Text Book Opinions: Legal Luminaries V Legal Loonies

TEXT BOOK OPINIONS: LEGAL LUMINARIES v LEGAL LOONIES

RAWLSTON POMPEY

In these impoverished non-republic ‘Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS),’ (i) ‘The Governors General bears ‘Allegiance’ to His Majesty, The King: (ii) They bear ‘Loyalty’ to the Government and Ministers subordinate to him: and (iii) In discharging their constitutional functions, the ‘Public Welfare’ appeared not to have been sufficiently considered of paramount importance.  Within this jurisdiction, a statutory provision that resides ‘LAWFUL AUTHORITY’ in ‘His Majesty’s Representative’ appeared to have been given ‘Text Book Theoretical Legal Opinions.’ Legal Luminaries have completely viewed the issue of the ‘Lawfulness’ of the Governor General’ exercise of authority differently to that of instructed ‘Legal Loonies.’

PERSPECTIVE

This commentary looks at: (i) ‘The statutorized lawfulness; and (ii) Considerations of the ‘Governor General’ necessary to enable the issuance of a Commission of Inquiry,’ as contained in the ‘Commission of Inquiry Act’ [COA: Section 2: Chapter 91]. It also looks at (iii) The constitutionally-provided ‘Executive Authority’ as contained in the ‘Constitution Order’ [CO: 1981: Section 68]: and (iv) Functions of the Governor General’ and that which subjects him to; (a) ‘The ‘ADVICE’ of Cabinet; and (b) …EXCEPTIONS for so acting or performing his functions in cases which he may exercise a sole ‘Discretionary Power where a ‘LAW’ so provides’ [CO: 1981: Section 80].

SERVICES AND SUBSERVIENCY

In the real world, not infrequently, either collectively or individually, public administrators have given the citizenry reasons to believe that ‘Malfeasance’ had been occasioned within particular administrations. Even when there were no places to hide from the despairing cries of a distraught people, ‘Governors General’ were known to have subjected themselves to public ridicule, then seeking to probe the suspected corruptible behavior of public administrators. Such subjection often helps to ensure ‘Pleasurable Security of Tenure.’ Not only would ‘Governors General’ may have been seen as having little ‘Moral Integrity’ to hold such office, but also to remain in the ‘Good Graces,’ if only for their ‘Services and Subserviency.’

DISSATISFIED/DISTRAUGHT/DISQUIETED

The cliché; ‘When Doctors differ, patients die,’ shall have been well known to most regional people. Conversely, whether in civil or criminal proceedings when ‘Attorneys’ differ and Court rulings are disfavored, clients were often the ones left to suffer. The same can be said of ‘Governors General.’ When they are befuddled over the exercise of ‘Constitutional Authority’ and showed timidity in discharging their constitutional responsibilities or to perform their constitutional and statutory functions,’ a populace becomes ‘Dissatisfied; Distraught; and Disquieted.’

WRITTEN LEGAL OPINIONS

When the ‘Legal Loonies’ reportedly offered ‘Written Legal Opinions to both ‘Cabinet and the Governor General,’ they appeared to have looked cursorily only at the constitutional provision as contained at ‘Section 80.’ This account of one ‘Looney’ to have purportedly written; ‘It would not be lawful for the Governor General to call a Commission of Inquiry under Section 2 of the Act, save upon the advice of the Cabinet’ [Observer: June 1, 2023]. The ‘Commission of Inquiry Act’ made no such reference, nor imposes a duty upon the ‘Governor General’ to; (a) ‘Seek advice from the Cabinet: or (b) To await such advice from a ‘Cabinet of men and women’ that collectively or individually, might possibly be the subject of such inquiry.

