Tag: Joe Grant

Categories
BREAKING NEWS

BREAKING NEWS!!!!Turks and Caicos Premier Dr.Rufus Ewing Response to Mr.William Hague

20130320-235317.jpgDr. Hon. Rufus Washington Ewing

Statement

March 20, 2013

As Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands I, on February 10, 2012, wrote to the Rt. Hon. William Hague, First Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, requesting without prejudice, the recall of the Chief Financial Officer, His Excellency the Governor and the Attorney General. In my letter to Rt. Hon. Hague I outlined the concerns of the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands and cited reasons why those persons named should be recalled. My dissertation on the past and current state of the affairs of the Turks and Caicos Islands that was presented to CARICOM, also articulated my concerns and those of the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands indicating the need for intervention and assistance from our regional neighbours.

As Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands and as someone who was elected to represent the people of these islands, I am disappointed but not surprised, that I am being chastised by the Foreign Minister for exposing the facts and representing my people. I take exception to this and at the same time, stand by my position on both of the matters in question.

In my address to CARICOM I stated that the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands acknowledged that the allegations of corruption and maladministration of the previous administration necessitated investigation. The Commission of Inquiry was presided over by a single Judge, Sir Robin Auld. After hearing evidence in those proceedings, Sir Auld concluded that there was a “High probability of systemic corruption amongst the Ministers, members if the legislature and public officials in the TCI” as a result of these conclusions our constitution was suspended. What was indeed unfortunate, but an indisputable fact, was that this conclusion was drawn without including the then Governor Richard Tauwhare, the TCI Head of State who was at the time entrusted with the responsibility for good governance and who was responsible for presiding over and signing most, if not all of the transactions that were cited in the commission of inquiry report as being corrupt.

The professional integrity and dignity of many hard working and dedicated Turks and Caicos Islanders, including our first Premier and Ministers, are now under question, because of the conclusions of Sir Auld. Furthermore, the fate of all accused persons now rest in the custody of a system designed to entrap and secure conviction of some whilst, at the same time, others walk free in exchange for money and information. It is also obvious that the accusations made against former members of government have moved from an alleged “high probability of corruption” by Sir Auld to what amounts to a verdict of “corruption” by the Secretary of State and the Governor. In these circumstances, I cannot state with any degree of confidence that the system of justice as it relates to the accusations of malfeasance is fair, as all of the actions thus far by those entrusted with investigations and administration of those accused, seem to be directed more at securing convictions at all cost and by all means, especially of persons of a particular political affiliation, rather than the pure pursuit of justice. I support the laws of this land being upheld, and the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” must be adhered to and the system of justice must be fair and balanced irrespective of who the accused is, from where he hails and what political party he or she is associated with.

 I have no need to misrepresent the facts about the past or present as the facts are there for all to see.

I speak directly to my people of the Turks and Caicos Islands to say that The Progressive National Party (PNP), of which I am Leader is an institution of the people, by the people and for the people. The label of corruption may justly or unjustly be placed upon individuals within any institution or organization, the clear distinction needs to be however made that the institutions or organizations themselves should not bear this label. I therefore resent the attempts by the Governor’s Office and the Foreign Office to repeatedly tarnish the name of any political party or group, by labeling it as being corrupt as it influences the minds of voters and prejudices the image of new officers of such parties.

It is my belief that the constitution of the Turks and Caicos Islands was partially suspended, to exclude representative democracy in the legislative and executive arms of government so as to avoid interference by the local populous whilst the Interim Administration went about the many reforms that they desired to have implemented. It is well known that the Turks and Caicos Islands has been responsible for its own financial upkeep for decades without assistance from the United Kingdom, save for DFID grants in the past and EU grants as of recent. I cannot say that our lives have been made easier with the UK guarantee of a 260 million dollar loan that Turks and Caicos Islanders are now required to repay in a very short period or that we necessarily agree with the decisions made as to how that money is being spent. If the Interim regime had focused on expanding our economy in addition to employing less drastic cost cutting measures, then we would be in a much better financial position than we are now. The fact that our national debt is more than 3 times what it was in 2009 highlights this situation! In a nutshell, had better financial strategies been implemented there would have been no need for a loan guarantee nor would there have been a need for the yet to be repealed VAT initiative. Though we are grateful for the Secretary of State’s decision not to enact the VAT bill on April 1, 2013, the cries of our people through a resounding vote for repeal by a democratically elected House of Assembly are still being denied and democracy is still yet to be served.

During the reign of the Interim Administration a slew of legislations were drafted and enacted, including the 2011 Constitution. These pieces of legislation sought to achieve, among others, the following objectives:

1. Empowering the Governor with greater power and influence over the executive and legislative arms of government.

2. Total control and influence over financial matters

3. Enhancing good governance and greater accountability for persons in public life

4. Improving the chances of conviction of those accused of malfeasance by enactment of Trial without Jury and Hearsay laws to be used retroactively

5. Dismantling of the system of political patronage

It was stated clearly by the Secretary of State that he has full confidence in the Governor despite our overwhelming lack of confidence in the leadership of the present Governor of the Turks and Caicos Islands. It is also widely known that the Attorney General has been absent from duty for several months now and the many public failures of his office in the past several weeks have brought question to his level of competence and leadership. I therefore stand by my request for the recall of the Governor and the Attorney General and also the summonsing of Governor Tauwhare to the Turks and Caicos Islands to speak to the allegations against ministers for which he was a possible co-conspirator.

As Premier of this country, my responsibility is to ensure good governance whilst creating a higher quality of life for my people, and to make representation in their best interest. Given the many governance challenges being experienced by the UK and the lack of transparency and accountability on the part of UK appointed officials to the TCI, I will also not hasten to use the UK Government as a yard stick upon which to measure good governance. I proudly say that I was born and raised here in the Turks and Caicos Islands and that I share the dreams and aspirations of my people.

The future of the Turks and Caicos Islands is bright, but there are many challenges that we have to overcome as we govern in the best interest of the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands. My responsibility as Premier of this country is to represent the interest of the electorate, like the Secretary of State does for his electorate which I am sure takes precedence over ours. I will continue to respect his office but will also continue to represent, to speak, to act without fear or favour, in the interest of my people.

In regards to our position of independence, it is without a doubt independence is indeed our destiny. It may or may not come under my leadership, but whenever it comes, it will be by an act of the determined will of Turks and Caicos Islanders. When the timing is appropriate the question on independence will be asked through a referendum and I am confident that the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands will be given the same opportunity as those in the Falkland Islands to answer the question as to whether it is their wish remain a UK Dependent territory.

