Consequences of Betrayal

 

I heard the Minister of Home Affairs speaking on the radio the other day. He was attempting to explain why his government had abandoned the constitutional reform project. He said that the government had been too busy with other projects like rebuilding the schools and expanding the airport. He claimed there was no time to pursue the promised constitutional reform. He was not convincing. It is just a matter of prioritising. It is a betrayal of those of us who put so much effort into soliciting the opinions of the public and reporting back to government. It is a betrayal of the vast majority of the people who so ardently supported the proposals for constitutional advance. It is a betrayal of the voters who voted for a change in government.

The most time-consuming aspect of the constitutional reform exercise is public consultation. The various Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committees that have criss-crossed the island since 1995 have done all or most of the necessary public consultations. The majority views of the public have been placed before the government for implementation. Most of the recommendations for reform were designed to introduce integrity, accountability, and transparency into our weak system of government as demanded by the public. The British and Anguillian negotiating teams have already agreed ninety nine percent of the proposed reforms. There is no need for more public consultation. They should have kept the promises that got them elected in 2020. One of them was to work diligently on constitutional reform.

There is only one reason I can think of why the government would not want to carry out their promise to make these amendments. That is because they don’t consider integrity, accountability, and transparency to be an advantage to them in the way they govern. It seems to me they have given these principles very low priority. It is also possible that the extremist Muslim and Christian minority have them terrified of losing votes in the next elections. Perhaps they feel it is safer to let constitutional reform die quietly.

I don’t know about females in politics. As regards males, I have always suspected that there are three main reasons why we males go into politics. There may be other reasons, but self-sacrifice and civic concerns do not seem to be genuine motives or attributes of most male politicians. Mainly, we men appear interested in three advantages that come with political power.

One is a generous dose of sex. There are always women who frantically throw themselves at powerful men. The female obsession with powerful men has been long studied. It is thought to have a genetic root. A woman wants and needs security for her children and her home. Having a husband or a lover who possesses power, makes her feel more safe and secure in her nest. So it is that generous amounts of sexual opportunities seem to flow naturally to us men from our acquisition of political power. It is the same thing with the female preference for the “bad man”. Intellectually, she may know he is the wrong choice. But her instincts trick her into seeing him as a “strong man”. So, she will often prefer the bad man to the good man.

The second reason why men are attracted to politics is the love of money. I have heard of one politician, whose friends witnessed him accepting a bulging envelope from a stranger. He only half-humorously told them, “I don’t understand these Americans. They keep handing me envelopes full of money I never expected.” If he knew he was not owed the money, then logically he should not have accepted it. Why did he not refuse to accept it? He only had to say “No, I can’t take your money. I have to decide whether you deserve the licence you have applied for.” But, no, in his case those envelopes were the very reason why he entered politics. Besides, the average cost of buying a vote in the last election was reputed to be US$300.00. It must cost a lot of money to win a district in Anguilla. And, famously, “The cow must feed where she is tied.”

When the Central Bank was about to close the two local banks several years ago, I was in a group with a politician then in power. He told us that he was worried about his savings. He had accumulated several Time Certificates of Deposit of over a million dollars each. He was going to the bank the following day to convert them into savings accounts. He considered that was safer than keeping the money in Certificates. He did not need to explain to us how he managed to collect so much money. It was obvious.

The third reason is the love of power. There are some men who relish the ability to tell some supplicants yes, while telling others no. These politicians are not overly interested in money or sex. The pleasure they get from exercising power must be as near as they can get to sexual gratification without actual sex.

There must be some male politicians who have never taken a dollar while in power or taken the opportunity to cheat on their wives. Almost inevitably you will find that their addiction is to power. They might be congratulated for their lack of acquisitiveness and their self-control in the face of an obvious offer of sex. But the abuse of power is just as much a form of corruption. It is worthwhile remembering the remark the famed orator Robert G Ingersoll made of Abraham Lincoln, “Most people can bear adversity. But if you wish to know what a man really is, give him power. That is the supreme test”.

I have not heard any accusation against our Premier in matters of money or licentious behaviour. But he famously becomes vengeful when he is crossed. Feel pity for the person he feels has blocked him. No matter how rightly or correctly that person acted, he will be relentless in his pursuit of retribution.