GENERAL RULE v JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS

Seemingly, from distant land, another ‘Legal Looney’ purportedly wrote; ‘The proper interpretation of ‘Section 80 (1)’ means as a ‘General Rule,’ in exercising his powers the ‘Governor General’ should act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet.’ That which shall be known is that the functions of the ‘Governor General,’ are not guided by ‘General Rule,’ but by provisions contained in both the ‘Constitution and Statute Law.’ Besides, ‘Legal Loonies’ may give ‘Personal Opinions,’ while the ‘Courts’ makes ‘Judicial Interpretations.’ This ‘Looney’ shall have known that where such ‘Advice’ was needed, the ‘Constitution Order’ has already identified several functions in which no ‘Cabinet Advice’ was needed.

FUNCTIONAL ATTACK

Not for the first time the ‘Lawful Authority’ of ‘Governor General,’ has come under conspicuous ‘Functional Attack.’ Evidence of this came when he was legislatively deprived of ‘Statutory Authority’ vested in the Monarchy,’ and exercised by him as ‘Representative of ‘Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.’ That which supports this assertion and highlights the apparent inadvertence of a distinguished Senate Member and former Attorney General [Antigua and Barbuda:1994-1997], and ‘Deputy Governor General, His Excellency, Sir Clare Roberts KCN.’

ROYAL ASSENT

The first of such attack came, when acting in the capacity of ‘Deputy Governor General, Sir Clare appeared to have unwittingly accord ‘Royal Assent’ to ‘Amendments’ that effectively deprived the ‘Governor General’ and himself of ‘Statutorily Vested Authority’ as contained in the ‘Prison Act’ [Chapter 341]. Now, a particular ‘Section’ of the ‘Constitution Order-Section 80 (1),’ that speaks to the ‘Functions of the Governor General,’ appeared to have ‘Legal Luminaries; Legal Loonies; and Legal Quacks,’ sending confusing signals to certain public administrators; His Majesty’s Representatives, and a perplexed and anxious citizenry.

ROYAL ASSENT

Whether or not it may have been for reasons of inadvertence or ignorance; or simply for reasons of the novelty of the position or being unduly flirtatious with the environment,’ he may still have unsuspectingly supported the ‘Prison Extra Remission Programme (PERP).’ This was occasioned when the ‘Deputy Governor General’ accorded ‘Royal Assent’ on behalf of then ‘Her Majesty’ to the ‘Prison (Amendment) Act.’ This incidentally, saw the untimely and reckless release of some of the nation’s most merciless and cold-blooded murderers from then ‘Her Majesty’s Prison.’ [2018].

BEFUDDLING WORDS – MISCHIEF AIMED

That which both Representatives may have subsequently observed in the ‘Prison Act Amendments,’ may have been the words; ‘An Act to amend the Prison Act, Chapter 341, and for incidental and connected purposes. These were the mesmerizing and ‘Befuddling Words’ that changed ‘Her Majesty’s ‘Lawful Authority’ over the nation’s lone penal institution, widely known as; ‘Her Majesty’s (HMP).’  The ‘Mischief Aimed’ by Parliament, was that the Governor General, His Excellency, Sir Rodney Williams KGN, GCMG, MBBS,’ would neither have authority over the penal institution, nor the discretionary authority to exercise ‘Her Majesty’s Prerogative of Mercy’ [CO: 1981]. That which they appeared not to have understood, was that it would necessitate a ‘Constitutional Amendment.’

PARLIAMENTARY TREASON

That which shall have been obvious to the ‘Deputy Governor General,’ were ‘Numbers and Words relating to the ‘Principal Prison Act.’ Given legislative consideration of ‘House Speaker Sir Gerald Owen Anderson Watt KCN, KC,’ and ‘Senate President Alincia Williams-Grant,’ both ‘Attorneys-at-Law,’ saw the passage of the grievous amendments to the ‘Prison Act.’ The ‘Sections then aimed at, included: Sections ‘3 A; 4; 5; 6; 9 and 13’ [Chapter 341]. It continues; ‘By repealing the words ‘Governor General’ where it appears in those Sections and replacing these words with the word- ‘MINISTER’ [Section 3: No. 17 of 2017]. They too, will have been guilty of ‘Parliamentary Treason.’

