EMOTIONS, ETHICS AND THE ANTHONY SMITH SAGA
By Charlesworth C. M. Tabor, B.A., M.Sc. LL.B., L.E.C.
Following the general elections on the 18th January, 2023 Mr. Anthony Smith was elected representative of the All Saints West constituency on a United Progressive Party (UPP) ticket.
On the 15th July, 2024 Member of Parliament Anthony Smith resigned from the UPP and became an independent member of Parliament pursuant to section 41 (1) (e) of the Constitution.
For clarity, section 41 (1) (e) states that “if, having been elected to the House by virtue of being a member of a political party, he resigns his party whip and withdraws his allegiance from the party: Provided that he shall not be required to vacate his seat so long as he remains an independent member of the House”.
The resignation of Anthony Smith from the UPP was a politically seismic phenomenon that have sent shock waves throughout the body politic of Antigua and Barbuda. However, the more dramatic and significant consequence of this saga was the appointment of Anthony Smith as a Minister of Government by Prime Minister Gaston Brown.
Moreover, the drama and significane do not reside in the appointment but rather the fact that his resignation from the UPP was a lifeline for a government that was in ICU on life support because of its one seat majority and the uncertainty of the continued membership of Sir Robin Yearwood in Parliament due to failing health.
Now, what of the appointment of Anthony Smith, an independent member of Parliament, as a Minster of government? And this is the question that this article will address because it has generated much debate in the media from the man on the street, political pundits, learned Kings Counsels and Antigua and Barudans for Constitutional Reform and Education (ABCRE).
With respect to the appointment of Anthony Smith as a Minister, this to my mind is clearly permissible under the Constituion. Section 69 (4) of the Constittion state that “The Ministers other than the Prime Minister shall be such persons as the Governor-General, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, shall appoint from among the members of the House and of the Senate”.
Clearly section 69 (4) does not speak to the position of an independent member of the House.
If the framers of the Constitution intended that an independent member of the House should be excluded from consideration for the appointment of a Minister it should have so stated. In fact, it could have been stated in section 69 that despite the proviso in section 41 (1) (e) an idependent member of the House is ineligible to be appointed as a Minister. No such ineligibility provision exists and sections 41 (1) (e) and 69 must be taken together as the intention of the framers of the Constituion.
In my view what “independent” means in section 41 (1) (e) is simply that a member who resigns his party whip becomes independent and he is no longer a card carrying member of his political party.
The political pundits and learned KCs who argue that an independent member who subsequently becomes a Minister of government cannot be independent is simply adopting a wide dictionary meaning of the word independent such as “free from outside control; not subject to another’s authority (Oxford Dictionary). I am suggesting that the application of this wide meaning is incorrect and only the narrow meaning of simply renouncing allegiance to your erstwhile political party is correct.
Let me state further that there is no difference in the indpenedent status of a member of the House who is elected to Parliament as an independent candidate in an election and a member who is elected on a party ticket and subsequently resigns fron his party.
In either case, the member could be given a Ministerial portfolio by the Prime Minister and we see that in St. Lucia where Stephenson King and Richard Frederick, who ran as independent candidates, were made Ministers. Are Srepehenson King and Richard Frederick no longer independent? Would the situation with Anthony Smith who resigned from his party and became an independent and ssubsequently a Minister be any different? I say there is no difference.
As I have indicated before, most of the confusion in looking at this matter by the man in the street, political pundits and learned KCs arises from the wide meaning they have given to the word independent. The KCs have even invoke the Oath of Secrecy taken by a Minister of government to challenge the notion of independence.
As a Minister of government and a member of Cabinet the principle of Collective Responsibilty comes into play. However, because the Oath says that a Minister cannot (or should not) disclose the proceedings of Cabinet except with the authority of Cabinet does not impugn the notion of independent. Again, independent simply means that you are not under a Party Whip.
Yes, one can understand the high emotions surrounding the Anthony Smith saga and yes one can understand the feelings of betrayal since normal ethical behavior would require that Anthony Smith discuss the situation with his constituents prior to his resignation. However, as Vladimir Lenin said “There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel”.
