ANGUILLA'S CONSTITUTIONAL ILLUSIONS AND ANCHORING TRUTHS CONTINUE...

Letter to Rev. Dr. H. Clifton Niles

Mr. Fritz Smith - Chairman of the 

Anguilla United Front (AUF)

Rev. Dr. H. Clifton Niles

Chairman

The Constitutional and Electoral Reform Committee

South Hill

Dear Dr Niles,

We are in possession of and have read the various provisions of the draft constitution which are in the process of being prepared as a result of the deliberations of the constitutional committee to date. Having read and discussed the said provisions, the Anguilla United Front Party (“the AUF”) is through this medium informing you that we have disassociated ourselves from this process and, our representative on the committee will not play any further role in the exercise, going forward. We have made this decision for the following reasons:

1. The draft provisions clearly indicate that the committee has deliberately ignored the current realities of the environment in which this exercise is taking place and are putting forward a document with the same amendments which the UK Government has already rejected for our sister Caribbean Overseas Territories as recent as eighteen (18) months ago. Every single UK Overseas Territory including Bermuda and the Cayman Islands have recognized and have accepted that the boundaries have been clearly established for the exercise of internal self-government. In this context, the present UK Coalition Government has made it clear in all of its position papers on the issue of full internal self-government that “the UK will not agree to a constitutional arrangement where we retain responsibilities without the necessary means to discharge them”. This is an exact quote from Mr. Simon Fraser, the FCO Permanent Under-Secretary at Government House, Old Ta, Anguilla on November 3, 2011. Based on this unambiguous statement by Mr Fraser, it is foreseeable that any constitution based on full internal self-government (and specifically any amendments which effectively reduce the powers of the Governor) at this point in time is likely not to be accepted by the UK Government. Our representative on your committee has indicated this view to you and other committee members in the past.

2. In recent statements Chief Minister Hughes has said that the committee is mandated to prepare a constitution geared to full internal self-government. While the AUF remains in favour of this option and in fact had discussions with the late Dame Bernice Lake on crafting a constitution to achieve this arrangement, given these clear boundaries set by the UK Government we believe that presenting such a document would be unnecessarily confrontational. The experience of the other Overseas Territories confirm this assessment. Further, the change in the UK Government in 2010 and the expressed position of the new coalition government in the UK clearly indicate that this is now not an option to which the UK Government will agree. 

3. The AUF believes that, based on the utterances of the Members of Government and more so of the Chief Minister, a rejection of the draft constitution based on full internal self-government by the UK Government, will lead to the usual and unnecessary confrontation between the Chief Minister and his colleagues and the UK Government. In addressing the issue of independence Mr Fraser has stated, “As we have often said, the British Government fully supports the principle of self-determination. Where independence is an option, as it is for Anguilla, and is the clearly and constitutionally expressed wish of the majority of the people of the Territory, the British Government will give every help to that Territory to achieve it”. Therefore, there need not be any tension with the UK Government in relation to independence.

4. It is therefore clear to us that, inasmuch as full internal self-government is no longer an option at this point in time, there are two (2) other real options available to Anguilla and Anguillians, 

(i) enhancing/improving our existing relationship with the UK as a British Overseas Territory; or 

(ii) deciding on the issue of independence.

If Anguillians choose to enhance/improve the existing relationship with the UK, then a revision of the Anguilla Constitution in the manner being currently drafted by the Committee becomes irrelevant. If, however, Anguillians choose to go independent (as evidenced by way of a referendum), then a new “independent” constitution will have to be prepared and taken to the people of Anguilla.

5. The current financial and fiscal condition of the country and the forecast for the near future must also be taken into account. In these times, the focus should be on restoring economic stability to Anguilla and doing so void of any controversy with the UK government over a draft constitution and independence for Anguilla. Such controversy could only serve to further destabilise our economy and damage our tourism product and investment opportunities, all of which have direct negative implications for our people.

Rev. Dr. H. Clifton Niles – Chairman of 

the Anguilla Constitutional and Electoral 

Reform Committee 

The AUF is therefore of the view that the course of action which the Government of Anguilla has embarked upon in relation to full internal self-government is ineffective and time consuming. We would suggest that the constitutional reform instead focus on the viability of options (i) and (ii) as aforementioned.

If, after appropriate consultation and education on the pros and cons of independence, our people decide to vote yes for independence, then the AUF will join with the Government of Anguilla in agreeing a time table for independence and lend its full support to the educational process. For the record, however, it should be known that while we call for a referendum in order to ascertain the views of the people, the AUF does not support independence for Anguilla at this time but we are in full support of a well thought through educational process on the pros and cons of independence. 

Please also be advised that our representative on the Committee has not accepted compensation for her appointment to the Committee. We would like suggest that said compensation be used for another worthy cause in Anguilla, such as the Anguilla Literary and Debating Society, which is now hosting the 40th Anniversary of the Leeward Islands Debating Competition.Yours sincerely

Mr. Fritz Smith - Chairman - Anguilla United Front (AUF) 

Cc. 
Honourable Chief Minister - Mr Hubert Hughes,

Honourable Minister of Home Affairs - Mr Walcott Richardson,

Honourable Minister of Social Development - Mr Edison Baird,

Honourable Minister of Infrastructure - Mr Evan Gumbs,

The Press

DEPUTY SPEAKER - PRESS RELEASE. RESPONSE TO SPEAKER ABUSE

Press Release

Deputy Speaker

Anguilla House of Assembly

Leroy Rogers

Hon. Leroy Rogers - Deputy speaker

On February 15th 2012 at a meeting of the House of Assembly I was viciously and wrongfully attacked by the Speaker of the House, Barbara Webster-Bourne from the Chair. All of us are aware that the House is a chamber where debates of national importance take place, and we expect from time to time the exuberance of members will result in tough discussions. However, one would expect that the Speaker, who is the referee of both sides, would uphold the rules of the House, be fair, be professional, do not misrepresent the facts, do not mislead the public, and refrain from attacking members.

Anguilla is a democratic country, and these principles must be upheld by the House, and particularly by the Speaker both in and out of the Chair. The actions of the Speaker should reflect the clear guidelines set out in the Constitution, the Rules of Procedure of the House, other Statutory Rules and Orders, and Parliamentary Conventions.

I was attacked personally from the Chair which has done nothing but reduce the office of Speaker to the level of a political attack dog. I was refused an opportunity to defend myself and set the record straight. It is a shame that members of the House do not have the privilege of responding to allegations made against them in the Anguilla House of Assembly by the Speaker. Each citizen has the right to defend himself accorded by the Constitution. It would seem that the Constitution applies everywhere except in the House of Assembly. This is what the operations of the House have come to in Anguilla; members are denied their right to respond as the Chair lauds its power in an undemocratic and unprofessional manner. It is being run like a dictatorship. So I have to resort to this medium to present the truth of the situation to the members of the house and the public.