I call on all Turks and Caicos Islanders to stand for what is right and what is just for all Turks and Caicos Islanders. I call on all Turks and Caicos Islanders to be vigilant, be honest and dedicated to the future of a brighter, prosperous nation that we can continue to proudly call our own.

Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands

N.J.S. Francis Building, Pond St, Cockburn Town, Grand Turk, Turks & Caicos Islands

Tel: (649) 946-2801 ext 40101 – Fax: (649) 946-1803 – email: [email protected] – Twitter: @premier_tci

Categories
BREAKING NEWS

BREAKING NEWS!!!!FORMER PREMIER MICHAEL MISICK’S LETTER TO MR WILLIAM HAGUE

Letter from Michael Misick to William Hague

March 14 th , 2003

William Hague
Secretary of State
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
London SW1A 2AH

Dear Mr. Hague:

I read with amazement your letter of arrogance that is in the public media to our Premier Hon Dr Rufus Ewing.

The contempt that British officials at the highest level have for Turks and Caicos Islands and its people is astonishing, and the second such letter where a public dressing is handed down to the leader of our country because of his public stand that the local elected government should be able to govern including allowing the elected parliament to enact legislation for the benefit of our people and our country.

I also think that because of Dr Ewing stance, and indeed the PNP party’s stance, our Country should be moving towards Independence. You and your colleagues are doing everything in your power to undermine his government. The evidence is in all of the confusion about the elections and misrepresenting the true facts that transpire with my tenure as Premier of our Country.

Here are the facts:

The Turks and Caicos Islands during my time in government experience one of the highest GDP growths in the world. When we came to office the GDP was $150 million dollars when we left office it was close to a billion dollars in six (6) short years.

During our PNP party’s time in office we attracted billions of dollars in inward investments, particularly in the tourism sector and has firmly put the Turks and Caicos Islands on the map as a premier Tourist destination in the world. We attract investment from the Amanyara and Seven Stars hotel to the Carnival Cruise Terminal in Grand Turk and as a direct result of this example and many others Tourism has grown from when we took office from under 200 Thousands visitors to well over one million Tourist nowadays.

The PNP government invested tens of millions of dollars in infrastructure, building modern roads in all of the islands including the Middle and North Caicos causeway, parks and recreational facilities like the Gus Lightbourne arena, the National Stadium, The Five Cays Community Center, Horse-stable Beach Park and other parks, The South Caicos Community Centre, and Clinic, the two Hospitals in Grand Turk and Providenciales just to name a few.

We invested tens of millions of dollars in Education and Scholarships, providing hundreds of Turks and Caicos Islanders with university degrees at the best universities in the US, UK and the Caribbean. We built institutions such as TCInvest, National Insurance, TCI Bank, TCI New Media and your Government along with the British Interim Government has either destroyed or closed them all.

We hired hundreds of civil servants, paid and them properly, and instilled national pride in them and in all of our people. Our citizens were proud to be Turks and Caicos Islanders.

We provided the best medical care for all, young and old regardless of their political affiliation, race, religion or creed. There were no questions asked, we took care of our sick people.

We had six (6) straight years of a surplus budget and have never run a deficit budget. When we left office the government total borrowings was no more than $75 million dollars.

These are the facts Mr. Hague and they speaks for themselves, so no matter how much you and the British Government put misinformation out there to hide your true agenda and to cover up for your incompetent officials, it will not change the facts nor the heart of Turks and Caicos People that the British has worn out their welcome in the Turks and Caicos Islands and their days are numbered. The clock is ticking and political Independence and freedom for our people cannot be stopped.

Here are some other facts that you do not want the Turks and Caicos people or the world to know.

The fact is that the British Government has destroyed the Turks and Caicos economy, its judicial system and eroded the rule of law over the past 4 years.

The borrowings that you refer to in your letter were borrowings that your British occupation government did to prop up an illegitimate interim regime and to spend tens of millions of dollars in a political motivated investigation to politically persecute me and my colleagues because of our views. No elected Turks and Caicos Government should have to pay back money that you borrowed.

You talk about Robin Auld, a sole hand picked commissioner by the British government to carry out their instructions in a commission of inquiry whether outcome was predetermined. If there was nothing to hide than there should have been a transparent commission of inquiry with at least a commissioner with eminent Judges from the Caribbean included on the panel.

You also talk about the UK government high standard of maintaining the rule of law, respect for human rights and upholding the judiciary.

Do I need to remind you of the UK history of slavery, colonization abuse and torture in places like Kenya and India? Nothing has changed the only thing has happen that the British have modernized their abuse of human rights and rig-judiciary under the disguise of good governance.

Ask yourself why, if my colleagues and I have committed a crime and not being politically persecuted, did you have to change the constitution? Why did you have to change the laws and the whole judiciary system to assure a conviction? Why did you have to violate my human rights by abolishing my colleagues and my right to a jury trial? Why did you have to change the hearsay laws and other laws on evidence targeting us? How can we ever get a fair trial when you, who is responsible for appointing the governor, the judges, passing laws for the colony, but in your letter you have implied that my colleagues and I are guilty of corruption when after four years of investigations and 60 million plus dollars there has not even been a plea and directions hearing.

You mentioned in your letter that the Attorney General is properly and legally seeking my extradition from Brazil and that I am resisting return by seeking political asylum. Why you did not inform the people that you and the British has violated my human rights by having me arrested and put in a maximum security prison for two months although my asylum process was not completed and I had temporary political asylum and that since my release you and the British are continually trying to re-imprison me? Why did you not tell the public that during my imprisonment, In spite of my political persecution I offer to voluntary return and you and the British government has refused to allow me to voluntarily return home.

Why did you not tell the people that since my release I have offered to voluntary return with the only condition that my colleagues and myself is assured a fair trial, that is a jury trial and you and the British Government have refused to guarantee me a fair trial?

Why don’t you tell the people that you and the British really don’t want me to return to Turks and Caicos Islands, that you just want me in jail, any jail but not back home?

Why did you not tell the people, that maybe you believe that my presence in the Turks and Caicos Islands may interfere with your plans as I still have broad support among my beloved people or maybe you feel that I have information base of meetings that you have had with me that will implicate you and others close to you?