EXCEPTIONAL AUTHORITY

In most ‘Constitutional Democracies,’ ‘Governors General’ were known to have cowed by public officials, that has invariably caused many to wobble and buckle under environmental pressures. That which often appeared not to have been fully understood, was that ‘Framers of the Constitution Order,’ long anticipated what may possibly arise in ‘Public Office.’ They knew that a ‘Governor General’ will be called upon by the people to exercise ‘Exceptional Authority’ for the ‘PUBLIC WELFARE.’ For the benefit of knowledge, the constitutional provision allows for two ‘Exceptions.’ Though there shall always be ‘Functional Cooperation,’ these exceptions require no advice from the Cabinet.

ROYAL COMMISSION OF IINQUIRY

Controversy reigns over the ‘Governor General’s authority in independently or unilaterally issuing a ‘Royal Commission of Inquiry.’ Since the Cabinet of Antigua and Barbuda’ holds no position of ‘Royalty,’ logic dictates that the holder of the office of ‘Governor General’ and duly-appointed ‘Representative of His Majesty,’ supported by; (i) Constitutional provisions; and (ii) An Existing Law, that makes it ‘LAWFUL’ for him so to do. That which appeared to have posed comprehension difficulties to some ‘Legal Loonies,’ might very well have been the language contained in the ‘Commission of Inquiry Act’ [COIA: Section 2: Chapter 91].

MANDATORY v EXCEPTION

Such shall not be looked at in isolation, as the ‘Legal Loonies’ appeared to have looked only at the Constitution Order’ [CO: No. 1106: 1981]. It may have been for the avoidance of misunderstanding that ‘Framers’ hade prudently inserted into the ‘Order,’ ‘Section 80 (1).’ As it affects the function of the ‘Governor General the two-part functional authority in this Section. Undoubtedly, it provides for; (i) ‘MANDATORY’ functioning by the ‘Governor General’ to act on the ‘Advice’ of the Cabinet.’ Conversely, (ii) It allows ‘an EXCEPTION’ that resides with him to act in his ‘DISCRETION’ under a specific Law.

PUBLIC: AFFAIRS – PROBES – TRUST

Those that offered ‘Legal Opinions,’ appeared to have been so transfixed on their apparent misguided intellectual beliefs, appeared not to have observed; (a) ‘The ‘Exception,’ contained in the Constitution. Such ‘Exception speaks to the discharge of a function under ‘ANY OTHER LAW;’ and (c) In cases whereby this Constitution or other law requires him to act in exercising a ‘Discretionary Power’ [CO: 1981]. These ‘Exceptions’ appear purposefully inserted to prompt a ‘Governor General’ to exercise his authority, in cases that demand ‘Public Probes’ into ‘Public Affairs’ that appear to affect ‘Public Trust.’

MONARCHY:  STRONG DEMOCRACY

When ‘Framers’ of the ‘Constitution Order’ prudently inserted ‘Section 80,’ the people have proclaimed the ‘Supreme Law’ [CO: 1981: Section 2], they anticipated that the nation will have fashioned itself into a strong constitutional democracy.  When they embraced continuance with the ‘Monarchy,’ ‘National Sovereignty’ saw the appointment of ‘Governors General;’ (i) ‘Sir Wilfred Jacob: (ii) Sir James Beethoven Carlisle: (iii) Dame Louise Lake-Tack: and (iv) Sir Rodney Errey Williams.’ The way they had functioned, and reasonably expected to function, saw the nation appearing well on the way to becoming a ‘Strong Democracy.’

VESTIGES OF COLONIALISM

When ‘Antigua and Barbuda’ became an independent and sovereign nation, it had ineffectively severed the ‘Umbilical Cord of Colonialism.’ That which supports this assertion remains evident. There is still ‘Vestiges of Colonialism.’ For instance, there are, inter alia; (i) ‘A Constitutional Monarchial Head of State; (ii) Elected Parliamentarians bearing ‘Allegiance’ before engaging in proceedings in the bicameral-chambered Parliament: (iii) Continued delivery of ‘Throne Speeches,’ that speak to ‘My Government’ (His Majesty’s Government); and Members of Parliament, that constitutionally, bear ‘Allegiance’ to ‘The King.’ Such allegiance is also shared by the ‘King’s ‘Royal Representative,’ the ‘Governor General.’