If a Speaker is concerned about comments that were attributed to a member it is incumbent upon them to seek clarification from that member on the matter in a level-headed and professional way. 

Hon. Barbara Webster-Bourne - Speaker 

The Speaker used her privilege in the House to once again usurp the power of the Chair on February 15th, 2012. Under the agenda section entitled “Announcements by the Direction of the Speaker” she proceeded to level an allegation that I went “on public broadcasting media with respect to the last sitting of the Anguilla House of Assembly that took place on January 16th, 2012 in which the Vehicles and Road Traffic Amendment Bill was debated in its second and third readings of which he said I had no right of opinion.”

Firstly, the allegation that I went to the media is absolutely wrong. I was contacted by Radio Anguilla, because of my experience and knowledge of the rules of the House, and was asked if the Speaker was right to be giving her opinion on whether a section of the Vehicles and Road Traffic Amendment Bill should be further amended. This amendment was already on the floor being debated by members, in Committee Stage, and it related to the reduction of a fine to a lower level. I was informed by Radio Anguilla that the Speaker gave her opinion on reducing the fine and further indicated how she would vote on the matter.

I believe I have a right to educate the public on the procedures of the House, as I have done for almost twenty (20) years. My response to Radio Anguilla was that the Speaker’s role, among others, is to convene meetings, preside over the meetings, enforce the rules fairly, and not get involved in debate while Assembly is in session or in committee. My opinion, even after her tirade in the House, remains the same, and I will always give my opinion when asked.

In defence of her position that she has the right and authority to take part in debate in the House of Assembly the Speaker quoted Legislative Assembly Procedure Rules 1976 Section 55 (2) a, Section 2 (g), and Section 53 (2) of the Anguilla Constitutional Order 1982. She also indicated that based on these sections she can refuse or accept such amendments as put forth.

Anybody who uses these provisions to justify the Speaker’s position on this matter is either unaware of the details of the sections she quoted as giving her this authority, or is deliberately attempting to mislead the public in this matter by misinterpreting the said provisions.

In fact, I challenge the Speaker to release the advice of the Attorney General in its entirety with regard to the matter at hand. Through vague reference she implied that her position was supported by the Attorney General. In the furtherance of transparency I suggest that if indeed this is the case, then there should be no problem releasing the document.

Section 55 (2) g of the Rules of Procedure states: “The Speaker or presiding member may refuse to put an amendment which is in his opinion frivolous.” That is the extent of the Speaker’s involvement in the amendment. This amendment was not frivolous, it was not deemed by the Speaker to be frivolous; therefore it was up to the members to decide on the matter not the Speaker. Her opinion on this matter was not appropriate. It could be construed as being biased, and can never be justified.

Section 55 (2) a states: “In settling a bill in Committee any member may move an amendment or, without making a formal motion may suggest an amendment or, may ask for information respecting any part of the bill or any proposed amendment.” It is obvious that the Speaker is of the opinion that she is a member of the House of Assembly. She is not a member of the House, and her opinion that she is a member has been the crux of numerous issues and problems over the last two years.

Section 53 (2) of the Constitution states: “The Speaker or other member presiding shall not vote unless on any question the votes are divided equally, in which case he shall have and exercise a casting vote.” It is still amazing to me how this provision grants the Speaker authority and the right to enter debate and give an opinion on the amendment on the floor. At no time when this matter was in Committee was a vote called on the amendment which resulted in a tie. Only this eventuality would then necessitate a casting vote by the Speaker, and even then she should vote to maintain the status quo. This is the convention of using the casting vote. It is so designed because the Speaker is not a legislator and should not be making new law unanimously, but rather should give it a chance to be brought back to the House by the people’s representatives.

For the avoidance of doubt the Speaker is not a member of the House. The Anguilla Constitution in Section 35 (2) b, c and d sets out the members: two ex-officio members, namely Attorney-General and Deputy Governor, seven members elected by law, and two nominated members appointed by the Governor. There are no other members of the House. The office of Speaker is established under Section 35 (2) a of the Constitution which is totally different from a member as established in the section mentioned above. Section 50 (5) clearly indicates that the Speaker presides over the House. I challenge The Speaker to indicate the section of the Constitution where the Speaker is referred to as a member of the House. 

In the role as presiding officer the Speaker should always be neutral and treat both sides of the House fairly. It is important that the Speaker must also be perceived to be neutral. To achieve this he or she must relinquish all political offices, should not be attending or chairing party meetings, should not be taking directions from the political directorate, refrain from supporting the opinion of one side over the other (even in giving opinions on amendments on the floor), should not let one side ramble and interject irrelevant matters into the debate while shutting down the other side, and must defend the rights of the minority. It is important to note that if these are not done then a Speaker will not be perceived as being neutral and independent.

A Speaker is the Speaker of the whole House: Government, Opposition, Nominated and Ex-Officio Members. A Speaker must divorce himself/herself from political influences. A Speaker should study and understand the rules, practices, conventions, principles, laws and constitutional provisions that pertain to the office of Speaker and the operations of the House of Assembly, and enforce them fairly. 

The Speaker made a reference to my tenure as Speaker of the House of Assembly. I can categorically state that during my tenure I did not refuse to sign bills that were duly passed by the House, I did not withdraw bills from the floor without the consent of the members of the House, and I never ignored advice from the Attorney General with regard to proper parliamentary procedure and conventions. In fact, all of my actions while I was Speaker can withstand judicial scrutiny in any jurisdiction in the Commonwealth. 

I would encourage any Speaker to be familiar with Erskine May’s “Parliamentary Practice” published in 1844, with its latest edition of June 30th, 2011 now available. It is sometimes called the Parliamentary Bible for the entire family of Commonwealth parliaments.

I am not afraid to voice my countervailing position to either the Speaker or the political operatives who have engaged me on this matter since the last sitting of the House of Assembly. I served as Speaker of the Anguilla house of Assembly for 11 years, I served as a member of the executive committee of the international Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for 3 years, and I served as President of the regional branch of the commonwealth Parliamentary association (CPA). I gained invaluable knowledge and exposure from these experiences. I will educate the Public whenever and wherever I am called on to do so.

Leroy C. Rogers

Second Nominated Member

Deputy Speaker

Anguilla House of Assembly

cc: Speaker

All members of the house

Media

“ANOTHER JOY RIDE?”