In any event what is clear is the relationship between the Turks and Caicos Islands and the British Government is over. It is now not base on mutual respect but based on a bullying and arrogant superiority complex that should be relegated to the dust bin of history. If you are so confident that the Turks and Caicos people want to remain British why don’t you carry out a referendum on the question as you just did for show in the Falklands, or as Scotland is doing in 2014? That referendum and only that referendum will determine the true desire of the Turks and Caicos people.

You should manifest your claim of belief in democracy and act honest, transparent and behave responsibly.

Michael Misick
Former Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands

20130320-201339.jpg

20130320-201426.jpg

Categories
News

LONDON DENIES CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS FOR TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS

Self-Determination for Falklands but Nowhere Else in the Remaining British Empire

London denies constitutional powers to Afro-Caribbean population in the Turks and Caicos

By Wayne Madsen
Global Research, March 19, 2013
Strategic Culture Foundation 17 March 2013

Britain is loudly proclaiming that the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands, the South Atlantic island group that is hotly contested between Britain and Argentina, voted 99.8 percent to remain an overseas territory of the United Kingdom. British Prime Minister David Cameron publicly rebuked the Argentine government and the new Pope, Francis I, for their support of Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands. As Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio supported Argentina’s historical claim to the islands.

If only Mr. Cameron were as dedicated to the wishes of the inhabitants of some of Britain’s other far-flung and nearer –to–home territories as he is toward the “Kelpers,” as the Falkland Islanders call themselves.

In the cases of the Turks and Caicos Islands and Anguilla in the Caribbean, the Tory-Liberal Democratic government in London has rolled back the self-government previously afforded the two island colonies.

The British government imposed direct rule on the Turks and Caicos in 2009, citing misrule and corruption by the island’s then-premier, Michael Misick. Britain appointed a Commission of Inquiry led by Sir Robyn Auld that recommended direct rule of the islands from London through Governor Gordon Wetherell; his successor Ric Todd; Attorney General Huw Shepheard; and Chief Financial Officer Hugh McGarel Groves. The Commission of Inquiry was replaced by a Special Investigation and Prosecution Team (SIPT) that began investigating Turks and Caicos government officials for corruption.

The new Premier, Galmo Williams, declared, “Our country is being invaded and re-colonized by the United Kingdom, dismantling a duly elected government and legislature and replacing it with a one-man dictatorship, akin to that of the old Red China, all in the name of good governance.”

The British neo-colonial government brought criminal charges against a dozen Turks and Caicos official, including five ministers in the Misick government, including Misick himself. The former premier fled to Brazil and was arrested pursuant to an extradition request from Britain. However, the breakdown in relations between London and Latin America over the Falklands issue may have compelled the Brazilian government to release Misick on bail awaiting a final determination on the extradition request.

Last November, an election was held in the Turks and Caicos and the Progressive National Party of former Premier Misick barely eked out a victory in an 8 seat to 7 seat vote for the opposition People’s Democratic Party in the House of Assembly. Dr. Rufus Ewing became Premier and among his first acts was to demand London restore constitutional powers from the abrogated constitution to the elected government and sack the governor, Attorney General, and other appointed officials. Cameron and Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary William Hague have resisted these calls. Essentially, when the white population and government of the Falklands demand something from London, they are heard and the request in positively acted upon. However, when it is an Afro-Caribbean population in the Turks and Caicos that makes a demand, they are ignored. It is the British colonial way.

In a letter to Hague, Ewing wrote that the investigation of the previous Misick government was a “farce, impregnated with cloak and dagger acts on the part of the Governor, AG Chambers and SIPT, to incarcerate Turks and Caicos Islanders at all costs, even the cost of the violation of the principles of justice and the human rights of individuals.”

Ewing told a summit of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) in Port au Prince, Haiti, “We are today being governed by a constitution that was conceived in Whitehall, and was, for all intents and purposes, thrust upon the people of the Turks and Caicos Islands, at a time when they were without representation.” Ewing was referring to the 2011 Constitution that afforded the island less rights than the previous Constitution of 2006.

One of the main objectives of the London-appointed government was to impose a tax hike and austerity measures on the Turks and Caicos. Hague rejected Ewing’s request and stated: “We expect the territories to meet the same high standards of good governance and public financial management as in the UK.” That is rich coming from a British government that has been mired in financial and sexual scandal since it came to power. But, again, the rationale in London is based on the fact that when white ministers and Tory and Liberal Democratic MPs are engaged in scandal, it is a minor infraction, but when a government composed of people of color are accused of scandal, an unconstitutional, anti-democratic, neo-colonialist sacking of the entire government ensues.

It is clear that the Turks and Caicos wants to join its fellow CARICOM partners as an independent nation but London has thrown in a number of obstacles to full sovereignty. The Turks and Caicos are not alone in having neo-colonialism imposed on them from the halls of power along the banks of the Thames.

Britain, working with France, the Netherlands, the United States, Morocco, New Zealand, Canada, Israel, and Australia, has sought to diminish the role of the United Nations’ Special Committee on Decolonization in speeding independence for the 16 Non-Self-Governing Territories recognized by the committee, which includes the Turks and Caicos and another Caribbean island where Britain has re-stamped its colonial imprimatur, Anguilla.

In the 1960s, Anguilla declared unilateral independence from the Federation of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla because it wanted to retain its ties to Britain and not shed them in favor of a colonial status within a West Indies mini-federation. However, after some forty years, things have started to change on the island. Britain, instead of allowing Anguilla more self-government under Anguilla Constitutional Order 1 April 1982, amended in 1990, has reversed course and started to retain and retake more powers for itself. This has resulted in more Anguillans bringing up the independence option decades after the Anguillan Revolutions of 1967 and 1969.

Britain is trying to eliminate a provision in the Anguillan Constitution that provides for an option of independence. It is clear that Britain is trying to do to Anguilla what the Netherlands did to the three small Caribbean island territories of Bonaire, Saba, and Saint Eustatius after the dissolution of the self-governing Netherlands Antilles, make Anguilla part of Britain and incorporate it into the United Kingdom and European Union. The Netherlands incorporated its three territories as municipalities of the Netherlands in a move that was not clearly explained to the residents of the islands.

Last year, Anguillan Chief Minister Hubert Hughes told the UN that his government “decided that the Anguilla people will have to decide whether they want to stay in slavery or go on to freedom.”

As with the Turks and Caicos, Britain has imposed economy-crippling austerity on Anguilla using the pretext that the island is rife with financial corruption.