MONARCHY AND MAJESTY

Additionally, there continues to be; (iv) ‘His Majesty’s Prison: (v) A Magistracy where its opening and closing ends with the words ‘God Save The King; (vi) A Judiciary and Jurisprudence; (vii) Continuing filing of indictments in the name of the King; (viii) The reliant upon services of the ‘Apex Court-Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and (ix) In recognition of a deeply revered ‘Queen Elizabeth,’ a ‘Highway’ named by the people in ‘Her’ honour. With these colonialistic vestiges, either still in practice or operation, after the ‘Living God,’ their firmly-held belief of ‘His Supremacy,’ until they dispensed with the ‘Monarchy and His Majesty, The King,’ over this nation, ‘His Majesty, Reigns Supreme.’

LEGAL LOONIES AND QUACKS

A ‘Governor General’ could never function or exercise constitutional or Statutory authority or discretion, in an environment full of ‘Cajoling or Coercion.’ When these were seen as affecting lawful courses of action, ‘Governors General,’ often run the risk as being seen as ‘FEARFUL,’ the very element the ‘Oath of Office’ seeks to eliminate. Though the ‘Constitution Order’ provides that the ‘Governor General’ (a) ‘Acts independently; and (b) Discretely’ as circumstances demand, ‘Opinionated Professors; Law Lecturers; Text Book Authors and Legal practitioners of the ‘King’s Counsel Award; and Legal Loonies and Quacks,’ appeared to have caused more confusion in the minds of the citizenry, than ‘Satan’ had reportedly caused in Heaven.’

AWKWARD AND UNNERVING

Some ‘Five Years’ after the first attack on the ‘Statutory-Imposed Authority’ of ‘Governor General, His Excellency, Sir Rodney E. Williams,’ his authority has been further challenged. In this instance, such challenge has not been posed by the ‘Legislature,’ but by an ‘Executive,’ endeavoring to chip away his authority, legislatively statutorized in the ‘Commission of Inquiry Act.’ Such came as ‘Petitioners; have endeavored to implore and impress upon him to exercise without ‘Fear of Favor,’ authority legislatively vested in the ‘Office of Governor General.’ Undoubtedly, incessant calls for issuing such ‘Commission of Inquiry,’ appear to have placed ‘His Excellency’ in a most ‘Awkward and Unnerving’ position. That which might bring unfortified comfort may be the maxim that states; The King can do no wrong’ […..].

MATTERS: NATIONAL CONCERN

Consequent upon the above, a ‘Governor General, Representative of His Majesty, The King’ shall, at all material times, be mindful of his functions. Strengthened by the reposed confidence of a people, he shall not only understand, but also accept as serious ‘Matters of National Concern’ that are petitioned to him. Most importantly, he shall recognize that such ‘Matters’ and such ‘Petitions, represent the ‘Desires and Dictates’ of a people, endeavoring to persuade him to exercise his constitutional and statutory authority, independently and decisively for the common and national good.

DEAFENING SILENCE

However, under an administration with a Cabinet that seemed fortified in their own beliefs, they can be expected to ‘Kill the King,’ and ‘Rule by Decree,’ a ‘Governor General’ could find him/herself being ousted by ‘His Majesty.’ Clearly sandwiched between a tight-lipped public administrator and the persistent demands by the electorate for holding a ‘Commission of Inquiry,’ seemed to have placed him in and inescapable position. Such exercise was purposefully intended to probe the apparent mysterious overnight-establishment of ‘National Antigua Airways.’ Calls for identity of the owners/operators and partners, as well as transparency and public accountability, have resulted only in citizens irritability by the ‘Deafening Silence.’