Mr. Victor F. Banks - The Anguilla United Front Party Leader

Last week on an interview on ATV Television Channel Three there was a very revealing exchange between the Host of the Show, Mr. Wycliffe Richardson and the Chief Minister, Hon. Hubert B. Hughes. Here is the actual text of that exchange for your information and amusement: 

Host (Wycliffe Richardson): “Chief Minister you have made a number of pronouncements both in the House of Assembly, even in today’s session, and other media about the past Minister of Finance, Victor Banks, basically that he is corrupt or has been involved in corrupt practices. Do you on this second anniversary of your election ---- of your Anguilla United Movement Party stand by those statements you made in the past and continue to make about Mr. Banks.” 

Mr. Hubert Hughes: “Sir, Statements are made by all sorts and conditions of people --- as far as I am concerned when I make a statement I sometimes don’t even recall what I have said. I said what I say at the appropriate time and place and I do not intend to repeat any of the statements on this forum” 

I would like to “tip my hat” to Mr. Richardson not so much in terms of the question he asked --- but definitely in terms of his demeanour when Mr. Hughes responded. Mr. Richardson just simply went on to the next question “without batting an eyelid.” However, Mr. Hughes’s answer is instructive because he confirms exactly what I have been saying for the past twelve years, namely, that he and his colleagues continue to be cowardly in the manner in which they slander and denigrate members of our Party (the AUF). They use the anonymity of the Blogs with fictitious names and they use the shelter of “parliamentary privilege” in the House of Assembly (HoA) to carry out their dastardly acts of character assassination and slander. Quite recently, they seem to have been coached by their legal advisors to use the term “alleged” so as to cover up the most baseless accusations against our members. 

I continue to say that I will not use the anonymity of the blogs or the shelter of the House of Assembly to say what I have to say about Mr. Hughes and his colleagues. My comments will be made on public media of all kind; under my own name; in my own voice; and in my own column. I can do so confidently because I will only tell the truth. I have challenged Mr. Hughes legally, on at least two occasions, and I was awarded both damages and costs. He has had to pay financially for his “lying ways” but now he seems to believe that this (the HoA) is the way he can continue to tell lies, make false accusations, and slander his opponents without fear of legal action. 

His response on the ATV interview is a clear indictment of his lack of honesty and integrity, when he states that he does not even recall the statements that he makes about people. And the fact that he admits that he is selective about the forums on which he is prepared to make certain statements --- is proof that he deliberately chooses where he can tell lies with impunity. The truth is the defense against charges of libel and slander. I have been writing my column for almost two years and have fearlessly attacked the members of the Government for their indiscretions and misconduct --- I have yet to be challenged by any of them for libel or slander --- my defense is that I will only speak truth to the media and on the political platforms. This Government has made “lies, slander and false witness” a “best practice” in their approach to politics --- and seem to become “unhinged” when their opponents use the truth against them. 

In keeping with this attitude of providing the facts as a “best practice” for the Anguilla United Front (AUF) last week I asked the following question in my article “And the beat goes on!”: “The Government has informed us that it is intended that the “Levy” will come to an end on 31st December 2012 at which time a National Health Insurance System will be introduced. What is the Government doing to adequately provide for such a transition if such is still being considered?” 

I asked that question out of concern for the absence of any real public dialogue on the issue of the National Health Fund which was at an advanced stage of discussion under the AUF administration before the global economic crisis struck. In my role as one of the lead Ministers in the discussions National Health Fund, I had commissioned my Senior Advisor, Mr. Marcel Fahie to present a discussion paper on “Targeted Financing for the Social Sector” which he produced on May 11, 2007. It was a comprehensive paper that not only dealt with the National Health Fund but which contemplated the need to go beyond that to a Social Development Fund. Its objective was to “spread the burden of universal health coverage among those able to pay and create a social development fund to provide earmarked revenue to finance the Government’s program in response to the social challenges facing Anguilla.” 

One of the key aspects of our approach to the implementation of the National Health Fund was that it must not fail. In that context, we decided to be painstaking in our implementation process and get it right the first time. When I asked the question in my column, it came out of a real concern that the Government could again find itself in a position where it could end up with “a rush job” --- plagued with problems like the infamous Interim Stabilization Levy. I therefore wanted to highlight it as a major agenda item for this new Government in the remainder of its term. But “lo and behold!” as if in response to my question I hear that the Government is sending a five person team including Hon Chief Minister Hubert Hughes, Hon. Jerome Roberts, Board Members Alkins Rogers and Pastor Hugo Brooks, and Maglan Richardson, Deputy Director, to visit the TCI to look at their National Health Insurance Plan with a view to implementing a similar plan here in 2013. A team from the Social Security Board, together with its Actuary, made a similar visit about a year ago. I expect that the Actuary will join the team in the TCI, again. 

I don’t want to cast any aspersions of the composition of the team but it does comprise mainly persons associated with the Social Security System as if to suggest that this will be another Social Security Project. This is not what the National Health Fund should be all about --- two very important components are missing, namely, the Health Authority and technocrats from the Ministry of Finance. While the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) struggle to meet commitments made to InterHealth Canada to pay for the territory’s new hospitals, and the Social Security Board there (called the National Insurance Board or NIB) fights to keep the funds it says are reserved for pensions and other commitments from being reassigned for other purposes, the Anguilla Social Security Board appears to be running full speed in the opposite direction, with Chief Minister Hubert Hughes and his colleague the Hon. Jerome Roberts in tow. The current events in the TCI make one wonder as to the wisdom of these visits and the dangers the proposals that this team appear to have in mind can pose to the survival of the Anguilla Social Security Fund. 

As we speak the Interim Government of the TCI has been pursuing a claim for a transfer of US$10 million from the TCI National Insurance Board (NIB) to pay into the Health Insurance Plan. According to the TCI Sun, Chairman for the NIB Ervine Quelch told a news conference on Thursday, February 16, that Governor Ric Todd’s announcement in October last year to transfer the funds, which would eventually be given to the National Health Insurance Board (NHIB), took the Board by surprise. This move has been resisted by the NIB, which says the $10 million that the Governor wants to force the Board to give to Government should be saved for possible future shortfalls in pension funds. Last week the NIB began legal action to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation authorizing the transfer. This is the tangled web that Anguilla’s experts have dived into. 

When the past (AUF) administration was pursuing the implementation of the National Health Fund in Anguilla, plans were well advanced with an Act being passed and a Shadow Board in place. Those plans called for the Social Security Board to play certain administrative roles, such as collection of contributions and accounting. However, there was to be absolutely no inter-mingling of the two funds. There was to be no possibility of transfers from the Social Security Fund to the National Health Fund. This was based upon the best actuarial advice to ensure that funds allocated to pay future pensions are not diverted into more current health expenditures. However, the self-proclaimed experts who have taken over the administration of the Social Security System in Anguilla seem “hell-bent” on doing exactly the opposite, thus putting the entire sustainability of the Social Security Fund at risk. Since these costs are apparently being borne by the Social Security Board, it is apparent that the Board is going directly down that dangerous path. 

