By Sir Gerald Watt KCN KC. Speaker.
The Leadership of the United Progressive Party (UPP), its supporters and some other concerned citizens have publicly called for a public inquiry into the setting up of the Nigerian Airline Antigua Airways, its transporting of hundreds of Cameroonians fleeing their country and for a variety of reasons, are stuck in Antigua and Barbuda, and the unfortunate death of three of these persons who drowned while unlawfully attempting to enter St. Thomas, USVI, by boat.
The Government of Antigua and Barbuda (GOAB) has declined to hold any such Inquiry and has stated its reasons for not doing so.
Whatever one’s views of the matter, the UPP continues to treat the matter as a “cause celebre” and has called and continues to call on the Governor General (GG), Sir Rodney Williams to issue a Commission under the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act (COIAct).
The GG has declined to do so on the grounds that, he cannot independently call a Commission of Inquiry, and can only do so “on the advice of the Cabinet”. The UPP does not accept this as being a legal position, continues to agitate for an Inquiry, and has even resorted to picketing the office of the GG, at Government House.
The matter has now become a political football, and the body politic is divided on the issue.
It is under these circumstances that Justin Simon KC published a letter in the media in which he declared that the GG did indeed have the authority to issue a Commission of Inquiry (COI) under the provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act (COIAct) Cap 91 of the revised laws of Antigua and Barbuda.
He supported his legal position by quoting from the aforesaid Act and underlining for emphasis those words which he considered supported his legal view, a view shared by E. Ann Henry KC.
My reason for this article is that I, Dr. David Dorsett and Jarid Hewlett Esq. of the firm WATT, DORSETT, HEWLETT, consider the legal opinion to be seriously flawed and the opinion of both Kings Counsels to be wrong in law.
It is respectfully submitted that both Kings Counsels have fallen into error, in that they have based their opinion solely on the words of the statute, without analysing and interpreting the Act in a constitutional environment, and failed to apply constitutional punches and conventions, in particular, relevant sections of the Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda (the Constitution).
The COIAct cannot be read and interpreted in isolation.
Due regard must be had to the genesis of the Legislation which was passed in the year 1880, when the decisions such as this were made by the Governor who was supported by the British Monarchy, not so post 1981, when Antigua and Barbuda attained its independence and governed under the provisions of the Antigua and Barbuda Constitution which provided for government by an Executive or Cabinet, the other two arms of Government being the Legislature and the Judiciary.
In analysing interpreting the COIAct, one must also look at and take into consideration sections 80(1), (2), (3), (16) and (19) of the Constitution of which the marginal note reads: “the exercise of the Governor General’s functions”.
The section reads as follows:
“In the exercise of his functions, the Governor General SHALL act in accordance with the ADVICE OF THE CABINET or a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet” (emphasis supplied).
The meaning of this section and its subsections are crystal clear and mandatory; no discretion lies in the GG.
Further, section 80 (2) of the Constitution sets out precisely certain sections which confer upon the GG those functions in respect of which he acts in his own discretion.
These are sections 63(6), 67(6), 73(1), 87(8) and 99(5), all of which give to the GG authority “to remove the holders of certain offices in certain circumstances”. These include:
- A member of the Constituencies Boundaries Commission
- The Supervisor of Elections
- Revoking the appointment of the Prime Minister in certain circumstances,
- The Director of Public Prosecutions
- A member of the Public Service Commission
In this regard, it must be noted that appointing Commissions of Inquiry is not a function permitted under section 80(2) of the Constitution and even those functions require the GG to refer the matter to a Tribunal, appointed by him, before he can exercise his power of removal.
In passing, readers will recall that Dame Louise Lake Tack utilised such powers to have me removed from my position as Chairman of the Antigua and Barbuda Electoral Commission (ABEC), the Tribunal consisting of three regional Justices of Appeal.
The Tribunal refused to recommend refusal and the GG was unable to do so. Simon KC was the Attorney General who would have advised the then GG.
In addition to all of the above, I invite the readers to consider the reality of the situation and to ask themselves the following questions:
- If section 2 of the COIAct clothes the GG with the authority to issue a Commission of Inquiry on his volition, how will the Commission be funded?
- More particularly, how will the GG on his own, ensure compliance with sections 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the COIAct?
- If Simon’s interpretation of the Act is correct, why has every GG in respect of every COI done so on the advice of the Cabinet?
- Surely if the intention was to empower Governor Generals to independently set up Commissions of Inquiry, an amendment to the Act would have long since been passed.
In the face of the continuing agitation by the Opposition UPP, the GG sought and obtained three written legal opinions from Kings Counsels of known eminence. All three have concluded and addressed that the GG “must act on the advice of the Cabinet”.
In contrast, the Simon opinion has publicly gained support from Leon Chaku Symister Esq. and Dwyer Astaphan Esq. of the Antigua and St. Kitts bar respectively.
While not bashing to be unkind, none of these attorneys can be said to be versed in Constitutional law, known to practice in the highest courts, or are concerned to have attained any sort of eminence in the legal profession.