SECRECY AND OBSCURITY

Interest groups insisting to be informed, appeared to have prompted them into petitioning and directing their concerns to ‘His Excellency.’ Seemingly, himself insufficiently seized of pertinent information, appeared to have ‘Ill-Positioned’ His Excellency to guide knowledge and/or understanding of the developments that have prompted questions that speak to ‘Secrecy and Obscurity.’ The ‘Antigua Airway,’ said to have been operated by a ‘Nigerian’ conglomerate, identified only as ‘Marvelous Mike Press.’ It has made its inaugural flight to the ‘V.C Bird International Airport,’ where Immigration authorities reportedly provided landed status to scores of passengers. They were identified as ‘Cameroon nationals’ [December 23, 2022].

PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY/PROTESTATION

Now that ‘Sir Rodney’ appeared to have found himself in a ‘Further Spot of Bother,’ the people have been left to ponder what is the purpose, role and function of a ‘Governor General.’ Consequent upon a ‘Petition,’ signatured by some 8, 000 persons,’ a representative number of the voting population, ‘His Excellency,’ appeared to have found himself in a bind. This not only speaks to an undeniable fact, but also consistent with that duly and properly enacted in the ‘Commission of Inquiry Act’ [COIA: Section 2: Chapter 91]. A response from him respecting his constitutional inability to issue a ‘Commission of Inquiry,’ in ‘Matters of National Concern,’ have prompted a week of peaceful assembly and protestation by the people outside the ‘Government House office.’

LEGAL LUMINARIES v LEGAL LOONIES

Instructively, the ‘Press Release’ purportedly authored by, or officially prepared for the ‘Governor General,’ was observably written in the ‘Third Person.’ The penultimate paragraph reads; ‘The Governor General is bound, by his Oath of office to act in accordance with the established Law’ [Observer: May 31, 2023]. The ‘Act’ speaks to the unfettered exercise of ‘Lawful Authority,’ when circumstance dictates and situations demand. Constitutionally and statutorily, the ‘Governor General’ appears partially insulated from the ‘Cabinet of Ministers’ in the performance of his constitutional and Statutory functions.

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

The modern legal practitioners, university professors and lecturers, may speak to ‘Obsoletion’ and ‘Reformation’ of some ‘Existing Laws.’ Considering the state of antiquation, the inapplicability of some enactments is good reason to demand revision. Framers of the ‘Constitution Order’ appeared seize of these provisions. Consequently, they have inserted certain ‘Transitional Provisions’ for ‘Functional Continuity.’ As for other ‘OECS’ nations, as it is for ‘Antigua and Barbuda,’ every person so appointed or deputizing for ‘Governors General,’ he/she shall always endeavor to observe the most fundamental provisions as the affect their functions, particularly, those that do not allow neither for the advice, dictates or exploits of the ‘Cabinet.’

PUBLIC SCRUTINY

That which has been made sufficiently clear, was that ‘Commissions of Inquiry’ were established either; (a) ‘Specific; or (b) Controversial events or proposals seen not in the national interest.’ That which is contained in the ‘Statute Law,’ speaks to the ‘Public Welfare.’ Though public administrators often speak to such, it has been observed more in breach, than practice. T Conversely, for the ‘Non-Statutory Commissions of Inquiry,’ these are established to ‘investigate controversial ‘Events of National Concern’ [Wikipedia]. Instructively, when ‘Queen Victoria’ decreed the establishment of the ‘Commission of Inquiry Act,’ it was not only purposeful, but also specific as that which shall be subjected to transparent ‘Public Scrutiny.’

ALLEGIANCE TO HIS MAJESTY

Such lawfulness was placed in no other authority or person than a ‘Governor General,’ who not only represents, but also bears ‘Allegiance’ to ‘His Majesty; His Heirs; and Successors.’ In the instant case, those also bearing ‘Allegiance,’ include every Parliamentarian and portfolio Ministers who are ‘Subordinate to the Governor General’ [Constitution Order: 1981: Section 68 (2)]. They became ‘Subordinates’ when they subscribed to the ‘Oath of Allegiance-Sworn/Affirmed).’ While no advocacy shall be suggested, a ‘Governor General,’ reportedly being petitioned by the signatories of some reported ‘8, 000 people,’ could never harbor beliefs that such number represents the residential population of the ‘Sister-Island of Barbuda.’