Anguillians must be vigilant to ensure that this does not happen. All of us would wish to have a more efficient mechanism of funding our health system, but we can never allow our Social Security System to be put at risk to achieve this. We must ensure that monies being put aside now for future pensions, are used for that purpose only! 

One can only wonder what are the views of the Hon. Minister of Health, Edison Baird who is actually charged with the implementation of the National Health Fund under the Act? Or even whether his opinion matters at all, since he has been excluded from the delegation? Based on the way things are being done these days it may even be fair to ask, is this activity sanctioned by the Executive Council? 

What is also very worrying is the fact that this Government seems to be seeking a lot of guidance from the Turks and Caicos Islands these days. I understand that once more an “expert from TCI is coming in to talk to us about Independence at a time when they are struggling with “higher supervision” as a result in a breakdown in their governance system. We support our brothers and sisters in TCI in their struggle but we need to question the applicability of their solutions to the issues we face. During the period of our Administration the reverse was the case. Our Social Security System was considered a model for the region including TCI; pioneers in our banking sector were traveling to TCI regularly to advise on indigenous banking; the TCI Government was exploring our system of transshipment of aluminum to the EU; the TCI Government were looking at our Tourism Investment Committee as a “best practice” in Tourism; the TCI Government were looking at how we implemented the “earned pension” plan in our public service; and so on. Should the Chief Minister be leading a delegation to TCI at this time to adopt their model of a National Health Insurance Board without having a clear idea of the issues involved and at a time when they themselves are facing a crisis? 

Like I did almost two years ago when the Chief Minister and his Ministers and advisers were using the Social Security Board as a means of attacking the Indigenous Banks; taking over ANGLEC; and pledging the fund against a questionable US$200 million loan --- I believe that it is my duty to bring to the attention of beneficiaries of and contributors to the Social Security Fund, namely, almost every Anguillian and Resident of Anguilla, the potential danger of this cavalier approach to dealing with this very complex issue. 

As I said earlier, the National Health Fund once implemented cannot fail! And it would be a shame to know that this administration in its eagerness to amend the mistakes of the Interim Stabilzation Levy is now planning to embark on a course of action, which can reverse the thirty-year old success story of the Social Security System of Anguilla. We must never allow this great legacy of the Father of the Nation as well as the Father of our Social Security System, the Hon. James Ronald Webster, to come to naught and his vision of social justice for his people be blindsided by this reckless venture. The question has been raised as to whether this trip is really designed to take a critical look at the National Health Insurance Fund in the Turks and Caicos Islands --- or is it just another joy ride!

By: Victor F. Banks

Victor Banks is a former Finance, Economics, Commerce and Tourism Minister on Anguilla. He is presently the leader of the OpositionAnguilla United Front Party, writer and author of a weekly political article for theAnguillian News Paper, lyricist, and a self-employed entrepreneur.

PRESS STATEMENT BY HON. CHIEF MINISTER, HUBERT B. HUGHES ON 17/2/2012 3:00 PM

Good afternoon

Hon Chief Minister and Minister for Finance,
Economic Development, Investment and Tourism 

I am aware that many Anguillians and visitors alike have been concerned about the state of affairs at Cap Juluca over the past months. In particular, I am aware that staff have become very anxious at statements being made about the future of the hotel.

The Government of Anguilla has been following events at Cap Juluca before the appointment of the Liquidator in early November of last year, and Executive Council has made it clear on many occasions, notably our statement of 7 November 2011, that our over-riding priority is to keep Cap Juluca open as a going concern. This remains our main objective.

Government is acutely aware of the prominence Cap Juluca holds as an important part of our tourism product, its importance to the economy of Anguilla, and its profound significance to its employees and by extension their family and dependents.

Against that background we have encouraged the various parties to reach an agreement on the best way forward, and set deadlines for progress to be made. Unfortunately agreement has not been reached.

We have therefore written to the parties and have requested that they make presentations to Executive Council on Friday 24 February, 2012. The parties will come to EXCO, individually or in groups, to set out their plans for the resort. The Government will then be in a position to decide on the best way forward shortly after those presentations are made. The Liquidator has informed us that that he will be able to keep the resort open until this process is complete. 

The Government of Anguilla has been working with many developers over the last two years to resurrect defunct properties, steady existing ones and start some new projects. These efforts are geared towards ensuring that our tourism product and plant are in good stead well into the future. This approach will also ensure that when the global economy rebounds the island will be in a good position to reap early dividends from the global travel market. 

A failed Cap Juluca would strike a devastating blow to our tourism product and would remove from the market what has been one of Anguilla’s most endearing properties for over a quarter century. In addition, it will fuel the perception of failure already ignited by the closure of another long-standing prominent property. Failure is not a word synonymous with Anguilla or its history. 

Government is of the opinion that the main objective of the stakeholders must be to place Cap Juluca on a secure footing that allows it to pay back its loans, meet its recurrent commitments, fund future development, provide value for its investors, secure the jobs of hundreds of residents, and to continue to contribute to our economic development.

The untenable ownership situation at the resort cannot continue for many reasons. Chief among them are: (1) the property is in dire need of capital injection, (2) to continue trading for the benefit of investors, GOA, employees, guests and the community at large the property needs a supportive and nurturing environment, and (3) Cap Juluca needs to be reestablished as one of the dominant tourism properties in Anguilla. None of these three objectives can be met if ownership issues are not resolved in short measure.

It is to be noted, however, that the Government continues to reserve its right to act unilaterally in the interests of Anguilla on this matter and we will do everything within our power to ensure that no jobs are lost and Cap Juluca continues to operate. To the Julucans, I say, continue to give that great service and rest assured that your Government will continue to work for you. 

God bless you and may God continue to bless Anguilla

“AND THE BEAT GOES ON!”

It is now exactly two years since the Anguilla United Movement (AUM) Government ascended to Office under the leadership of the Hon. Chief Minister, Hubert B. Hughes. It came to office during a time when the region was just “coming to grips” with the impacts of the global economic crisis and the smaller islands, especially vulnerable to all kinds of external shocks, were grappling with solutions for what they expected to be a short-term situation. The Government was “fresh” from an election campaign where they took advantage of the dire economic conditions by suggesting that it was totally the result of the policies and actions of the past Anguilla United Front (AUF) Government. They embellished their case by using lies, half-truths and innuendos. According to the Minister of Social Development, the Hon. Edison Baird in his “Confessions” entitled “Who runs Anguilla”: “It was our finest hour!” Those finest hours have now become a “millstone” around the necks of Anguillians and other residents on the island. 

