Colonialism

Chief Minister of Montserrat Embarrassed. There is, in my view, a lesson to be learned by Anguilla from a recent series of articles in the Montserrat Reporter. The Governor of Montserrat has, in effect, rejected a law passed by the Montserrat House of Assembly.

The Act in question was an amendment to the Legislators’ Conditions and Service Act. In Montserrat, Ministers of government receive a salary of EC$96,500.00, a housing allowance of EC$36,000.00, entertainment allowance of EC$10,800.00, duty allowance of EC$42,000.00, travel allowance of EC$16,800.00, and telephone allowance of EC$1,800.00 per year, or a total of EC$203,916.00 per year or EC$16,993.00 per month. Non-minister legislators receive EC$8,000.00. The pension is approximately two thirds of their emoluments. All in all, this is a very generous remuneration in a West Indian island with a population of perhaps 6,000 souls.

The amending Bill provided, among other things, that:

Where a person, who at the time of coming into operation of this Act, has attained the age of 55 years, is in receipt of a pension under this Act, and has served as a Legislator for periods amounting in aggregate to not less than 15 years, again becomes a Legislator, he shall be entitled to receive his pension in addition to the allowances payable during the period he serves as a Legislator.

Once a member of the House of Assembly has attained the age of 55 and has served in the House for a total of 15 years, he would be entitled to a pension. As a result of this amendment, if he became a legislator again after he had begun to receive his pension, he would be entitled to his salary and other perks, in addition to his full pension! The members of the House were voting to enable themselves to earn a double salary! It cannot be doubted that it is not right or normal for a person to receive both pension and salary from the one and the same employer. That is true even if we were not speaking about the people of an impoverished, volcano-devastated island such as Montserrat is. Compare that to the procedure followed recently by the House of Assembly of St Kitts-Nevis under the Dr Denzil Douglas Administration. There, the legislators appointed an independent, private-sector committee to advise them on increases in their salaries. The committee held public meetings, and made a report and recommendations. The House of Assembly acted on the recommendations and passed them into law. They did not just pick on a figure to pay themselves, and pass that figure into law.

In Montserrat, the amending Bill, when it had been proposed in the meeting of the House of Assembly, had been further re-amended in Committee Stage. The new amendment reduced the age at which the entitlement accrued. The Chief Minister and Minister of Finance, Dr Lowell Lewis, proposed this amendment. This was not what the Ministers had originally agreed to when they had discussed the Bill in Executive Council. The amended Bill was supported by the government members of the House. This included the non-elected, ex-officio members of the House, ie, the Attorney-General and the Financial Secretary. The four opposition members in the House spoke passionately against the measure. The government majority prevailed, and the Bill was passed.

A howl of protest went up in the press in Montserrat. In an editorial of 5 October, the paper accused the politicians of taking care of their income in a manner that was unacceptable. They were accused of just looking out for themselves and their friends. Governor Peter Waterworth had a different reason for objecting. His objection was the technical one that the amendment that was passed did not accord with what Executive Council had approved.

Governor Waterworth and CM Dr Lewis

In an article of 23 November we learn that the Governor had refused to “assent” to the Act. The Constitution requires him to do so to bring the Act into full effect. He had sent the Act on to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office seeking advice. This was the first time in the modern history of Montserrat that a Governor was refusing his assent to a Bill passed by the House of Assembly. The Chief Minister at first came out against the Governor’s delay. His position had been that the legislators had debated the Bill in the House. The government members had given their reasons why they wanted the Bill passed. He argued that under the Constitution they had not done anything unconstitutional. Then he goes on to say, “The next step really will be for that particular Bill to be amended by the Governor in such a way that he feels he can consent to it”.

Am I hearing right?

What nonsense is this?

No Governor of a British Overseas Territory in this modern era is to be permitted to unilaterally amend a law passed by the House of Assembly “in such a way that he feels he can consent to it” or in any other way. That is how it was done in the dark ages of colonialism and imperialism. That is a barbarism that I hope will never be permitted in Anguilla today. There are much more democratic and proper methods for getting an irresponsible or corrupt law changed. It has to do with public education, with public involvement, and with public protest. If the public, after they have been alerted to some impropriety on the part of the Legislature, do not demand that the law in question be changed by their own representatives sitting in the House of Assembly, then it is not for the FCO to intervene and to make alterations to an enacted law. For a West Indian Chief Minister to invite a colonial Governor to amend a Bill passed by the House in such a way that he feels he can consent to it is quite wrong.

The Constitutional improprieties of this episode did not end there. The Governor appears to have received instructions from the FCO. He indicated to the Chief Minister that he would not assent to the Bill. In an article dated 24 December in the Montserrat Reporter we learn that the Chief Minister has now announced that he accepts that introducing changes in Committee stage in the House of Assembly “was a significant variation from what was approved in Executive Council”. He invites the Governor to assent to the Bill “in the form approved in Executive Council”. He then requests that a Bill be introduced into the House of Assembly to repeal the Act once it comes into effect. According to the story, the Governor then writes back to him confirming that, if this were done, he would “assent to both Bills after they had passed through the Legislature”.

Let us accept that the Bill was corrupt. Let us agree that it was not proper procedure for Ministers to propose amendments to a finance Bill that would increase the burden on the public purse after they had agreed otherwise in Executive Council. The Governor of an Overseas Territory should not be admitted to have the power to amend a Bill that has been passed through the House of Assembly. This is entirely a matter for the citizens of the Overseas Territory to have sorted out for themselves. The Governor is entitled to bring moral and other pressure to bear. If British funds were at risk, the British Government might have withdrawn those funds.

Never again must a West Indian Chief Minister invite a colonial Governor to pass a Bill in a form “approved by Executive Council”. Executive Council plays no role in deciding on the final wording of a law. That is for the House of Assembly to decide. The Governor’s duty is to approve a Bill in the form passed by the House.

Never again must the Chief Minister of an Overseas Territory in the West Indies invite the FCO to interfere in the legislative process by refusing the Governor’s assent to a Bill that has been passed through all the stages in the House. If Members of the House abuse their position to provide jobs for friends, or increased remuneration for themselves and their associates, it is for the people of the country to be properly informed what has happened, and for them to be invited to take the appropriate action. It is not the business of the FCO to override the democratic process.

I don’t care what the Constitution says in this regard. The Constitution needs changing to reflect the modern reality.

At the end of the day, it was the FCO that behaved with impeccable propriety. They did not use the powers reserved to them in the Constitution. They did not accept the invitation of the Chief Minister to revert to a barbaric and outdated form of colonial legislative procedure. Instead, they did the right thing. They put pressure on the local authorities to correct their own mistake. It was left to the Chief Minister to eat the unmentionable and to propose a proper solution. He will see to it that a Bill is placed before the House of Assembly to amend the wrong things that were done in passing the previous Bill. It has been left for the Montserratian legislature to clean up its own mess!