively encouraged, with public financing for this purpose, to advocate and promote better regulation in government.  Laws must be passed and enforced strengthening the public contracting systems and improving access to information.  We need to develop national integrity systems, with a range of institutions, regulations and practices to address different aspects of maintaining the honesty and integrity of government and private-sector institutions.  Leadership is crucial in both driving a reform programme and in leading by example.  Commitment to reform will have to be mustered from a wide variety of constituencies.  The task of building political will can begin at the level of a well-informed and educated grass-roots, and does not end with government embarking on reform.  Reform will require support through the often difficult times that will lie ahead.
Anguilla sorely lacks legal and regulatory mechanisms to ensure fair and transparent general elections.  With fewer than 2,000 voters in most constituencies, a plane-load of foreign-resident constituents flown in for an election can determine the outcome.  Truck-loads of cement and galvanize, refrigerators and stoves, are delivered at election time, in breach of no law or regulation.  The legitimacy of the electoral process in Anguilla is dubious at best.
We do not have any Ombudsman law in Anguilla.  We lack any form of efficient and inexpensive mechanism, other than a prohibitively expensive law-suit, for a review of the lawfulness of administrative acts.  Our citizens have no practical channel for challenging government actions which adversely affect them.
The integrity of our public officials is under constant pressure in a variety of ways.  We need an ethics code tailored to our social conditions.  Integrity testing has a role to play.  The assets and liabilities of officers at particular risk need to be constantly monitored.


Chief Minister’s office building at the Quarter, generously rented by him to the Ministry of Health
Unambiguous procedural statements and codes of conduct have to be put in place to deal with conflicts of interest, nepotism, and cronyism at all levels of the public service.  This includes Ministers of Government, parliamentarians, the boards of statutory corporations, cabinet appointed committees and the civil service.  It is particularly important at this time for the political leadership of our island.
Procurement procedures have to be simplified and monitored and made more difficult to manipulate in corrupt transactions.
Environmental Health Unit renovated by the Chief Minister’s friend and political campaigner Mr Harold Ruan for the Ministry of Health
Our public accounting systems are poor, disconnected and untimely.  They virtually incite fraud.  We have to amend the appropriate laws and regulations to introduce good financial management practices. 
East End Clinic renovated by the public-spirited Mr Ruan free of cost
Informed judgment and appraisal by the public, press, and legislators are frustrated if government’s activities are hidden from view.  We need improved regulations easing public access to information.  Official records have to be made more readily available.
West End Clinic renovated by the doubly-blessed Mr Ruan
Our citizens have to be better informed of their rights, and be encouraged to claim them, and to be prepared, when necessary, to complain, without fear of eventual oppression.  Public interest legislation and channels for complaint have to be provided. 
Competition policies can help to contain and reduce corruption.  Competition laws have a vital role tin protecting and promoting economic activity and integrity and in ensuring this happens in the best interests of society.
New laws need to be put in place to fight corruption.  We need enforceable provisions to require individuals with inexplicable wealth to explain its sources.  We need to train specialists in tracking and seizing the proceeds of corruption.
Corrupt acts are generally conducted in great secrecy.  Corruption surveys in other countries have proven a useful tool for determining levels of corruption in a section of society that would otherwise remain in the dark.  Corruption surveys address serious issues, and not only raise levels of attention accorded to the problem as a result of increased awareness and pressure, but also provide information as to where interventions are needed.
In Anguilla, we lack a political leader such as Jamaica’s Bruce Golding.  Indeed, Anguilla today famously has no Opposition Leader because the two elected members of the opposition cannot agree on which of them should be the leader.  We could do with a sensible Constitutional provision to the effect that when the members of the Opposition in the House of Assembly do not agree, the Governor shall appoint the one who garnered the highest number of votes.  The Jamaica Observer of 2 March 2006 carried a story on Bruce Golding’s complaint that Jamaica’s Corruption Prevention Commission was powerless and non-functioning.  He secured majority support for a resolution to set up a committee to make recommendations to correct the problem.  Anguilla not only lacks a corruption prevention commission, we have not begun to educate or inform our people of the evils of public corruption and the need to address it.
So, is there a point to the stories I told you about Mr Fleming?  Is there a lesson to be learned?  Yes, and it is this.  Mr Osborne Fleming is at essence one of the most decent men I know in politics in Anguilla.  I believe that he has always tried to do what he thought was the best thing for his country.  He is sure in his own mind that there is no conflict between his serving as Chief Minister and as Chairman of the Board of a commercial bank at the same time.  I know that because he has assured me of it.  He has been taught that these are not conflicts of interest:  they are convergences of interest.  And, no one in the public service has ever told either him or Mr Harrigan otherwise.  No British Government official has ever explained to either of them that they are in an intolerable position.  No one who should have known better has ever taken the trouble to point out to them that they could not properly justify maintaining those conflicts of interest in any other country in the Commonwealth.
In the United Kingdom public service, there are conventions and Codes of Ethics binding on Ministers as well as parliamentarians.  There are regulations enforceable by law.  There are watchdog bodies and independent regulators keeping an eye on things.  There are frameworks and mechanisms set up to encourage and enforce proper behaviour at all levels of the public service.  In Anguilla, we have nothing to encourage, far less ensure, high standards of ethics in the public service.
It is simply not good enough for the FCO big-shots to be content to receive dispatches from Governors in Overseas Territories describing the appalling state of their governments, and then to lean back in their ergonomically designed chairs in their plush, mahogany-lined offices and to shake their heads in dismay and to say to themselves, “Those ignorant Colonials!  Can’t expect any better of them!”
Ethics and proper behaviour are not embedded in our chromosomes at conception.  They are not among the nutrients absorbed when we are babies at our mothers’ breasts.  They are concepts and practices that are taught.  They are learned behaviour.  They are products of education and training.  They flourish when they are instilled, maintained, and developed by intensive and repeated courses of training coupled with institutional support.
Such corruption as exists in the Anguillian public service is the full and direct responsibility of the modern-day Mandarins in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who have, by their lack of action, either deliberately or negligently encouraged and produced it.  To what purpose, I am still in a puzzle.
A presentation at an "Ethics and Integrity in Government" Workshop, held in Antigua, March 13th – 15th, 2006, with participation from Anguilla and other BOTs in the Caribbean.


[1]      Transparency International’s website: http://www.transparency.org/ has been invaluable in putting together the following recommendations.