Don’t get me wrong! The global economic situation is not of the Government’s making. However, they have not fulfilled their promises in areas where they should have been able to do so mainly because they have spent so much time making excuses rather than finding solutions; “adopting a strategy of confrontation rather than conflict resolution”; “indulging in political victimization rather than promoting national consolidation”; speaking out against nepotism and patronage while embracing it in its worst forms; running the government from the talk shows rather than from the Executive Council; preaching unity while practicing divisionism; extolling the virtues of good governance while ignoring its fundamental principles as enshrined in our constitution, rules, regulations and laws; and using lies, half-truths, “scapegoats” and “smoke screens” of all kinds to mask their incompetence and inability to deal with the critical challenges facing Anguilla at this time. 

As I mentioned last week I remain impressed with the level of restraint exercised by the Chief Minister and in fact the entire Government over the past three weeks even while we hear rumours about the situation at Cap Juluca. We hope that the biblical image of “a lamb being dumb before its shearer” is not applicable in this case --- because there are many employees, contractors and suppliers who need to be assured that Government is being properly advised on the handling of this matter. And I will use this medium yet another time to assure the Chief Minister of our (the AUF’s) full support of a well-thought-out strategy to bring about a positive outcome to this challenging issue. I therefore hope that Government’s silence is not a sign of surrender --- but a sign of a more “studied approach”. 

I challenged the Government in my first column for this year entitled: “Hope in 2012”. I wrote: “Next year will be a milestone year for the Anguilla United Movement Government. On August 15, 2012 the Government would have been in Office for half of its term. On October 15, 2012 the Chief Minister will be blessed to celebrate his eightieth birthday (subsequently I have been informed that it will be his 79th). We therefore hope that this year will make a difference in the way the Government sees its legacy. Halfway through its term of office and led by a Leader who must now be concerned about posterity it would be most appropriate and welcomed if the Government would now focus on delivering on the promises they made to the people of Anguilla. We hope that the Government will have a sense of history in 2012!” 

Firstly, my feeling of hope was based on the thesis that the unrelenting pressures on the economy could only be dealt with by a new approach and that it was high time for the Government to recognize that after almost two years in the driver’s seat the “blame game” has lost its credibility. Secondly, that a Chief Minister who had never had a successful term of his own making would want to make his mark, especially since it is the first time that a party, which he led, won a clear majority in the Anguilla House of Assembly. 

The opening days of 2012, however promised more of the same as the Chief Minister continued his usual conspiracy theories about the budget process and later clearly showed his insensitivity to the real issues facing Anguillians by using his office to expedite his own personal financial interests. I am of course referring, particularly, to the EC$40,000 payment he (The CM) facilitated for himself through EXCO for the payment of a fifteen year old phone bill that he claimed to have “run up” in twenty-eight months from his home with official calls he made while he was Chief Minister in 1994 to 2000. 

Those two incidents, namely, the “hullabaloo” over the late assent of the budget and EC$40,000 questionable payment to himself, reinforce two points that I have been making for the last two years. Firstly, either the Chief Minister does not understand his role in the governance process or he is deliberately using the Governor and the British Government as “scapegoats” to advance his independence agenda. Secondly, that the Chief Minister does not believe that the rules and procedures apply to him. Given his rigid defense of both these incidents over the various media using the same conspiratorial and confrontational approach, it is obvious that the Chief Minister is unlikely to change his approach in 2012. 

Let me raise some concerns and issues that remain unresolved over the last two years that the Government needs to fix as it enters its third year in office. I will also include some new ones that are emerging as well. The list is not exhaustive but will give you an idea of the need for the Government to begin to take charge and perform the functions for which they were elected as follows: 

• The issues of the Board and Management of Social Security remain unresolved. The Director of Social Security was publicly ridiculed and abused in the House of Assembly by the Chief Minister/Minister responsible for Social Security and he now seems to have no real function; Staff members are complaining of victimization; and morale is at an all time low.

• Interference in the management and policy issues of ANGLEC continue to frustrate the company’s efforts to operate as an independent entity regulated by Government.

• Nepotism and Cronyism seem to be used as a means of controlling various Boards and Committees without any real concern for the competencies required.

• The Management and Staff of Radio Anguilla, are reported to have been reprimanded by the Chief Minister and the Minister of Home Affairs, for making their services available and accessible to groups, individuals and other entities that may not be supportive of the views of the AUM Government.

• The Interim Stabilization Levy is still proving to be a “bad law”! When will the Government resolve the issues of fairness and equity in its application and amend the “IRS style” penalties, which continue to terrorize and criminalize Anguillians?

• The Government has informed us that it is intended that the “Levy” will come to an end on 31st December 2012 at which time a National Health Insurance System will be introduced. What is the Government doing to adequately provide for such a transition if such is still being considered?

• It was agreed in 2008/2009 that reductions made to Public Servant’s salaries would be reimbursed when the economy turns around. What is the Government doing to reach a principled agreement with public servants given the need to rationalize this commitment in the context of the sustained nature of the global economic crisis?

• The Government has been pushing about the issue of Independence. They see Independence as the answer to our present woes both administrative and economic. Will the Government call a referendum after adequate consultations to determine the views of the people, rather than waste precious time and resources in meaningless posturing at a time when we should be focusing on bread and butter issues?

• The Chief Minister is unable to maintain a united government given the existence of a “rogue minister” in the person of the Minister of Social Development, Hon. Edison Baird. Will there be any reconciliation this year so as to create harmony within his (the CM’s) government?

• Will there be any additional taxation measures imposed in 2012? Will the Chief Minister continue to contend that present and future taxes are British taxes?

• Will there be further public consultations on the Constitution this year?

• Will any of the several projects for which MoU’s have been concluded over the past two years start any time soon? And will the difference between MoUs and MoAs be explained to Anguillians?

• Will the Education Bill be passed this year?

• Will the issues associated with crimes against persons, firearms, drugs and gang violence, be articulated more forcefully by the elected and nominated members of the Government rather than just the Police Force and the Health Authority?

• Will the AUM Government, its advisors and vocal supporters curtail the level of incivility and discourteous conduct that they continue to exhibit on the airwaves?