Such love of the exercise of power, especially to hurt his perceived enemy, or to unfairly favour his own family or friend, is a corrupt act. Who of us can forget the Premier’s recent failure to deal properly with his minister’s outrageous display of violence in a local restaurant. Repeated threats by a minister against the life of a citizen, accompanied by a vicious attack on him with a chair, all evidenced on a widely circulated video recording, brought only silence and inaction from the Premier. His far-too-late explanation that he was waiting for a police report on the incident before taking action was a pathetic excuse for his failure to act promptly to chastise his errant minister. He did not need a police report. All the relevant evidence of her conduct was there in the tape. In my opinion, that was not the reaction of a strong person. It was evidence of character weakness and a lack of principle.

I heard him on radio recently giving a much-delayed explanation for his cowardly caving in to the British on the question of the Goods and Services Tax the day after he won the last general election. One of the main planks of his party’s political platform was the refusal to introduce the GST that the British were insisting on. He reneged on that promise without any explanation at the time.

His recent explanation for his forcing the tax through the House of Assembly without majority political support was unconvincing. We remember that two of his ministers voted against the Bill. He only got it through the House with the votes of two ex-officio members of the House appointed by the Governor, the Attorney General and the Deputy Governor. His explanation was that two or three days before the general elections, the previous AUF Premier had secretly signed a memorandum of understanding with the Governor. The previous Premier promised the Governor he would introduce the tax in exchange for a British contribution of one hundred million dollars needed to pay civil service salaries due just days after the elections. Dr Webster said that promise put him in a corner. He claims the Governor threatened that if he did not sign on to the previous Premier’s promise to introduce the tax, the British government would not make the promised gift. The resulting failure to pay public service salaries on time would lead to the collapse of government. He gave in to the implied threat. So, our Premier’s first act of government was to betray the very promise that got him elected.

The introduction of this new tax was not what was most objectionable. Personally, I think it is a fair and reasonable tax. For me, what was unforgivable was that the Premier did it secretly. He did it sneakily, without a word to his people about the quandary he says he found himself placed in until many months had passed. Maybe he thought he would benefit from the notorious eight-day life cycle of Anguillian scandals. In this he is seriously mistaken. Some of us will not forget or forgive such betrayals of the public trust. This was Victor Banks’ style of government. We were promised this would all change. In future we were to have transparency, accountability, and integrity. We were betrayed again.

There was another Webster who many years ago headed the government of Anguilla. There is no Anguillian who could have any doubt how that Webster would have reacted to such blackmail. It would not have been neat and tidy. It would have been messy and painful. Ronald Webster would have called the people to a meeting in Webster’s Park for the very next day. He would have put his quandary to them. He would have explained to them the hard spot he was placed in by the AUF’s secret deal. He would have asked their opinion on whether to give in to the blackmail or instead to stand his ground and refuse to pass the tax as he promised. Whatever the outcome, he would have been a hero to all Anguillians.

If he was minded to introduce the tax to help public servants meet their financial obligations, he should, in my opinion, have come back to us. If he and his colleagues put a convincing argument for the tax to the people, I have no doubt he would have had our support. But instead, he showed us he is no Ronald Webster.

Even if he did not call a public meeting, he should not have waited until just months before the end of his term of office to try to explain what he says happened. He should have come out to the people immediately. Whatever the mood of the public, he would have had their enduring support for coming back to them. He would be guaranteed re-election. Despite the recent splashing around of public money, that guarantee has now evaporated.

It is not the tax itself that has most people upset. It is his concealment from us of the corner he says he was pushed into by the previous AUF government. His secretiveness is what was distasteful and disrespectful. It seems to me that he has proven himself to be a weak and unprincipled man. His party does not deserve a second term in government.

Because of these and other betrayals, no member of his political party will get my vote.

Because of historic political betrayals, no member of the AUF opposition will get it either.

Depending on who the other candidates are, sadly, I may effectively be deprived of my franchise.

Obeah and the Attorney-General

 

 

CORRECTION

It has come to my attention that I was wrong in law in an earlier version of the essay below to state that the A-G has the power to direct the Commissioner of Police to withdraw the charge against the Minister.

I was unaware of the 16 April 2014 advice of the Privy Council in the case of the Commissioner of Police v Steadroy Benjamin [2014] UKPC 8.  In that case the PC asked the question, “Does the Director of Public Prosecutions have a general power to prevent the police from instituting criminal proceedings?”  They held that the DPP has no power to instruct the police who to prosecute, nor who not to prosecute.  There is nothing in any Act nor in the Constitution giving this power to the DPP.  The Constitution gives him the power once a complaint has been filed in the court, to take over the case and then to discontinue it, as was done by the Anguilla A-G in the Minister’s case.  The procedure followed by the A-G in the Minister’s case was therefore unimpeachable.