Many have said that this matter should be challenged in court. I do not disagree since this is somewhat of a novel situation and the court should be called upon to determine the meaning of “independent” and whether an independent member of the House pursuant to section 41 (1) (e) of the Constitution can subsequently be made a Minister of government.
Finally, I end by saying that this Anthony Smith saga and the questions that have arisen as a consequence of it only go to underscore the dire and fundamental need for constitutional reform in our country. Sadly, it would appear that the matter of constitutional reform is of little significane to all the political parties.
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
No wonder the UPP has hardly challenged the government in court for perceived infringement of the laws and constitution with lawyers like this in their ranks.
All I would say, two lawyers can look at the same matter and come to a different conclusion.
That is why we have a court and this matter should be tested there.
Cool Ruler u obviously did not read the whole article. The man said that he did not disagree with the matter being challenge in court. How I see it though he seems to be saying in his view the challenge might be unsuccessful.
UPP needs to focus on the recruiting of a new member for ASW instead of fighting a losing battle. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents the government from giving a portfolio to an independent parliamentarian; and there’s nothing to prevent that parliamentarian from accepting the portfolio. No court is going to override what’s in — or insert what’s not in the constitution.
He is Elected on the UPP slate of candidates he resigned and declared himself an independent that how it works representative of the people are you obligated to inform the constituents I give you a job
Although your interpretation of the law is plausible, I’m not legally trained to defy your argument. I am of the opinion that people have to make decisions that best cater to their mental state of mind and sobriety.
How it was execution is up for discussion, of course. The ABLP’s leader used his creativity by exploiting the notion of being the administration of inclusion, thus inadvertently weakening the survival of the opposition.
Under the current circumstance, he remains the representative of All Saints West constituency in his independent capacity. He is still able to represent them in Parliament.
Until the UPP presents a new caretaker, he is still their representative.
As far as I’m aware, there is no by-election being considered at this time. And certainly, the Honourable member doesn’t have to a agree to any offer made by the opposition as he is no longer a member, is not obligated to respond to any decisions they would choose to make.
I respect the fact that many are still in shock, surprised and even angry at this juncture, but with time, cooler heads will prevail.
He won his seat because many ABLP supporters casted their votes for him in defiance of the former representative.
He can win the hearts and minds of the majority of voters in that constituency as long as he is able to make his case convincingly to them.
After all, he is a businessman. He understands management. It will all be quited in due course.
Thank you for your legal interpretation, Mr. Tabor
The article offers clarity as to the potential strategy behind Smith move. This maneuvering impaired the UPP while offering the well needed life line to Gaston administration .
It was quite ok when he was taking UPP rejects but now he took the best. We out here playing potential marble and Gaston playing chess, we need to keep up.
I would expect nothing else from the likes of @ Dave Ray.
Tabor has posited his interpretation of the law. There are other layers an KC’s who differ.
Can we forget the 1000 Watt bulb rubbishing everyone’s interpretation except his,only like a dog, to return to his vomit.
The betrayed constituents of ASW did no vote for an independent or ALP candidate. To the courts. Let them decide there. Tabor is entitled to his opinion and I suspect there are as many opinions as there layers and people
REASONED COMMENTARY – ACRONYM- ‘RASS’ – MEMBER OF THE HOUSE – NOT PARTY
The ‘…Acronym-RASS’ may cause minds to run erratically wild.
No pun or offence is intended. Whatever may be the thinking, it shall be very early said that it stands ‘ONLY’ for the ‘…Real Anthony Smith Saga (RASS).’
It is highly commendable of the ‘Author’ for providing ‘…Interpretative Legal Insights,’ on the referenced subject from these perspectives: (i) ‘…Personal: (ii) …Organizational: and (iii) …National developments.’
CONSTERNATION AND JUBILATION
Undoubtedly, the ‘…RASS,’ has caused: (a) ‘…Consternation, trepidation and displeasure in some quarters: and (b) …Celebratory Jubilation and suspicion in others.’
PERSPECTIVES
From their ‘…Personal Perspectives,’ the electorate, and generally, people saw, inter alia: (a) ‘…Deliberate deception, marked by a behavior, suggestive of trickery; (b) …Some saw a displayed mentality akin to ‘…Judas Iscariot.’