I have discussed many of these issues with a number of Anguillians and other residents as they relate to the remainder of the AUM term of Office. And I have in fact left out some very significant matters because they relate to ongoing Court cases and other sensitive negotiations. It would be irresponsible to bring them into the public domain just to make political points. But the most wide spread reaction from many of the respondents; is a total lack of confidence in the ability of members this AUM Government to make the necessary adjustments to their style, attitude and approach --- in order to arrive at positive outcomes. One good friend in an obvious expression of despair wrote to me: “And the beat goes on! ---- Where will it ever end?”

By Victor F. Banks

Victor Banks is a former Finance, Economics, Commerce and Tourism Minister on Anguilla. He is presently the leader of the OpositionAnguilla United Front Party, writer and author of a weekly political article for theAnguillian News Paper, lyricist, and a self-employed entrepreneur.

“BEWITCHED, BOTHERED AND BEWILDERED”

I want to take this opportunity to register my full support for the Government of Anguilla during this period of discussions on Cap Juluca. Although things seem to be extremely quiet there are loud whispers abroad regarding the challenges facing the property. Cap Juluca has been for a long time not only the “flagship” but the “breadbasket” of our tourist industry as well. And let me make it clear that this statement is not intended to undermine the significant contribution of other properties but merely to highlight the value of Cap Juluca to our economy both in terms of employment, business opportunities, and government revenues. The survival of Cap Juluca as a vibrant and successful operation is critical to the livelihood of several hundred Anguillian families and the many businesses they patronize in the wider community. 

I also must commend the Chief Minister for the considerable restraint he has exercised over the past weeks in dealing with this matter in a most discrete manner. This is quite unlike his approach of the past when he seemed to have resorted to belligerent language on the airwaves; the blame game; and exhorting the workers to make protest marches to the Governor’s Office. I hope that this is an indication that the Chief Minister and his colleagues now fully understand that these very technical issues cannot be negotiated in the “broad pa’”. And that they should not confuse the issues even further by irresponsibly circulating “tainted” information for political reasons. I would hope that the reality is “setting in” about the delicate nature of the Cap Juluca issue and the need for a non-partisan approach to dealing with it. 

In my article of November 11, 2011 entitled “Hiding Behind Someone’s Petticoat”, I made the following observation after questioning the Chief Minister and his Government’s response to matters at Cap Juluca. I wrote: “I believe that it would have been appropriate for the Chief Minister to call in all Elected Members of the House of Assembly and tell them that we are facing a serious national crisis and we need to work together to resolve it. This would have taken the politics out of the issue and allowed for national solidarity. Every single Member of the House will want Cap Juluca to survive this ordeal. They could then as a “united front” (no pun intended) formulate a “well-thought-out” strategy that could stand a better chance of success than “hiding behind someone’s petticoat.” 

The Chief Minister in responding to that “olive branch” which was extended to him in a United Front Press Statement on November 7, 2011 and later in my Article as quoted above said on the public airwaves: 

“There is no assistance they (AUF) can give me! They are only messing up things --- because they should really hide. There is no assistance they can give me! What assistance can they give me? I don’t want men to fight! And there is no technical assistance they can give me! I am more qualified than all of them put together!” 

Other even more disparaging remarks were made in that interview which could provoke a negative reaction from our party members. But Anguilla is bigger than all of us and I believe that after almost three months, the situation seems to have deteriorated even further and urgently demands a demonstration of national solidarity. I believe that even in the circumstances where the Chief Minister would continue to reject our assistance we will continue to give the Government tacit support --- by not making this matter a political issue. There is too much at stake to allow raw politics to dominate the debate. Therefore if it requires our (AUF) silence to facilitate a successful outcome to these deliberations --- then we will proceed in that manner. And as the AUF Party Leader, I will encourage the Parliamentary Opposition Leader, the Honourable Evans McNiel Rogers and his colleague the Elected Member for Island Harbour, the Honourable Othlyn Vanterpool to be supportive in the House of Assembly (if it is deemed requisite) of any objective Motion or Bill formulated to advance the positive resolution of matters at Cap Juluca. This is in keeping with our pledge on November 7, 2011, that “the Members of The Anguilla United Front stand ready to support the Government of Anguilla in any “well-thought out” approach, which is designed to ensure that the Cap Juluca Hotel remains open.” 

I do believe, however, that this silence by Government provides for a “teachable opportunity”. And so allow readers to learn something about the history of the Cap Juluca saga void of politics and without any form of analysis. Just the bare facts! I believe that this will enable readers to put the issue in perspective from a historical standpoint so that they can interpret for themselves how we arrived at this juncture. Those facts are as follows: 

1. The lands that now comprise Cap Juluca resort were made available when the British Government (after a number of studies on Tourism as a vehicle for development on Anguilla) agreed to purchase 39.5 acres at Maundays Bay to package with 139.5 acres already owned by GoA to do a tourism project. (Total lands 179 acres) 

2. In 1979 a lease was granted to a Mr. J. Frankel to develop the lands. It was not developed. 

3. In 1981, Don Friedland and his group purchased the lease from Mr. Frankel for US$900,000. He did not develop it either. 

4. In 1986, Mr. Charles Hickox and his group entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement with Mr. Friedland’s group to purchase the leasehold interest in Cap Juluca through an entity called the Leeward Isle Resorts LIR. 

5. The Leeward Isle Resorts (LIR) in 1986 acquires a lease from Government to lease 179 acres of Crown land situated on and around Maundays Bay and Cove Bay. 

6. The LIR lease required that a total of 500 rooms be built in ten phases by 2011. 210 rooms were to be built in the first phase. 

7. Of the 210 rooms supposed to be built by 1996 --- only 98 were built. 

8. A disagreement between the ownership of LIR beginning in 1989 hindered the development of the project and escalated into legal action in 1991 mainly between Mr. Friedland and Mr Hickox. 

9. In 1993 the disagreement came to a head after Mr. Hickox did not make the necessary payments to Mr Friedland’s group under the Stock Purchase Agreement. They ended up in Court in Anguilla and New York. 

10. In December 1993, the Hickox group filed for bankruptcy in the U.S.A. The Court appointed a mediator. 

11. In May 1996, the two parties came to a settlement agreement that required Mr. Hickox & Co. to pay US$1 million by February 1997 as part payment in the matter to Mr. Friedland & Co. 

12. By March 1997 when Mr. Hickox & Co. did not pay they were advised of having defaulted. The US Bankruptcy Court then issued an Order to beginning the process of auctioning Cap Juluca. 

13. In September 1999, Mr. Friedland & Co. purchased Cap Juluca in an auction for allegedly, US$500,000 and he became the sole owner. He then took over Cap Juluca. 

14. Mr. Hickox & Co. fought the issue but the US Court ruled in favour of Mr. Friedland & Co. 

15. Since 2001 both these parties have been fighting for ownership in Courts in Anguilla, the OECS, and the Privy Council. 