I was in error when I stated in the earlier, erroneous version of this essay that “As legal adviser to the police and lead prosecutor in Anguilla, the A-G already has control of all police prosecutions.  The normal way for an A-G to discontinue a police case is for him to instruct the Commissioner of Police to withdraw the charges.”  As the PC was at pains to explain, the A-G can advise the police to withdraw a case, but he cannot instruct them to do so.  Normally, the police would be expected to act in accordance with the advice of the A-G, but they are not obliged to do so. 

The A-G of Anguilla was therefore quite correct in law when he took over the police prosecution and formally discontinued it in the case I reference below.

I apologise to all persons whom I accidentally misled.  My research should have been more thorough.

 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The connection between Obeah and the Attorney-General (A-G) of Anguilla is a long and tortuous one.  It is an epic story of misbehaviour and character flaws among Ministers of Government in Anguilla, and the intervention of the justice system.  I shall tell you the story.  I’ll try to keep it short.

If I thought there was the slightest chance of either Magistrate’s Court or High Court criminal, appeal, judicial review, or civil proceedings continuing in court in this matter, I would hold my peace.  It is unseemly for an ex-judge to express publicly an opinion on any proceedings that are or might come before any court.  But, since I am convinced that there is little chance of any further proceedings being brought in this matter, I feel free to express my personal views.

The now notorious events of 23 May 2023, when a Minister of Government struck a citizen with a chair, all the while uttering the foulest and most indecent threatening language that can be imagined, resulted in the police carrying out a criminal investigation.  Besides the evidence of the witnesses, mainly the Minister’s colleagues, there are two videos.  The entire event was caught silently by a surveillance camera. There was also video film captured from the mobile device of a Minister containing the language of the impugned Minister.  Commencing on the day of the incident, the latter video was widely circulated throughout Anguilla and the region.  I venture to say that no adult in Anguilla with a smart phone has not seen the video.  We have all seen and heard substantially all the video evidence there is.

Subsequently, after an unexplained delay of some three months, the police finally laid charges against both the Minister and the victim.  The victim was hurriedly arrested at his home on the day of the incident for an alleged breach of the peace and released from custody the same day.  By contrast, the Minister was never arrested or questioned, so far as we know.  It would be fair to say that the delay was unusual given the nature of the offences and the available evidence.  Even the specifics of the now discontinued charges against both parties have never been publicly disclosed.

The constitutional power of the A-G to take over and discontinue any prosecution is undoubted.  It is an ancient power inherited from the British Government that has found its way in all our Commonwealth Caribbean Constitutions.  It is generally exercised “in the public interest” where the A-G judges that the evidence is insufficient to secure a conviction and where he believes continued prosecution would be an abuse of the legal process and a waste of the Magistrate’s time.

The Minister engaged in behaviour caught on film that in the case of any private citizen would have resulted in likely more serious charges immediately being brought and vigorously prosecuted.  Even if she and her friends claim that she was acting in self-defence, the video tape evidence is clear.  Whatever happened before the filming began, the evidence on the tape shows that her conduct was at best retaliatory, at worst an unprovoked assault.

Members of the public are understandably upset at the Minister appearing to get off scot-free from filmed conduct that in any other case would have resulted in immediate criminal proceedings.  The airwaves from Klass FM 92.9 are filled almost daily with commentators condemning the police force, the Premier, his Government, the A-G, and the Governor, for sweeping under the carpet allegedly criminal conduct by a Minister.

Other commentators are now calling on the victim to bring an application before the High Court asking for judicial review of the A-G’s decision.  The problem is that that remedy is an exceptional one; it is only available in very limited circumstances.

We all remember when a few years ago in another island a police officer accused the Prime Minister whose house she was guarding of having sexually assaulted her.  The victim brought her own criminal complaint in the Magistrate’s Court.  The Director of Public Prosecutions, who in that country performs the duties that in Anguilla are performed by the A-G, immediately “took over” and discontinued the case.  That was a private criminal prosecution.  The police could not discontinue it, as they had no control over it.  The victim subsequently applied to the High Court for judicial review of the DPP’s action.  The High Court dismissed the application.  The police officer then appealed to the Court of Appeal.  That Court of Appeal held that the judge was right.