As bad as the Turks and Caicos islanders and Anguillans are in being re-colonized by Britain, no people have suffered more than the Ilois of the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean. In the 1960s, they were removed by Britain against their wishes and relocated to Mauritius where they live in squalor. Britain removed the islanders to make way for a U.S. nuclear weapons, intelligence, and, more recently, a gulag for detainees, on the island of Diego Garcia.

So, while Mr. Cameron lectures the Pope and Argentina on respecting the wishes of the Falkland Islanders, he continues to run roughshod over the wishes of the peoples of the Turks and Caicos, Anguilla, the Chagos Archipelago, and even those closer to home in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man, who would opt for independence if not for the heavy jackboot of British colonial rule…

20130320-151257.jpg

Categories
Genel News

WAR OF WORDS BETWEEN BRITAIN AND TURKS AND CAICOS CONTINUES

War of words between Britain and Turks and Caicos continues
Published on March 15, 2013,by Caribbean News.

TCI Premier Rufus Ewing (L) and Britain’s Foreign Secretary William Hague

By Caribbean News Now contributor

PROVIDENCIALES, Turks and Caicos Islands — In a statement to the House of Assembly in the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) on Thursday, Premier Rufus Ewing accused Britain’s Foreign Secretary William Hague of corruption.

Responding to a strongly worded letter on Tuesday from Hague, which had described Ewing’s speech last month to Caribbean Community (CARICOM) heads of government as a substantial misrepresentation, Ewing said that the release of Hague’s letter just prior to election petition court hearings and before a potential by-election was an attempt by Britain to influence the voters and the courts and is therefore a corrupt act.

Ewing then went on to defend his address to CARICOM. He repeated his position that CARICOM was a key factor in Britain’s recent agreement to shelve the imposition of value added tax in the TCI. However, none of the CARICOM member states or associate members has made any public statement expressing any opinion in relation to the TCI and/or VAT.

Hague had chided Ewing for failing to mention the dire state of the economy coming out of the previous Progressive National Party (PNP) government led by Michael Misick who, Hague pointed out, remains a fugitive from justice.

Ewing said there was no need for him to mention this because “we all know about these events.”

Ewing went on to say that he was sure that many TCI citizens now favour independence.

For the first time, Ewing, who is himself a medical doctor, spoke about the pressing health care issues in the TCI.

Weeks earlier, Ewing had celebrated the idea of the third party use of the hospitals and health care facilities for medical tourism. As these facilities are operated by private contractors funded by the TCI government, media questioning as to who benefits from the practice has been ongoing.

Ewing said he will be making sure that the TCI gets a share of the third party operations of InterHealth Canada, which is are operating the hospitals.

TCI taxpayers are responsible for paying a $120 million mortgage on the two small hospitals, which also includes an excessive 12 percent rate of interest. The National Health Insurance Plan (NHIP), in the creation of which Ewing was reported to have played a central role, is costing the TCI over 40 percent of every tax dollar collected.

On three separate occasions, Ewing has claimed that financial audits of the hospitals were underway but the new InterHealth Canada CEO said that no audits had been started.

Ewing also blamed the downturn in the economy for people losing their jobs and no longer paying 6 percent of their wages into the health plan.