16. On November 2004, the Executive Council in an effort to end the ownership dispute authorized the formation of a Cap Juluca (CJ) Task Force to come up with solutions. 

17. On December 2004 to January 2005 the CJ Task Force informed Mr. Friedland and Mr. Hickox of their existence and the desire of Government for them to arrive at an amicable solution swiftly. 

18. The CJ Task Force with the AG’s Chambers recommended a dual strategy to GoA: a) advise the parties that GoA was prepared to pursue “forfeiture proceedings”; and, b) look for a suitable purchaser to take over the lease. 

19. The GoA entered negotiations with a number of investors in 2005 & 2006 from which nothing conclusive materialized. 

20. The GoA also sought independent legal advice on the options of forfeiture and compulsory acquisition from a number of regional and local Law firms. 

21. Government in a letter of August 2006 after its inability to get an amicable resolution from the Friedland & Hickox group began to invite eligible purchasers advising that their offers/proposals must meet certain requirements as follows: 

• Maintain the Cap Juluca brand. 

•  Limit expansion of the project to a lower density 

• Make provision for a National Park at Cove Bay 

• Extend the National Park into Cove Bay Lagoon with a development plan to preserve and enhance Anguilla’s maritime heritage and culture and environmental assets. 

• Make provision for a significant equity stake by Anguillian belongers and Anguillian owned entities. 

22. After a number of negotiations with different groups on July 7, 2009 the GoA entered into a MoA with Cap Juluca Properties Ltd, a company in which Mr. Adam Aron is the principal owner. The ownership dispute was still unresolved but Mr. Aron was prepared to proceed with the purchase in good faith. 

23. In late 2010 to early 2011 Mr. Aron and Mr. Hickox came to settlement agreement based on the outcome of the dispute for US$ 75 million. Mr. Aron made a partial payment on the settlement in the amount of US$ 8 million. 

24. In October 2011 it is alleged that Mr. Aron was unable to meet his payment schedule and Mr. Hickox pursued his remedies under their settlement agreement. 

25. Since November 2011 a receiver has been appointed and the various affected parties have been wrangling to secure their several interests. 

As I indicated earlier the foregoing is only intended to be a “barebones” and simplified chronology of the Cap Juluca saga. I have intentionally not given any analysis of the facts because I only want my readers to get a sense of the issue without providing “cause and effect”, blame or even solutions. It may be obvious that this is an ownership dispute in which the Government and people of Anguilla appear to be at a serious advantage with few clear options. We hope that all the parties to this dispute will recognize the damage the closure of Cap Juluca would cause to a vulnerable economy like Anguilla, especially in these times. And I appeal to their sense of social justice and to the same expressions of affection for Anguilla and its people that they all so sincerely touted when they were seeking approval to invest in here. Hopefully then, our Chief Minister and our Government will not seem quite so “bewitched, bothered and bewildered” as they have over the past two weeks.

By: Victor F. Banks

Victor Banks is a former Finance, Economics, Commerce and Tourism Minister on Anguilla. He is presently the leader of the OpositionAnguilla United Front Party, writer and author of a weekly political article for theAnguillian News Paper, lyricist, and a self-employed entrepreneur.

“BREACHING THE HONESTY GUIDELINES”

This weekend, yet another time we suffered anxious moments as we heard the report that a group of our hardworking and courageous fishermen were missing at sea. It is the kind of report that we all dread. As an island surrounded by the sea it has been the source of our livelihood over the centuries but it has also caused us much pain and loss. There will always be fishermen, sailors, and other lovers of the enchanting waters around Anguilla --- so we have come to expect anxiety and sadness from time to time. My good friends Claude Richardson and Cecil “Kitto” Edwards with young George Romney left our shores to ply their trade and met with misfortune at the hands of the very ocean that was their regular provider. We commiserate with the family and friends of Cecil “Kitto” Edwards who did not make it through the ordeal --- and we rejoice with the family and friends of Claude and George to whom God’s providence granted safe return. We are grateful to all those who took part in the search effort and their eventual rescue. And may “Kitto’s” soul rest in peace! 

There was also some good economic news over the weekend. For many creditors, suppliers, contractors, sub-contractors and other individuals who have been waiting patiently since the closure of the Flag Project for some relief on the monies owed to them --- Mr. Lee Rizzuto, the new owner, came through. In this regard he has been a “man of his word” and despite the setbacks and the breakdowns of negotiations, since he won the property in auction several months ago --- he has indeed delivered. I would like to personally thank Mr. Rizzuto through this medium for his generosity to the people of Anguilla. As we all must know by now --- he did not have to do it. This is the kind of outcome that all Governments would hope for in such situations, and this Government can take credit for seeing it through. The unfortunate fact is that whenever a Government is involved in trying to do something right which involves compensation/money --- rather than being thanked for its efforts it may encounter a number of dissatisfied recipients who believe that they did not receive enough as well as a number of disgruntled spectators who believe that someone got too much. It is a situation that many of us in the AUF Government have learned well from our experience with the Airport Expansion Project. However, I am happy to know that a number of Anguillians have finally received some well needed relief. 

It was brought to my attention by one of my friendly “blog monitors” that someone maliciously included my name and that of our Party Chairman, Mr. Fritz Smith as recipients of payments from the Flag Project. This was seen on the “Anguilla Transparency” Blog. I am not sure of the motive but I can assure you that neither one of us were on the list for or recipients of payments from Flag. Were I to hazard a guess I would suggest that this is a way of implying that this scheme even benefitted top members of the Opposition Party. This is just another AUM propaganda posting to mislead Anguillians. 

Speaking about misleading Anguillians, I have listened to a number of AUM Ministers, advisors, supporters and commentators use a number of financial terms and statements in a manner that is less than honest in an effort to perpetrate their lies and half truths about the state of the economy when they came to Office as well as now that they are in Office. I therefore decided that I have to “clear the air” because I continue to hear this group speaking with authority on the various talk shows using these false statements and misinformation as if they are truth and facts. The most recent such statement being that now Anguilla has no debt. Let me highlight some of these fallacious statements and comment on them as follows: 

1.) The AUM Commentators continue to say that when they came to Office they met no money in the Treasury. The truth is that Government money is not stored in the Treasury --- it is deposited in the Bank. The importance of making this clarification is that, believe it or not, there are persons who believe that the members of the past Government took the money out of the Treasury when they left office. And still others who believe that all the money to run Anguilla is sitting in the Treasury in cash at the beginning of the year. They therefore readily believe that that money was stolen. It is what they are maliciously led to believe. 