In these circumstances, both Kings Counsels must admit their error and retract their opinion. They owe the Governor General and the country no less.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
Gerald Watt, I read your entire article. It didn’t change my opinion of you or the need for an Inquiry.
ALP run my the dictator GB are the cause of the disaster they called Antigua Airways. Something just isn’t right about what transpired.
Mr. Watt, if you were a man of honor and integrity you would see it too.
Stop wasting your time.
NO ONE BELIVES A WORD YOU OR THE REST OF YOUR LAW FIRM SAY ABOUT WHY WE SHOULDN’T HAVE AN INQUIRY.
KEEP TRYING TO HIDE THE TRUTH, IT WILL SOONER OR LATER COME TO LIGHT.
You are not able to understand / comprehend what Mr. Watt has penned in his article, because you have expressed one of your limitations, and, that is, You are a Damn DUNCE.
JUSTIN SIMON KC and ANNE HENRY KC owe the Antiguans a PUBLIC APOLOGY. I hope They can do it very soon to retain the Public trust. UPP also owe Antiguans an APOLOGY.
You to should apologize when you are wrong
I agree with the opinion of Sir Gerald that the Governor General has no discretion to unilaterally call a commission of Inquiry without the consent of the Cabinet. I have been saying that from the moment the issue became a matter of public debate. Sir Gerald is also suggesting that KCs Justin Simon and E. Anne Henry should admit they were wrong and should retract their statement. I wish to add that similarly Sir Gerald was wrong in the way Asot Michael was evicted from Parliament and he should also admit that he was wrong.
Well well it is not often that I agree with Charles on an issue. And that is the discretion of the GG. Can you imagine if He/She had. Then certainly we would still be living under a MONARCHY.
With regards to the rules of the house, I have no comment. The house regulates itself and therefore the house makes up rules, the ayes have it, as they go along. The highest court in the land.
That is why Baldwin said, after he lost the case of firing Sir Gerald Watt from the ABEC, ‘there is more than one way to skin a cat’. And he went to Parliament and changed the law.
but we are still monarchy
Tabor, lets say what the learned KC’s said are correct in regards to this matter, the GG has no discretion to call an inquiry
Why to date no one has said on what authority did the for GG Carlisle unilaterally called the medical benefits inquiry, when Lester,Gaston, Robin,Molwin and rest of the gang objected?
@ CHARLES TABOR
This is your good Friend ERIC ( THE RED ). I salute you Mr. Tabor. I wish more UPP supporters were HONEST like You Sir. You regained my respect.
Go sleep Gerald Watt.
Wow wow wow wow Here come the Head of an Assignment Ima gine that this Jack Ass yet to come to the Public and Admit that he made an error on the Suspension of the Member of St. Peter’s Mr Asot Michael from the Parliament you cannot as Speaker of the House move a motion to suspend a member This Ass himself does not understand his role Why we don’t want an inquiry I am trying to understand We want to know how we were duped by some one is there anything to hide I would like to see the protest step up now more public meeting, dialog with the people in the Diaspora by. Campaigning more in-depth like election 2023 Carnival will be the most appropriate time to have a major demonstration especially Emaciation Day let us mobilize our visitors to participate in this venture obstructing the functions that the GG attend
100 lawyers can look at the same law and come to a different conclusion. This is why they have court, even though the party that lost, will still not agree with the court, at least the ruling is final
Not so fast Mr. Speaker, Please quote the entire section 80
1. In the exercise of his functions the Governor-General shall act in accordance with
the advice of the Cabinet or a Minister acting under the general authority of the
Cabinet, except in cases where other provision is made by this Constitution or any
other law, and, without prejudice to the generality of this exception, in case where
by this Constitution or any other law he is required to act
a. in his discretion;
b. after consultation with any person or authority other than Cabinet; or
c. in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister or any person or
authority other than the Cabinet.
Note the word except in the above paragraph which to me mean that the GG can act outside the general authority of the cabinet unless the word “except” now has a new meaning. If the speaker is correct then (a) and (b) above is null and void and is a waste of ink and paper.
I REST MY CASE …FOR NOW
‘
‘
‘
The Constitution is quite clear and has provided the exceptions where the Governor General can act according to his discretion. However, what I find extremely odd is where it says “except in cases where other provision is made by this Constitution or any other law”. The Constitution is the supreme law and I cannot see how any other law can be at variance with the clear mandate of the Constitution that in the exercise of his functions the Governor General shall act on the advice of Cabinet. Section 1 of the Commission of Inquiry Act does not give the Governor General that discretion.
Can the author Sir Gerald please quote the section of the Parliamentary rules that allowed him to move a motion to suspend an elected member of the house.
Can the speaker of the house please address the Asot Michael suspension.
ONLY THE GG CAN CALL A ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.
SIR GERALD YOU HAVE LOST CASES IN THE PAST WHEN IN YOUR OPINION YOUR CASE WAS SOLID.