WILL AND WISHES

With the existence of the statutory enactment of the ‘Commission of Inquiry Act,’ nowhere has been observed that that ‘Lawful Authority’ is vested in the Cabinet. There has been no reserved right of public administrators. It has been the observation of many people across the ‘Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS),’ that the only time ‘Governors General,’ appear to have shown recognition of the ‘Will and Wishes’ of the people, was when a privilege few were invited to subscribe to either one, or the three subscriptive Oaths. When the elected were to be invited to the ‘Office of Governors General,’ it was for specific purposes.

PERCEPTION OR DECEPTION

After subscribing to the appropriate ‘Oaths, it has always been the elected for themselves, a band of cronies, functionaries and nepotists, and the electors fending for themselves. Not infrequently, many have been forced to express disgust and disappointment in those whose candidacy they had supported and plans and programmes they have embraced. Whether or not by ‘Perception or Deception,’ or simply ‘Figment of Imagination,’ not infrequently, discontented electors were impelled to publicly air their grievances and misgivings, wherever they had found either empathetic listeners or grievers likened to themselves.

SPIRIT OF DISCERNMENT

Those with the ‘Spirit of Discernment’ may see just what binds those so appointed with the people so elected them to govern and administrate the affairs of the public. For governance, the ‘Ministers with Portfolio,’ whether by ‘Swearing or Affirmation’ shall subscribe to the ‘Oath of Office.’ That which the Constitution sets out reads; ‘I Charles ‘Boldface’ Isaac do swear that; (i) ‘I will honour and uphold and preserve the Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda ; (ii) The Law: (iii) I will; (a) Conscientiously; (b) Impartially; and (c) To the best of my ability, discharge my duties; and (iv) Do right to all manner of people without; (a) ‘FEAR: or favour; and (b) Without affection or ill-will’ [CO: 1981: Schedule 3].

SIGNATORIES TO PETITION

Several interest groups have found satisfaction in protestations, equally as much as they have willingly and influentially affixed their ‘Signatures to Petitions.’ In recent times, a wide cross-section of the society appeared to have taken umbrage with the apparent ‘fairy-tale national air-carrier called- ‘Antigua Airways.’ This appeared to have triggered more waves, than those associated with the ‘Atlantic Hurricane Season.’ Incensed by visitors left to languish in misery, with several faced with ‘Tragedy at Sea,’ some citizens have either sent their ‘Signatures’ for Governor General, His Excellency, Sir Rodney Errey Williams KGN, GCMG, MBBS’ to see or made their presence outside the perimeter fence at ‘Government House’ be felt.

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ETC

Inferentially, from that which has, in modern times given legislative considerations, the ‘Queen’ back then, had been looking at: (i) ‘Prevention of Corruption: (ii) Public Accountability: (iii) Transparency; and (iv) Integrity in Public Life.’ While there have been two such ‘Royal Commissions of Inquiry’ specifically issued to ascertain; (i) Who ‘Sold his government a ‘Steel Frame’ [1974]: and (ii) Who created the ‘Cesspool of Corruption at;’ and (iii) Who were the corruptible public officials; and (iv) Who had siphoned-off significantly funds from the Medical Benefits Scheme’ [2003].

SPOT OF BOTHER

The ‘Vexed Issue’ for the well-respected ‘Governor General, His Excellency, Sir Rodney Errey Williams,’ surrounds issuance of a ‘Royal Commission of Inquiry.’ This continues to generate widespread national discussions.’ Instructively, the administrators under public scrutiny by interest groups reportedly acting on behalf of the people and the ‘Head of State,’ appeared not to be singing from the same hymnal. It was, and still has been the view that not only has ‘Hie Excellency the ‘Statutory Lawful Authority,’ but also a discretion, bolstered by constitutional authority so to do, and without the advice of the Cabinet.