20130315-110053.jpg

Categories
Genel News

RESPONSE TO MR WILLIAM HAGUE REGARDING PREMIER RUFUS EWING CARICOM SPEECH

Response to UK Foreign Secretary William Hague RE-Premier Dr. Rufus Ewing Caricom Speech
Published in TCI POST on 15th of March 2013
Dear Mr. Hague,
I appreciate your latest correspondence as of March 12. I am encouraged by your reaffirming the ideals and objectives lined out in the Overseas Territory White paper. Let me assure you that we in the TCI are equally interested in a flourishing partnership with the UK. However, as I have pointed out before and will point out again, the current situation is nowhere close to the ideals and standards that the White paper prescribes. The remarks at CARICOM were in no way meant to offend, but to correct the path that our friendship has taken in the past 4 years. Unfortunately, previous attempts to address these issues on a less public level had all fallen on deaf ears. As such, these remarks should be seen as an attempt to strengthen the relationship between our nations, and a strengthening of this relationship can only happen on terms that are perceived as fair, transparent and appropriate by both the TCI and the UK.
Before I go into detail on what we have perceived as wrong and unjust, let me make one point very clear.
The current PNP administration can in no way be held responsible for any alleged wrong-doings that happened during the previous PNP government under Michael Misick. While we still wait to see evidence presented in a court of law concerning the alleged actions of select individual of that former administration, let me remind you that the current government consists of a totally different set of persons and none of them have been implicated in the investigations surrounding the old government. As you might recall, there were a number of highly publicized scandals in recent years which involved a large numbers of British politician, both Labour and Tory. However we would never discredit your party, the Tories because of the failures of these few individuals in the past. And we will not discredit your coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, because of Chris Huhne’s personal failures and his recent criminal conviction. And neither will we discredit the good reputation of the United Kingdom and Her Majesty’s Government because of these past yet regrettable scandals. I will kindly ask you to adhere to the same standards when you refer to my party, the PNP, to my government and to the Turks and Caicos Islands as a whole. We have come a long way to reform our party and we won the recent democratic elections, bringing a group of young and energetic Turks and Caicos Islanders into government. My government deserves a chance to prove itself and we do not agree with constant comparisons and finger pointing to former members of parliament, and I am sure you will understand our concerns.
Let me move on to point out some points that we find troubling and that have caused a great amount of misunderstanding between our nations.
First of all, we welcome your acknowledgement of a broad responsibility for good governance in our territory. In fact, we would have much welcomed this commitment in previous times while alleged Mal-governance and serious wrongdoings by elected officials are said to have caused the dire financial situation we find ourselves in. But let me remind you that the judicial process was and is in no way expeditious or transparent. While our country and our people have already been burdened with a $260 Million loan for undisclosed liabilities, humongous ongoing costs of the prosecutions, the loss of democratic representation, the threat of ever rising taxes, not to mention the loss of self confidence and dignity for our nation – we have yet to see evidence presented in a court of law. While the verdict for our electorate has already been spoken and the punishment has been executed on our people over the past years, we have yet to see the bigger picture and hard facts of how all of these alleged crimes could have taken place under a British Governor and FCO.
In regards to the process of these investigations, many of my countrymen are deeply worried about the fact that foreign developers of a certain skin color involved in these alleged crimes were given the option to settle their cases for multi-million dollar settlement fees, while our own people have not been offered this option and are now facing criminal trials and jail time. It is further worrisome that the investigation stops short of investigating some individuals at all, if I can just mention the fact that no British bureaucrat has ever been mentioned in this investigation, yet it is alleged that $3 to 5 Billion in crown land assets have been removed from our country and the Governor at this time signed off on every single transaction. It is hard to see transparent and responsible action in this process.
In regards to the outcome of this investigation, I have to remind you that the recovered amounts are only barely higher than the costs of the investigation which currently stands at over $13 Million, leaving only a tiny amount of net gains after lawyers’ fees. In the scope of the overall scope of the alleged crime, this can only be labeled as the proverbial drop in the ocean.
In regards to the case of Mr. Michael Misick, let me assure you that it is totally beyond the power of myself or my government to control the actions of this one man. Mr. Misick is a grown man and he is making decisions for himself. I can only assume that he is trying to protect his legal rights and human rights during this investigation, which he is very much entitled to.
However at this point, I will have to remind you that it took the British Government more than a year to fund the investigation against Mr. Misick and a few more years to come up with official charges, and then Mr. Misick was given again more than 9 months to allegedly conceive a child in Brazil, all of which has massively deteriorated chances of bringing a proper judicial process against this one individual into motion. Once again, the current situation is unfortunate for all of us however it is not the time to cast blame on my administration which was just elected less than 5 months ago.
Then let me move on to the issue of VAT, which in itself has stood out as a frightening example of a heavy handed, non-transparent and irresponsible approach to governance executed by the British interim administration, particularly by current Governor Ric Todd and the CFO McGarel-Goves. To implement such a massive new tax burden without proper consultation, against the will of the whole electorate and the whole business community, without any consideration of our economic situation and without any fine-tuning to our specific circumstances, this alone has all the markings of an arbitrary dictatorship and not the flourishing partnership that you cited. I could go on and fill many pages on this topic, however since the whole dilemma is so well documented, I will leave it at that. I will however mention that the recent refusal to sign the VAT repeal bill and to leave the tax hanging over our heads is an unprecedented case in both the TCI and UK legislative process. This has only lead to a further hardening in emotions for my people, which was so easy to avoid had we only been listened to early last year – this is what a flourishing partnership would have easily prevented from happening.
To close my response, let me make clear that we stick with our call to recall Governor Ric Todd and the Attorney General, and that we are relieved that the current CFO is leaving and will hopefully be replace by an individual that has an ear for our concerns and a heart for our country. The country is spiraling out of control with Ric Todd at the helm. Not only has he alienated every political and religious denomination in this country, he has caused much sorrow and distress for my long suffering people. We are a forgiving people but in his case, too many lines have been crossed, and too much disrespect has been displayed towards our country and culture. On top of that, we are faced with a deteriorating health situation and a rise in crime which has lead to the historic Travel Advisory by the US embassy issued yesterday. We are thriving to accomplish a flourishing relationship with the UK, however this will only be possible with a new set of representatives and a fresh new beginning.
Let me conclude by reiterating my believe that not all is lost, and that the TCI and the UK can move forward as a partnership between equals, and that we can learn from each other rather than pull each other down. There is a lot that is still to be achieved to improve our relationship, and we will not turn down any honest attempt to assist us and pave the road to the future. I hope this open discourse will set the foundation for a process that ultimately leads to the achievement of our goals.
Rayer

20130315-090348.jpg

20130315-090408.jpg

Categories
News

ATTORNEY GENERAL LOSES EMERALD CAY STAMP DUTY RECOVERY CASE AT PRIVY COUNCIL

ATTORNEY GENERAL LOSES EMERALD CAY STAMP DUTY RECOVERY CASE AT PRIVY COUNCIL
By Hayden Boyce – Publisher & Editor-in-Chief,on 15th of March 2013

Prominent Turks and Caicos Islands Queen’s Counsel Ariel Misick secured a stunning victory at the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) on Wednesday March 14th, 2013, when British law Lords dismissed an appeal that was brought by Attorney General Huw Shepheard, the Civil Recovery Unit and the Registrar of Lands over the recovery of unpaid stamp duty and penalties in relation to sale of the private island of Emerald Cay.

In the case which was heard before Lord Hope, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Sir John Chadwick who delivered the judgment, the Privy Council found that the Registrar of Lands operated outside of the law in dealing with the stamp duty issue surrounding Emerald Cay, once owned by American billionaire Tim Blixseth and which is located off Silly Creek and Chalk Sound, on the island of Providenciales.

Queen’s Counsel Misick, who was instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, was the lawyer for Ross Richardson, the Trustee in Bankruptcy of Yellowstone Club World, a company owned by Blixseth and which had interests in Emerald Cay. Lawyers for the Interim Government were Queen’s Counsel David Phillip and Patrick Patterson, instructed by Edward, Wildman and Palmer of the Civil Recovery Unit.

On March 12, 2011 the Attorney General, on behalf of the then Interim Government, commenced proceedings against (amongst others) Emerald Cay Ltd for recovery of unpaid stamp duty and penalties. The Government obtained judgment in those proceedings on June 21, 2011, then the case went before Mr. Justice Martin on June 7th 2011.

By an order made on June 9th, 2011 Judge Martin ordered that the Registrar of Lands remove the restriction and register the charge. The Emerald Cay owners appealed that order and it went before the Court of Appeal comprising Justices Edward Zacca, Elliott Mottley and Richard Ground who dismissed the appeal on January 26 2012 and affirmed the order of the Supreme Court.

The issue raised by the appeal before the Privy Council was whether the Registrar was wrong to register a restriction, under section 132 of the Registered Land Ordinance, against property in respect of which the Government claimed an interest in respect of unpaid stamp duty.

According to the 19-page judgment, it was submitted on behalf of the Attorney General, that it was immaterial that the Government may have been wrong to assert, in its application for the entry of a restriction, that it had an interest in the land comprised in title 60400/219.