I am glad the GG, Representative of Britain’s King Charles cannot at will call a Commission of Inquiry. Independence under British Judiciary is bad enough, but to give the monarchy power to interfere is unacceptable, and if that is the law we need to start working on the republic. The President is not the King’s Representative, he represents the people!
GOD SAVE THE KING
THERE ARE ONLY 2 LAWS IN ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA. 2….
THE GG HAS A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY AS DECLARED IN HIS OATH OF OFFICE TO PROTECT THE SOVERIGN RIGHTS OF ALL PEOPLE.
ALL THE LEGISLATIONS THAT DOES NOT PAST THE TEST OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED ARE UNLAWFUL AND MUST NOT BE ACKNOWLEDGE BY SOVERIGN MEN AND WOMEN.
1 THE GOVERNMENT IS A CREATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
2 THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE ARE NOT A CREATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION, THEY ARE ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION.
3 THE GGs OATH IS TO SAFE GUARD THE PEOPLE WHO CREATED THE CONSTITUTION.
WITH PEACE, GOODWILL AND GOOD GOVERNANCE….
SIR GERALD KC …..TRADITION IS NOT LAW NO MATTER HOW LONG THE UNLAWFUL PRACTICE HAS BEEN TAKING PLACE WILL NEVER MAKE IT LAWFUL….
ONLY THE GG CAN CALL A ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY……
I hope the following Persons will read and comprehend Sir Gerald Watt KC article.
BRIXTONIAN
DON PELLE
KNIGHT ( OBSERVER radio/ KNIGHT AT NIGHT)
BRAWLING , FISH MARKET JOAN McEWEN ( OBSERVER RADIO KNIGHT AT NIGHT )
JUSTIN SIMON KC
E ANNE HENRY KC
MR.POMPEY.
ANALYST ( CONTRIBUTOR Knight at Night Observer Radio )
DONKEY MENTALITY?
Do not like when people that have nothing ‘…Enlightening or Edifying’ to offer ‘…Rawlston Pompey,’ unnecessarily and maliciously put his name in ‘ANYTHING.’
Though he does not believe so, he might just be tempted to say such person has ‘…Donkey Mentality.’
TELL YOU WHAT:
READ IT RIGHT AT THIS NEWS PORTAL: ON THIS VERY NEWS.
‘ FLAWED INTERPRETATIONS – PATRONS OF DECEPTION.’
Just woke. Hope to complete it by 3 AM- JUNE 8, 2023.
JUSTIN SIMON KC and ANNE HENRY KC owe the Antiguans a PUBLIC APOLOGY. I hope They can do it very soon to retain the Public trust. UPP also owe Antiguans an APOLOGY.
Comprehend what? That Gerald Watts is a pompous, arrogant ass? The man can’t even properly preside over the responsibilities he was given in parliament and he expects anyone to listen here? I disagree with you Tabor. Explain then how Carlisle was able to call an inquiry despite Lester Birds objections? Do you think a Gaston Browne let cabinet will investigate itself? Come on, man. This allows for a system where if cabinet is involved in possible corruption, something is in place to deal with it .
Gerrymandering Watt keep thinking he knows all yet he is so wrong . Remind us why the people in Rural East rejected you in 1976. Ho shit pon yourself.
Here is the arrogant trio. Lawyers hold opposite views all the time or there would be no profession for them ’bout apologize. Are you GOD, sir?
Such a pity this man wants to tarnish his own legacy by clinging to the remnants of his power by not letting go the Speaker’s chair. Have some dignity and grace.
Take the KC gonad swinging competition offline.
All I’m reading here is a bunch of grown folks arguing about who is smarter than who and all kinds of hatred thrown at each other. Most of you on here should be ashamed of your damn selves, for real! Anyway the big point that everyone is missing here, is that laws were broken here, and an inquiry ( I don’t give a rats booty who does it or impowered to do it) needs to be done ASAP. And again, I have no political agenda here, just wants what’s good for our country going forward. We need to go forward with our country in a positive light, and things like the refugee fiasco simply cannot just be brushed under the table, it just cannot. What is happening in Antigua is a social break down, much like the same thing that has happened leading up to citizens storming the US capitol,and these kind of social discourse has to be quelled before riots and things of such escalate. I can tell you this, the Antigua Airways fiasco has a direct impact on the crime wave that is happening in Antigua. Many do not want to admit that, but trust me it does. You cannot put aside your own people for the glory of others, simply just can’t do that, and this Antigua Airways fiasco is a slap in the citizen’s of Antigua face. What it says is this ‘ you can’t find work and money to help your own people, but you have resources to bring in 1000 so-call refugee’s), that’s the message this enter thing sends to your very own voters.But hey, who am I to speak against kings?.
*entire*
A simple question for Attorney Gerald Watt
In 2002 when there was a call for a Commission of Inquiry into Medical Benefits, did you provide an opinion to the United Progressive Party?
If you did, would you please share with the public the gist of the opinion you provided. Having penned this letter to the editor, the reading public is entitled to know if your view today is consistent with that expressed in 2002.
Looking forward to an honest reply.
Comments are closed.