ADVICE OF PRIME MINISTER

Constitutionally, the ‘Governor General,’ shall act on the ‘ADVICE’ of the Prime Minister’ [CO: 1981: Section 69 (4)]. Undoubtedly, the second of these three ‘Oaths’ seeks to bind the ‘Ministers’ with the electorate and people. Not infrequently, many public administrators seemed to have given voters reasons to feel jaded, distraught and depressed. Many also may have thought that had they possess the requisite surgical instrument and clinical skills of renowned ‘Surgeon, Dr. Joseph ‘Joey’ John,’ the frustrated and disappointed may have removed a digit on their ‘Index Fingers,’ for reasons of their simplicity, susceptibility and gullibility.’.

NOTABLE AND NOBLE

Instructively, some of these ‘distinguished legal experts reportedly came from ‘London’ and some from ‘Five Islands.’ Some were said to have been ‘Notable and Noble’ legal practitioners and some were said to be well-learned ‘Ancestral Children.’ In their areas of practice, be it ‘Constitutional Administrative or Criminal Law,’ they have not only appeared proficient, but have also shown intellectual brilliance and professional indepthness. Still, that which the citizenry shall know, is, be that as it may, decisions made at ‘First Instance Courts,’ are challenged only by judgements delivered by the nation’s ‘Intermediate and Apex Courts.’

TEXTBOOKS THEORIES

These are the ‘Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC) and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC).’While they reserve the right to offer ‘Legal Opinions,’ they shall know that ‘Interpretations of Law,’ reside with equally learned and distinguished officers that have been practicing within the Judiciary.’ A ‘Governor General needs no ‘Textbook Legal Opinions.’ He/she needs only ‘Legal Advice’ from ‘His Majesty’s Privy Councilors.’  As opposed to ‘Textbook Theories,’ authoritatively, the rulings of these Councilors often help to shape human understanding, particularly as it relates to the workings of Law.

ASSEMBLIES AND PROTESTATIONS

Not infrequently, dissatisfaction with public administrators, and discontent in the electorate were known to have led people into mounting peaceful assemblies or protestations. This as knowledge and research have confirmed and shown official dispersals of the dissatisfied with ruthless and reckless use of ‘Tear Gas and Rubber Bullets.’ That which now confronts protesting citizens has been the ‘Authority,’ if any, vested in the ‘Governor General, His Excellency, Sir Rodney Errey Williams KGN, GCMG, MBBS.’ None may deny that to all intents and purposes, when the ‘British Monarchy,’ then ruled by ‘Queen Victoria’ decreed and subsequently the ‘Commission of Inquiry Act’ to be operationally statutorized [April 29, 1880], there has been several ‘Mischiefs Aimed.’

LUMINARIES AND LOONIES

It has been public knowledge that some ‘Legal Luminaries’ and some ‘Legal Loonies,’ at home and abroad have expressed differing or opposing views on the issue. Research has not only shown a ‘Statutory Provision’ that has vests ‘Law Authority’ in whomever has been appointed to the office of ‘Govern General, but also who represents the ‘Monarchial Authority’ of ‘His Majesty, The King.’ In this constitutional and parliamentary democracy, ‘Executive Powers’ are vested in the ‘Monarchy.’ Constitutionally, him/her that represents the ‘Monarchy’ owes no allegiance to any other power, authority, entity or person, but to ‘His Majesty; The King.’

JURISPRUDENTIAL LEGACY

Research has also shown that it has been long recognized by the ‘Constitutional Monarchy’ of the ‘United Kingdom’ that has established a ‘Commission of Inquiry Act’ [April 29, 1880]. Governing its ‘Monarchial Domain’ its jurisprudence speaks to; (a) ‘Statutory Commission of Inquiry’ with specific and stipulated ‘Rules of Procedures; and (b) non-Statutory that allows for procedural flexibility within the United Kingdom.’ Considering the ‘Jurisprudential Legacy’ passed on from colonialism, when the people attained their; (a) ‘Political independence: (b) Sovereignty; and (c) Nationality, and have established their own system of governance,’ democratic principles dictate that there shall be systems to address the issue of ‘Public Corruption.’