The judgment stated: “The relevant questions were (1) the extent of the Registrar’s power to register a restriction and (2) whether, on the facts known to her, it was lawful for her to have exercised that power. In relation to the first of those questions the appellants rely exclusively on section 132(1) of the Registered Land Ordinance: it is not said that this is a case in which section 132(3) has any application. It is accepted that the power conferred by section 132(1) is discretionary: “…the Registrar may… make an order … prohibiting or restricting dealings with any particular land …” (emphasis added). But it is pointed out that the discretionary power may be exercised “for any … sufficient cause”; and that it may be exercised by the Registrar of her own motion: “… without the application of any person interested in the land …”. Those propositions are not in dispute. But, on the facts as presented (and, in particular, in the absence of any evidence from the Registrar herself), it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that, in this case, the Registrar did not exercise the power conferred by section 132(1) of her own motion: she exercised that power on the basis of the application that was made on behalf of the Government.”

The judges added: “ In exercising the power on the basis of the application that was made on behalf of the Government – and in making Entry No 5 on the register – the Registrar must be taken to have accepted that the Government was entitled, by virtue of the interest in the land which it claimed, to prohibit any dealing with the land comprised in title 60400/219. The Board (judges of the Privy Council) can see no escape from the conclusion that the Registrar did not, in fact, ask herself whether there was any sufficient cause – other than the claim made on behalf of the Government – which should lead her to enter a restriction.

“In reaching that conclusion the Board rejects the submission, made on behalf of the appellants, that the restriction entered comprises two distinct limbs: (A) a statement that “The Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands claims an interest under the Stamp Duty Ordinance in whole of the above-mentioned parcel as more fully set forth in the Application to Enter a Restriction dated 19 May 2010” and (B) an order, made under section 132(1) of the Ordinance, by which the Registrar “prohibits any dealing with the parcel until the full amount of stamp Duty on the sale of the parcel from Worldwide Commercial properties Ltd to Emerald Cay Ltd on 14 August 2006 has been duly paid”.

“It is plain that the subject of the verb “prohibits” is “The Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands”: the restriction cannot be read in the sense that it is the Registrar who is the subject of that verb. And, given that the text of the restriction follows, without material variation, the text of the restriction applied for in the Government’s application dated 4 June 2010, that is unsurprising.”

The judgment continued: “ If the Registrar did not, in fact, ask herself whether there was sufficient cause – other than the claim made on behalf of the Government – which should lead her to enter a restriction, then her decision to do so was flawed in law. For the reasons that Mr. Justice Martin and the Court of Appeal have given, there was no basis for the Government’s claim that it was entitled to an interest in the land comprised in title 60400/219; and no basis upon which the Government was entitled to prohibit dealings with that land until the full amount of the stamp duty payable on the transfer from Worldwide Commercial Properties Ltd to Emerald Cay Ltd had been made.

“It was submitted on behalf of the Attorney General that the fact that the Registrar’s decision to enter a restriction was reached on a flawed basis is not fatal to the validity of the restriction. It is said that, on the material which was before her, the Registrar could properly have reached a decision to enter a restriction without relying on the Government’s claim to an interest in the land: “. . . what matters is whether the material in the Registrar’s possession justified the exercise of the power. If it did, the power will have been exercised lawfully”.

Emerald Cay was acquired on August 14 2006 by Emerald Cay Ltd a company incorporated in the Turks and Caicos Islands of which Mr. Timothy Blixseth was the ultimate beneficial owner.

The purchase price paid by Emerald Cay Ltd was US $28million, but that the acquisition was structured through a series of agreements in such a way that the consideration stated in the transfer to Emerald Cay Ltd – and on which stamp duty was paid – was US $10million.

Yellowstone Club World LLC, another company of which Mr. Blixseth was the ultimate beneficial owner, was party to one of those agreements. On August 17 2006 Emerald Cay Ltd was registered as the proprietor of the property.

On February 18 2009 Mr. Richardson was appointed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Montana to be the Trustee of the Estate of Yellowstone Club World LLC.

On March 5th 2009, as Trustee, he lodged a caution with the Registrar of Lands, pursuant to section 127 of the Registered Land Ordinance, forbidding the registration of dispositions and the making of entries in respect of the property (Emerald Cay) registered under title number 60400/219 without his consent.

The caution was registered by the Registrar on March 25th 2009.
On November 24 2009 the Trustee commenced proceedings against Mr. Blixseth in the United States. The claims made in those proceedings included claims in respect of the Emerald Cay property. The Trustee and Mr. Blixseth reached a settlement in respect of those claims; and, on 10 June 2010 the United States Bankruptcy Court approved the terms of that settlement.

On 13 August2010 Emerald Cay Ltd executed a collateral charge over the property for the purpose of securing payment of US $9.6million under the settlement. On 16September 2010 the Trustee applied to the Registrar for withdrawal of the caution and registration of the charge.

In the meantime, on 4 June 2010, the Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands, having become aware of the underpayment of stamp duty due on the transfer of the Emerald Cay property to Emerald Cay Ltd in August 2006, applied to the Registrar for a restriction to be entered, pursuant to section 132 of the Registered Land Ordinance, prohibiting dealings with the property until the full amount of the stamp duty had been paid.

That application was made without notice to the Trustee. The Registrar ordered the restriction sought; and it was entered on the same day (4 June 2010).

On 12 October 2010 the Land Registry informed the Trustee that, pursuant to his application of 16 September 2010, his caution had been withdrawn; but that, by reason of the restriction which had been entered on 4 June 2010, the charge could not be registered.

On 12 March 2011 the Attorney General, on behalf of the Government, commenced proceedings against (amongst others) Emerald Cay Ltd for recovery of unpaid stamp duty and penalties. The Government obtained judgment in those proceedings on 21 June 2011.
On 27 April 2011 the Trustee commenced proceedings before the Privy Council seeking removal of the restriction and registration of the charge.

20130315-084846.jpg

Categories
News

Statement by Premier Dr. Rufus Ewing about Attorney General’s Challenges in Turks and Caicos Islands

STATEMENT BY PREMIER HON. DR RUFUS EWING ON ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CHALLENGES TO SIX SEATS IN THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
The Attorney General of the Turks and Caicos Islands is duly authorized to and has issued proceedings in the Supreme Court of the Turks and Caicos Islands under section 53(2) of the Constitution, challenging the veracity of the declarations of five elected members of the House of Assembly, namely Hon. Derek Taylor, Hon. Josephine Connelly, Hon. George Lightbourne, Hon. Delroy Williams and Hon. Edwin Astwood for failing to declare their interests in freehold property with a subsisting Crown charge.
If these charges are proven, then according to the statement issued by the Acting Attorney General, these elected persons will be disqualified and By-elections will have to be held for each of the vacated seats.
The Acting Attorney General has similarly filed against Ms. Amanda Missick for failing on or before nomination day, to declare her interest in freehold property with a Crown charge, as required by section 49(1)(f) of the constitution.
Proceedings have also been issued against Mr. Oral Selver by a registered voter in the Cheshire Hall/Richmond Hill Constituency, for his failure on or before nomination day, to declare his interest in a Lease hold property, as required by section 49(1)(f) of the constitution.