The decision of the A-G to take over and discontinue a private criminal prosecution is not normally subject to judicial review.  Save, for example, in a case of bad faith, such as where a bribe was paid, or where there is proof that the A-G acted under the influence of any other person, the decision of the A-G is not reviewable by a court in Anguilla.

In this Anguillian case, the only realistic recourse the victim now has is to file a civil claim in either the Magistrate’s Court or the High Court for damages for civil assault.  He is unlikely to do either.  If he files the case in the Magistrate’s Court, a small claims court, the damages he can be awarded for the injury he received would be minimal.  He would probably feel publicly humiliated by what he would view as a contemptuous judgment in his favour.  The High Court would not serve him any better.  The High Court deals with damages cases where the amount claimed is more than EC$20,000.00, the amount in the Magistrate’s Court.

The only alternative to court action available to the victim is political action.  Those in opposition to the Government have taken up his cause as a free, government-supplied, opportunity to flog the present Administration.  The Government’s main remedy is to ignore the chatter and hope the problem will go away, as these things usually do.  Occasionally, when confronted by a journalist at a press conference for failing to act, the Premier gives unconvincing excuses and explanations, such as waiting for the police investigation to be completed.  This whole epic is Anguillian popular theatre at its best.  We all love it so and encourage it for our entertainment.

Friends of the citizen in question have now launched an on-line petition calling on the A-G to go back on his decision, and to reinstitute the original criminal proceedings.  Can anyone seriously contemplate the A-G of any country going back on a decision of this nature and pleading, “I beg your pardon.  I made a mistake.  It was wrong of me to discontinue the case.  I am going to revive it as you request.”  Merely to set out what the petition asks the A-G to do reveals how preposterous and unlikely it is.  Yet even though I know it is futile, I have signed the petition.  This is to demonstrate my general dissatisfaction at how the authorities have mishandled the conduct of the Minister.

I have heard it hinted on the public media that the A-G acted improperly in this matter.  The suggestion is that either the Governor or the Premier leaned on him to persuade him to save the government by discontinuing the case against the Minister.  The suggestion is that he gave in to the pressure.  In my view, it is pure mischief to suggest such a thing.  Anyone with any knowledge of the character of the A-G in question knows that this is rubbish.  The constitutional power to take over and discontinue any court proceedings is an ancient constitutional device.  The British invented it years ago as an instrument for the protection of those at the top of the UK’s political life.  We have merely automatically inherited this power.  It is found in all our Constitutions.

The latest development in the saga of the cursing, chair-swinging Minister is a voice note from her father.  It has been in wide circulation in Anguilla in the past week.  It appears to be addressed to the proprietor of Klass FM, the most popular privately owned radio station in Anguilla.  The proprietor of this station regularly hosts citizens who are concerned about an issue.  He permits them to air their views and to solicit public support.  This radio station is virtually the only medium through which Anguillians can call for public support for whatever their project is.  In recent weeks the epic story of the Minister has consumed airtime daily.

The voice note in question from the Minister’s father is in the form and style of a Biblical curse.  Although I have long ago emancipated my mind from religious slavery, I found the contents of this voice note an epic of impropriety.  It is particularly disturbing coming from a well-known Anguillian Christian preacher and one-time pastor.  He knows his Old Testament, and revels in its Bronze Age violence and brutality.  These were his words, apparently addressed to the radio station proprietor and some of his recent guests:

In as much as you have taken the light in troubling the country with evil, and saying hurtful and dangerous things endangering the lives of private and public officers, this day I have found it compelling to invoke the judgment of God on you, two women, and four men, with whom you have conspired to do this evil.  May the judgment of God be upon you and your generations for evermore.

The pastor’s tone of voice throughout his invocation of the judgment of God was solemn and sonorous, redolent of a twisted religiosity.  Does anyone know of a single incident where either Christ or one of his disciples invoked a curse upon any opponent?  Does the New Testament recognise the right of a Minister of Religion to curse anyone “unto his generations for evermore”?  Is this even Christian?  It could not be.  In truth, this “Christian pastor” calling down a curse as he did echoed more like the incantations of an Obeah man or a Voodoo priest who is paid to put evil curses on his client’s enemies.  What next from a Christian pastor!