OPPORTUNISTIC EXPEDIENCY
Looked at from ‘…Opportunistic Expediency,’ in modern day language use, though not necessarily, people saw it speaking to traits capable of being described as ‘ …Greed and Bribery.’
NECESSITY AND EXPEDIENCY
Still, many saw: (c) …Organizational treachery,’ while others saw: (d) …Exploitative opportunity, driven by ‘…Necessity and Expediency.’ Commendably, it was said to have been executed by the resourceful and tactical skills of: (i) ‘…E.P. Chet Greene: (ii) Sir Molwyn Joseph KGCN: and (ii) …Prime Minister Gaston Browne.’
NO LAID TRAP
There may have been ‘…No Laid Trap’ as that designed and intended to ‘…Trap Foxes.’
Clearly, the ‘RASS’ was neither about ‘…Trap-making, nor Trap-laying.’
DISCUSSED AND INTENDED
Whether by skullduggery or clandestinely achieved, no matter how the ‘RASS’ appeared, it may have ended the way it was discussed and intended.’
GAINED – EARNED -OBTAINED…?
Testament of this has been, a ‘…Parliamentary Member’ was ‘…Gained’ and a ‘…Ministerial Port folio’ was ‘…Earned…?,’ Ah ah!
GRATUITOUSLY ENTRUSTED
The ‘Author,’ never so intimated. Therefore, void of: (a) ‘…Transparency: (b) …Organizational openness and discussions: and (c) …Electoral Merit,’ it has the appearance of being ‘…Gratuitously Entrusted.’
NOW
SECTIONS: 41 (1) (e) AND 69 (4): COMMONALITY OF UNDERSTANDING
The ‘Author’ provides ‘…Commonality of understanding.’
The former speaks to ‘…Retention and Vacation of Seat.’ Parliament had long anticipated that ‘Disaffected and Disgruntled Members: (a) ‘…Organizationally: and (b) …Parliamentary,’ may wish to sever ties with a ‘…Political Party.’
RESIGNATION AND PARTY WHIP
Consequently, it provides for ‘…RESIGNATION’ from the ‘…Party and its …Whip’ (Discipline). Conditionally, he/she shall ‘…REMAIN INDEPENDENT,’ if the ‘SEAT’ earned from: (i) ‘…The electorate: and (ii) …Electoral Party Slate.’
PARTY/PARLIAMENTARY HOP-SCOTCH
Should a member, affiliated with a ‘…Political Party,’ he/she shall ‘…VACATE’ the ‘…Legislative Seat.’ Such Member was neither given a ‘…MANDATE’ to play: (a) ‘Party: nor (b) …Parliamentary Hop-scotch.’
APPOINTMENT AS MINISTERS OF THE EXECUTIVE
Framers of the ‘…Constitution’ anticipated that that in a ‘…ONE SEAT MAJORITY GOVERNMENT,’ a ‘…Member of the Executive’ might be seriously indisposed.’
MISSED AT CABINET
Such ‘Member’ might not be ‘…Missed at Cabinet.’ Thus some ‘…Executive Decisions’ may be taken without his/her’ participation.
ONE SEAT MAJORITY – EQUALITY OF VOTES
However, within the ‘…Legislature,’ the absence of the ‘…One Member Majority,’ and ‘…EQUALITY OF VOTES’ on both sides, could hear Sir Gerald’s saying: ‘…Nobody has it.’
MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
Whether or not it was so anticipated, the latter ‘…Section-69 (4)’ provides for the ‘…Prime
Minister’ to ‘ADVISE’ the ‘…Governor General (privately) that : (a) ‘…Sir Robin’ cannot make it to Parliament: and (b) …He has considered a ‘…Ministerial Appointment’ for ‘…ANTHONY SMITH,’ a ‘.. Sitting Member of the House of Representatives.’
TRIAL AND FAILURE
Nothing beats a ‘…Trial,’ but ‘…Failure.’ There were people that believed that the ‘…RASS- REAL ANTHONY SMITH SAGA,’ shall be quietly left alone.
DIG NO BLUES.
Wait UPP you can’t find an “Aron” like in the case of Shugy to say they have been disenfranchised by Smith’s taking away their vote? There are about 2000 and you can’t find one? Win, lose or draw, this matter needs to be contested is the courts
Comments are closed.