2.) The AUM Commentators continue to say that they met a deficit of approximately 70 million EC dollars, which they reduced in a few months to 20 million EC dollars. The truth is that the deficit that they are referring is the difference between the actual revenue collected by Government in 2009 and the actual money spent. It is a deficit on paper! Because the additional money spent in 2009 came from three sources, namely, the 40 million dollars in reserves that the Government had saved in the good years; the monies amounting to some 24 million dollars due to Government from the European Development Fund which we had spent on their behalf; and short term advances from local banks and the ECCB. So in February 16, 2010 when the AUM came to office the only surplus they met outside of the overdraft facility was EC$511,081.08. This is from the numbers in the Financial Position, which they presented at the Rodney McArthur Rey Auditorium in March 2010. The last portion of the deficit that was not financed at the end of 2009 was less than EC$ 9 million. That deficit did not affect the performance of the new Government. What affected their performance was that revenue continued to fall short of expenditure on a monthly basis such that a deficit situation continued throughout the entire year. They did not reduce a deficit of EC$70 million in 2010 and they did not meet any such deficit that required their attention. 

3.) The Chief Minister and some of his Ministers who simply regurgitate his flawed statements continue to say that the past Minister of Finance believes in “deficit financing”. The definition of “deficit financing” that he appears to be using is: “deliberately spending more money than we expect to earn in revenue”. The fact is that the only deficit budget that was ever brought to the Anguilla House of Assembly since the mid 1980’s when the British Government took Anguilla off of “grant-aid” was in 2010 by Mr. Hughes himself. However, if Mr. Hughes means that “deficit financing” is borrowing for Capital Projects, then he needs to understand that this is the only way that the Government of Anguilla has been able to achieve any major development since the British Government stopped providing grants for infrastructure development. The AUF Government would not have been able to provide over 300 million dollars in capital development if we only spent the revenue we received in a given year. This is not “deficit financing” in the normal usage of the term --- this is long-term borrowing for critical development issues. Many Anguillians would not have a home if they did not borrow for amounts greater than their net earnings. Many of us are not as fortunate as Mr. Hughes who never borrowed from a bank. Neither is the Government of Anguilla. 

4.) The Chief Minister also boasts that he managed the finances of Anguilla so well in the last seven months of 1999 when I resigned as Minister of Finance that he left the incoming Government in February 2000 a healthy surplus. The truth is the healthy surplus in 1999 had absolutely nothing to do with Chief Minister Hughes’s fiscal prudence it came as a result of the “bump” in revenue collections from the Transshipment. A project for which I was mainly responsible. In fact the year before when I was Minister of Finance the surplus was two and a half times higher than in 1999 and every year preceding that we had a surplus even in 1995, the year of Hurricane Luis. Therefore to boast that he left the Government of 2000 a healthy surplus because of his skill as a Finance Minister is really not the truth. The truth is that, prior to 2010, the longest time Mr. Hughes served as Finance Minister was eleven months in 1984-85. 

5.) Some AUM supporters have been saying that I wrote off certain bills owed to Government by persons in the community. The idea is that in my official capacity I have written off moneys owed to Government by specific persons. The truth is that as Minister of Finance I cannot write off any bills owed to Government. This must be done by Executive Council upon the advice of the Treasury and technical Officers in the Ministry of Finance. Another important point is that writing off a bill does not cancel the debt. The Government can still collect the funds owed. Such an act of “writing off” is often advised by the External Auditors in their Audit report. No Minister of Finance has such powers. 

6.) The Chief Minister and other AUM “parrots” continue to repeat that the past Government breached the borrowing guidelines in a manner that would suggest that a crime has been committed. In fact I heard a caller to one of the Talk Shows declare with a semblance of authority that the past Government should have been dismissed by the British Government for breaching the Borrowing Guidelines. “Poor soul” was not aware that as he was speaking this Government is also in breach of the borrowing guidelines. The truth is “breaching the borrowing guidelines” simply means that one of the levels of gross debt, repayment or reserves, which we agreed with the British Government has been surpassed. In the case of the past Government because we were forced to use up our reserves we were automatically in breach. That means that based on our agreement, we were not allowed to borrow without seeking the approval of the British Government. It is not a crime it is a financial situation. The present Government is also in breach of the borrowing guidelines that is why any time they need to borrow they must ask the Secretary of State. Until we regain the level of our reserves; the level of our overall debt as compared to revenue; and the level of our overall annual debt repayment as it relates to revenue or change the present guidelines we will remain in breach. 

7.) The Chief Minister and his colleagues when they speak about the budget being balanced have somehow planted the idea in the minds of some of their supporters that Anguilla is out of debt. The Chief Minister did a great job of giving the impression that Anguilla had the highest debt levels in the OECS when he came into Government. The truth is Anguilla had the lowest debt levels in the OECS, excluding Montserrat that receives grant from the UK. The figures from their own forum in March 2010 show that by subtracting the EC$10 million they borrowed from Social Security upon coming to Office, they met a total debt of EC$162 million. This was debt ranging back to the early 1990’s and included loans for the Airport Expansion Project; Port Development; Road Development, etc. Even if one would suggest that this represents loans by the past Government over ten years it still represents an average of EC$1.6 million a year. But the truth of the matter is that the present Government has a total debt of EC$ 234 million. This represents an additional debt of EC$72 million in less than two years, that is, EC$36 million per year. While this may be considered unfair analysis, given the dynamics of debt and the need to borrow at this time, it is not any more unfair than the manner in which the Chief Minister and his colleagues have tried to denigrate the past Government for its overall debt over a ten year period. The present Government has increased the debt burden that they met by 44% in less than two years. The Chief Minister used the term piling up massive debts to describe the tenure of the past Government. But in his short sojourn in office he has contributed significantly to increasing that burden. Anguillians need to know that the debt amount has not gone away it has gotten larger. No wonder the main reason AUM supporters give for seeking Independence is to be able to borrow without having to worry about the British and their guidelines. 

I have taken the time to respond to these issues because the more I listen to supporters of the AUM the more I get the feeling that they really believe the fallacious statements; misleading comments and outright lies coming from The Chief Minister and his colleagues. But these are not exhaustive. There are many more examples and there is certainly no doubt in my mind that they are deliberately breaching the honesty guidelines of responsible leadership. And I consider that to be a serious crime against a people who were promised good governance! 

Victor F. Banks

Victor Banks is a former Finance, Economics, Commerce and Tourism Minister on Anguilla. He is presently the leader of the OpositionAnguilla United Front Party, writer and author of a weekly political article for theAnguillian News Paper, lyricist, and a self-employed entrepreneur.