If either of Ms. Amanda Missick or Mr. Oral Selver is found in violation of section 49(1)(f )of the Constitution, then that person would be disqualified from being nominated and the remaining candidate would run unopposed. If both Ms. Misick and Mr. Selver are found to be in violation then both would be disqualified, and a new By-election date would have to be set. If neither is disqualified, then the By-election would proceed as planned on March 22.
The case against Ms. Missick, along with that against Mr. Selver and all other members of the House of Assembly will be heard this week.
It is unfortunate that we have found ourselves at this point when our country, political parties and candidates can ill afford the exorbitant cost associated with elections, campaigning, and court hearings. We can call these teething pains of a new Constitution and electoral system or perhaps it is the manifestation of poorly drafted laws, which in many instances are in conflict with each other. There was also an obvious lack of oversight on the part of the Integrity Commission, Elections Office and Political Parties, which might have otherwise have prevented this situation from arising.
At this time, I am calling on the Attorney General Chambers, Integrity Commission, Elections Office, Political parties and Judiciary to work diligently and all together to expeditiously resolve these issues, and to once and for all put mechanisms in place to prevent them from happening in the future. It is past time for us as a country to move beyond politics and focus instead on the business of the restoration of democracy, political stability, economic recovery and nation building.

20130311-184432.jpg

Categories
News

The Electoral and Constitutional Fiasco in Turks and Caicos Islands

Published in TCI POST on 09th March 2013.

The Attorney General vs Ms. Amanda Missick
The Acting Attorney General of the Turks and Caicos Islands has filed in the supreme court against Ms. Amanda Missick stating the following:
“Following receipt of copies of the section 49(1)(f) Notices and related correspondence supplied to me by the TCI Integrity Commission and having caused background research to be undertaken in the Lands Division of the Chambers, I have come to the conclusion that I should act under section 50(3) of the Constitution, and today a challenge to the veracity of the declaration made by Ms. Amanda Missick, PNP candidate for the upcoming by-election in the Cheshire Hall and Richmond Hill Electoral District on 22 March 2013 has been filed before the Supreme Court.
FACT: It is a fact that Ms. Amanda Missick has a property 60804/138 with a TCIG belonger discount charge (see exhibit A)
According to the Integrity Commission and the Attorney General such a charge is considered to be a contract with Government and the Candidate shall to give NOTICE to the Integrity Commission on or before Nomination Day, in accordance with Section 49 (1)f of the TCI Constitution.
Disputable: It is disputable whether someone who has a Crown freehold property with a subsistent belonger discount charge (having had the property for less than 10 years after obtaining freehold title), is considered as having a contract with Government.
FACT: If a potential Candidate does not comply with Section 49 (1)f of the TCI Constitution 2011 he /she shall not be qualified to be an elected member of the House of Assembly. It states: 49.—(1) No person shall be qualified to be an elected member of the House of Assembly who, on the date of his or her nomination for election: (f) is a party to, or a partner in a firm or a director or manager of a company which is a party to, any contract with the Government and has not, by that date, disclosed in a notice to the Integrity Commission the nature of such contract and his or her interest, or the interest of such firm or company, in it;
FACT: The Constitution does not give a defined time period prior to Nomination Day during which such notice of contract with Government should be made. It simply states that such contracts should be “by that date (NOMINATION DAY), disclosed in a notice to the Integrity Commission the nature of such contract and his or her interest, or the interest of such firm or company, in it”
FACT: There is no prescribed form for giving such notice of contract with Government to the Integrity Commission. It simply says “disclosure in notice to the Integrity Commission”. This fact is also supported by the varied instruments of submission used by other elected members of the House of Assembly during the 2012 nomination process, who have made declarations under section 49 (1)f. Some used emailed submission, some used written hand delivered letters and some could have even called in.

Amanda-Lease Cancellation
THEREFORE:
FACT: Ms Amanda Missick made a Declaration to the Integrity Commission in on Oct 24, 2012 and this was publicized by the Integrity Commission in a Contracts Notice Register (see exhibit B). This declaration should have satisfied the condition under Section 49 (1)f of the Constitution, for nomination in the By-election, since such the notice is not time bound prior to nomination day and there is no legal requirement to make another declaration to the Integrity Commission unless there is additional information to be declare or remove, which is not the case with Ms. Missick.
Conclusion: Ms. Amanda Missick should not be disqualified. She did declare her interest to the Integrity Commission on time as she did so on October 24, 2012 and again on February 15, 2013, on a form used for members of the House of Assembly to declare their registrable Interest (including contracts with Government) which is a public document.
Also if the Judge rules that Crown freehold land with subsistent belonger discount charge is NOT contract with Government, then Ms. Missick would have had nothing to declare and should not be disqualified.
Furthermore:
If it is determined by the Courts that Crown Freehold title with subsistent belonger discount charge is a contract with Government, this should not affect Ms Missick as she made declaration of such contract on October 24, 2012 and again on February 15, 2013.
I rest my case and the learned Judge should see it likewise.
So I am encouraging all PNPs to Stay the Course!
Cheshire Hall Voter (Plaintiff) Vs Oral Selver

