Further submission from Mr Eric W George,
Speaker of the Legislative Council, St Helena
COMMISSION OF
ENQUIRY
1. I wish to advise the Foreign Affairs
Committee of a serious and unaccounted-for injustice suffered
in the Overseas Territory of St Helena that was instigated by
the Queen's Representative and was allowed to rest until now,
when the opportunity has arisen through this enquiry to submit
evidence on good governance in Overseas Territories.
2. I wish it to be known that in 1997, as
a Member of Executive Council, I was summoned by the then Chief
Secretary and Acting Governor of St Helena, Mr Perrott, to be
told that he was considering commissioning an inquiry into alleged
impropriety in the operation of the Building Ordinance.
3. At that time, I was chairman of the Building
Authority, the body responsible for enforcing compliance with
the Building Ordinance. I believe that Mr Perrott acted out of
malice towards me, and that setting up the commission was a deliberate
attack on my integrity. Particularly in a small community, any
attack on the actions of a statutory body is seen as an attack
on the actions of its members and on its Chairman in particular.
4. The Acting Governor advised me that he
had received a complaint from a dissatisfied member of the public,
which he intended to investigate. When I asked him to show me
the letter of complaint, he refused. When I sought independent
legal advice to defend my position, it was denied. All I wanted
was proper advice, and it was entirely wrong for the Acting Governor
to deprive me of the opportunity to obtain it.
5. I told Mr Perrott that if due process
were not followed in conducting the investigation, in accordance
with the principles of natural justice and according to law, he
would be undermining the Building Authority and the judicial process,
and acting ultra vires, constituting a misfeasance in public office.
There is an Appeals Board appointed by the Governor under the
Building Ordinance to which the complaint should have been forwarded.
6. He nevertheless insisted he would conduct
the inquiry as Acting Governor and a Gazette notice was
issued, advertising the appointment of a Commission Board to inquire
into the above.
7. I seriously believe this action was a
deliberate attempt to silence and discredit me in the eyes of
the public because of my efforts to address the financial shortcomings
of the Island's economy through the judicial review process. This
refers to my attempts to establish whether the British Government
and the Island were getting value for money, and my criticism
of the British Government for not taking into account of, and
making proper provision for, the reasonable needs of the Island
when imposing the Grant-in-Aid figure for St Helena. In particular,
I believe the Acting Governor used his position of privilege to
protect himself and other officers from embarrassment, which can
never be justified.
8. Evidence of the Acting Governor's actions
is submitted as an example of the lack of good governance on the
Island at that time. It was wholly unjustifiable and unlawful
to allow an inquiry of this kind, involving allegations of impropriety
concerning a member of Executive Council, to take place in violation
of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right
to a fair trial) and without regard to several of the fundamental
principles of natural justice, viz:
— A person accused, or at risk
of some form of loss (in this case myself, as Chairman of the
Building Authority), must be given adequate notice about the proceedings
and the nature of any charges or accusations; and
— A person who makes a decision
(in this case the Acting Governor in commissioning the inquiry)
should be unbiased and act in good faith. He therefore can not
be one of the parties in the case, or have an interest in the
outcome. This is expressed in the latin maxim, nemo judex in
sua causa: "no man is permitted to be judge in his own
cause".
— Proceedings should be conducted
so they are fair to all the parties—expressed in the latin
maxim audi alteram partem: "let the other side be
heard". In this case, attempts were made to deny my right
to access independent legal advice. (I only secured such advice
after bringing proceedings before the Chief Justice of the St
Helena Supreme Court, despite these proceedings being opposed
by the then Attorney General on behalf of the Acting Governor—see
attached Judgment).
— Each party to a proceeding is
entitled to ask questions and contradict the evidence of the opposing
party. (This can only be done if the other party's evidence is
made known, which was denied in this case).
9. At no point did I claim to be exempt
from, or above, the law or due process. The Commission Board was
well placed to deal with any such complaint. As a result of their
independent investigation into the alleged complaint, they found
no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the alleged complaint and
concluded that there was no case to answer (see attached Report).
10. I requested that the public should be
made aware of the Commission's findings by notice in the Government
Gazette in the same way as the Acting Governor's inquiry
was first published, but this was refused.
11. Unfortunately, my wife and family were
put under considerable stress because of my having been summoned
to attend a hearing. My wife never recovered from the shock of
me being publicly and unfairly pilloried in this way. I consequently
claimed for damages of £2,000 for the pain, distress and
suffering caused as a result of the inquiry and the manner in
which it was convened. Neither the findings of the commission
nor the claim for damages were granted or even considered. I had
no satisfaction from the St Helena Government for their malicious
attack on my character and the consequences caused to my family,
and I was once again denied access to justice.
12. My reason in bringing this to the attention
of the Committee, is to ensure that similar situations are not
allowed to occur again in this Territory, whereby members of the
public or indeed Councillors are penalised for carrying out their
lawful duties, and where individuals are free to address and challenge
serious issues of financial inadequacy without fear or favour.
Our situation today, some ten years later, reveals how little
the Island has progressed during that time.
13. I request that the Committee be good
enough to consider the case outlined above in the interest of
democracy and Good Governance with a view of not allowing such
incidents to occur ever again. I look forward also to the possibility
of my claim for damages being considered and awarded.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
ACTION
(a) To address this issue in the light of
stifling democracy and upholding justice, human rights and the
rule of law.
(b) To make sure as far as possible occurrences
of this nature are not allowed to undermine the Good Governance
of the Island of St Helena.
12 October 2007
|