MORIBUND COMMISSION

In the nation of ‘Antigua and Barbuda,’ it has been an almost constant ‘War Cry’ for ‘Transparency: Accountability; as well as Integrity in Public Life.’ There have been enactments to address these, and a ‘Watch Dog Integrity Commission’ to address concerns raised by the people, though this ‘Commission’ may have ‘Life,’ it has clearly shown that it has not the ‘Moral Integrity’ to act without the ‘’Advice of Cabinet.’ Though the enactments bear ‘Lawful Authority,’ likened to a toothless Tiger, it has not the incisors to bite. Should the unconquerable and feisty, but quiet ‘House Speaker, Sir Gerald Owen Anderson Watt KCN, KC,’ were to describe the ‘Integrity Commission,’ he might very well say; That is a moribund Commission.’

PRE-EXISTED LAWS

Though still a growing democracy, constitutionally, the nation has maintained ‘Existing Laws.’ One such law has been the ‘Commission of Inquiry Act’ [Chapter 91]. From professional Law enforcement practice, most ‘Pre-Existed Laws (Criminal/Administrative),’ were either so treated or left in their previous construction. This ‘Act’ was neither amended, nor replaced when ‘Governor General, His Excellency, Sir Wilfred Jacob KGN, GCMG,’ was commissioned to conduct the ‘Revision’ of then ‘Existing Laws’ [1992]. Whether or not ‘His Excellency’ then, was mindful of the role he might be called upon to play, he left ‘Section 2,’ that made it ‘Lawful’ to issue a ‘Commission of Inquiry,’ should circumstances so demanded.

TRANSITIONAL PROVISION

While ‘Legal Loonies’ rely upon ‘Text Book Theories,’ to offer ‘Legal Opinions,’ the ‘Transitional Provisions,’ speak to ‘Existing Laws.’ Instructively, in this jurisdiction that which is contained in the ‘Supreme Law’ (Constitution) states; ‘The existing Laws, as from ‘November 1, 1981,’ shall be construed with such; (a) ‘Modifications: (b) Adaptations; (c) Qualifications; and (d) Exceptions as may be necessary to bring them into conformity with; (i) ‘The Constitution; and (ii) The Supreme Court Order’ [CO: 1981: Schedule 2: Section 2 (1)]. In the case of reasonably suspected ‘Public Corruption,’ whether or not rightfully or wrongfully perceived, the population appears to have harbored the firm belief, that there shall be an authority to address the people’s fears and concerns and such authority is so vested in the said Act.

CONCLUSION

It may reasonably be inferred that ‘Legal Luminaries and Legal Loonies,’ as well as some ‘Legal Quacks,’ appeared to have caused ‘His Excellency’ some uneasiness, anxieties and uncertainties. That which has been situationally provided for such course of action by ‘His Excellency,’ was to be contingent upon whether or not: (i) ‘He deems it ‘ADVISABLE; and (ii) (ii) In his ‘OPINION’ it is for the ‘PUBLIC WELFARE’ [COIA: Section 2: Chapter 91]. Even more instructive the statutory provision specifies that which shall be so targeted are: (a) ‘The conduct; or (b) Departments of Government; or (c) Public officers’ within the ‘Government’ [Section 2]. For instance, research has revealed an ‘Indian Rationale’ for ‘Commissions of Inquiry.’ It revealed that ‘Among the purposes is to collect information with the view to decide upon a further course of action. This is necessary to ‘meet a given situation or find correctives to given problems. Indian authorities mindful of a highly suspicious citizenry and the ‘Public Welfare,’ posited; ‘It is a source of information for people’ [Legal Service India: E-Journal]. Regional Governors General,’ might wish to adopt the view taken by the ‘Indian’ authorities in seeking to quell citizens suspicions, concerns and fears, whether or not, perceptibly real or imaginary. ***

Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]