Oral Leasehold
A Cheshire Hall Voter filed in the Courts on March 8, 2013 against Isaac Oral Selver on the grounds that he failed to comply with the provisions of Section 49(1)f of the TCI Constitution.
It has been discovered that Mr. Oral Selver is the Leasee of Crown land 50206/1/1 – North Caicos (2.5 acres) which was issued on 12.11.2004 for a period of 3 years. Mr. Selver failed to pay his lease and in April 2011, he wrote to the PS of the Lands Department to have his lease extended. His letter was acknowledged in April 2011, and he was given conditions upon which the lease would be extended. The conditions included obtaining a building permit which he had, as stated in his reply letter and payment of arrears on the lease. Mr. Selver accepted the Offer and paid the arrears on the Property on December 24, 2012 (shortly after 2012 general elections).
Oral Lease Payment
The Plaintiff is of the view that Mr. Selver had a contract with Government on nomination day 2012 (October 25, 2012) and did not declare this interest at that time as required by Section 49(1)f of the constitution.
The Plaintiff is also of the view that Mr. Oral Selver still has a contract with Government i.e. the lease on property 50206/1/1 as he has accepted the conditional offer to extend the lease and is actively engaged with the Lands Department to retain the lease, which still remains in his name on the Lands register (see exhibit). Also of note is that the application procedure by the Lands Department for the termination of the lease has not been done. This procedure was use in the termination of a Conditional Purchase Lease (CPL) owned by Ms Amanda Missick, on property 60400/277 –Chalk Sound. Ms. Missick obtained the CPL around the same time as Mr Selver in 2004 and was denied extension without hesitation, that culminated in the cancellation of her lease on March 22, 2010.
Therefore:
We conclude that Mr Oral Selver failed to declare his contract with Government by nomination days October 25, 2012 and March 1, 2013 and should be disqualified under Section 49 (1)f.
The Attorney General
Vs
George Lightbourne
Hugh Derek Taylor
Josephine Connelly
Edwin Astwood
Vaden Delroy Williams
The Acting Attorney General is challenging the defendants listed, under section 53(2) of the constitution “An application to the Supreme Court for the determination of any question under subsection (1) may be made by the Attorney General or by any person who is a registered elector; and an application for the determination of any question under subsection (1)(b) may also be made by any member of the House of Assembly” It has been determined that the defendants have not filed all of their contracts (Crown freehold property with subsistent belonger discount charge) with Government and should be disqualified.
Contracts Notice Register – General Elections_001 Copy
The question for the Judge to rule on in this case is whether Crown freehold land with subsistent belonger discount charge is a contract with Government. If the Judge rule that it is then all of the elected members listed above will be disqualified and cease being members of the House of Assembly.
The next question to be determined by (Judge or AG?) is how should the vacated 5 seats in the House of Assembly be filled?
I am of the view that:
A constituency in the 2012 election, which had more than 2 candidates contesting but returning only 1 member to the House of Assembly (eg Wheeland), should go to a By-election if the elected member is disqualified.
A constituency in the 2012 election, which had only 2 candidates contesting and returning only 1 member to the House of Assembly (eg Grand Turk North or Grand Turk South), that the seat should be turned over to the other candidate upon disqualification of the elected candidate. If the non-elected Candidate is unavailable then the seat should go to a By-election.
A constituency in the 2012 election, which had more than 2 candidates contesting but returning more than 1 member to the House of Assembly (eg All-Islands Constituency), that the vacated seats due to disqualifications should be filled using the non-elected candidates based on the next highest number of votes and availability.
The British has indeed made a mockery of our democracy and the judicial system has fallen victim to the poorly drafted and ill-conceived laws enacted by the British, including of 2011 Constitution which is top of the list.
This is indeed a time for the PNP and PDM to come together and form a coalition Government and to fast track this country towards independence. I firmly believe that it is our people as opposed to our leaders and elected officials that are against unity and coalition in preference of the euphoria of partisan politics. It is however, our leaders who must make that bold decisions and lead the people in the direction of a united front in the best interest of the Turks and Caicos Islands.

20130309-124642.jpg

20130309-124544.jpg

Categories
Turksjournal Picks

ANARCHY

20130309-120017.jpg

Categories
News

Who is behind the New Political Chaos in Turks and Caicos Islands?

MEDIA STATEMENT BY ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL RHONDALEE BRAITHWAITE-KNOWLES ON CHALLENGES AGAINST MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

“Separate and apart from the confidential declaration required to made to the Integrity Commission under the Integrity Commission Ordinance by a person in public life, the Constitution requires a candidate for election, on nomination day to make a declaration that he or she is qualified for election and that no disqualification mentioned in section 49(1) of the Constitution applies to him or her. In addition, section 49(1)(f) of the Constitution requires such a candidate to notify the Integrity Commission, prior to nomination day, of the existence of any contract between that candidate and the Government. Failure to so notify the Integrity Commission would result in a candidate being disqualified to stand in an election.

“Following receipt of copies of the section 49(1)(f) Notices and related correspondence supplied to me by the TCI Integrity Commission and having caused background research to be undertaken in the Lands Division of the Chambers, I have come to the conclusion that I should act under section 50(3) of the Constitution, and today a challenge to the veracity of the declaration made by Ms. Amanda Missick, PNP candidate for the upcoming by-election in the Cheshire Hall and Richmond Hill Electoral District on 22 March 2013 has been filed before the Supreme Court.

“On the basis of the background research undertaken I have also come to the conclusion that the election of certain sitting members of the House of Assembly should be challenged under section 53(2) of the Constitution. In that regard, challenges have also been filed today before the Supreme Court challenging the elections of Mr George Lightbourne elected member in the House of Assembly for the Grand Turk North Electoral District; Mr. Edwin Astwood elected member in the House of Assembly for the Grand Turk, South Electoral District; Mr. Derek Taylor member in the House of Assembly for the All Islands Electoral District; Mrs. Josephine Connolly elected member in the House of Assembly for the All Islands Electoral District and Delroy Williams elected member in the House of Assembly for the Wheeland Electoral District.

“The basis of each of these challenges is that when each of the individuals made their section 50(1) Nomination Day declaration to the Supervisor of Elections for the 9th November 2012 General Election and the upcoming 22nd March 2013 by-election, a disqualification mentioned in section 49(1)(f) applied to each them in that each of them has a contract with the Government which, by that date, they had not given notice of to the Integrity Commission, as required by section 49(1)(f) of the Constitution. The type of contract in each case is a charge to secure the payment to the Crown of a “Belonger Discount” (applicable under the Crown Land Policy) in the event of a sale in prescribed circumstances.

“I have asked the Court to determine whether in each case, the individual is or is not qualified to be an elected member of the House considering the failure to give notice of the respective charges.

“The Constitution provides for a process for challenge in each of these cases in the public interest. If the Court determines that each member is disqualified then,

a) In the case of Ms. Missick, she will not be able to stand for election on 22nd March and the sole remaining candidate will be declared elected;

b) In the case of the members of the House of Assembly, their seats will be vacated and a by-election will have to be called. A decision on their disqualification would not prevent them from standing in a subsequent by-election called as a result.

20130309-112009.jpg

20130309-112030.jpg

20130309-112050.jpg

https://www.windycityhabitat.org/