|
OT 286: Email to the Second Clerk from Harry Wiggin
I am writing pursuant to Paragraph 45 of the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the above Report which, for ease of reference, reads as follows:
45. Finally, the Committee concludes it is deplorable and totally unacceptable for any individual who has assisted the Committee with its inquiry to be subjected to threats, intimidation, or personal sanctions or violence in any form. If the Committee is informed of any such retaliatory measures being taken against any person who has submitted formal or informal evidence to this inquiry, it will take all appropriate steps within its powers. (Paragraph 439)[1]
Both I and Mr Don Mitchell CBE, QC have been vilified by the Chief Minister of Anguilla, under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, for having made submissions to the FAC. We are not sure what steps the FAC can take, but shall be grateful if it will act as it said it would. Without some reaction, the likelihood is that Anguillians will be convinced that no one is looking out for their safety and security, and no Anguillian will feel safe in cooperating with any eventual inquiry. We are not so much concerned for ourselves - the abuse bestowed on us by the Chief Minister was transparently absurd and untrue, albeit unpleasant. What we are concerned about, however, is that is was a blatant attempt to intimidate Anguillians generally in order to deter anyone either from cooperating with any inquiry that may result from the Committee's report, or from communicating with the outside world at all with any concerns they may have about the Government of Anguilla.
I attach as a PDF file the best attempt we have been able to make to transcribe the relevant part of the Chief Minister's speech.[2] I have highlighted some of the relevant passages in yellow and shall be glad if the Committee will please note the following:
1. The Chief Minister, very surprisingly, reveals that the hotels of Anguilla are concerned that the report may lead to difficulties for them with the United States authorities. I do not understand why this would be unless they fear implications under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
2. He alleges more than once that Mr Mitchell and I were trying to destroy Anguilla in order to stand in their way in their attempts to secure self government. In the first place, the destruction of Anguilla is at precisely the opposite end of the spectrum from our objectives. In the second place, our objectives were to benefit Anguilla by seeking an inquiry which, if there is nothing in the rumours of government corruption, would eliminate once and for all the damaging uncertainty described in my submission to the Committee. Contrary to separate press statements made by the Chief Minister, neither my submission nor Mr Mitchell's contained any "allegation" that the rumours of corruption are true; indeed the way I described my objective was as follows: "If, as I sincerely hope, they are innocent, then it should be seen as in their own best interests no less than the interests of Anguilla as a whole that an official independent enquiry should resolve the concerns which the explosive economic upsurge in development activity, and its adverse consequences, have engendered".
3. The Chief Minister's pejorative remarks about people who do not have children are directed towards Mr Mitchell. I can think of few, if any, people who have put more effort into trying to promote better government with a view to making Anguilla a better place for Anguillians. It is a travesty to allege that Mr Mitchell has no love for Anguilla. Quite the reverse is true.
4. The Chief Minister's suggestion that my marriage to my wife was a marriage of convenience is as false as it is unpleasant. It is also grossly inaccurate. He alleges that I applied for belongership on the exact day three years after my marriage that I was entitled to apply - why that should be open to criticism I am unclear and I cannot put my hand on a copy of my application to check the date. But insofar as it is relevant at all, he says that that date was 15th March. It so happens that we were married on 27th June 1998. If, therefore, I applied on 15th March, the first 15th March I would have been eligible to apply would have been 15th March 2002 (although I certainly applied before that date), some three years and nearly nine months after our marriage. I mention this for no other reason than to demonstrate the spurious nature of the Chief Minister's allegation, though it does, incidentally, reveal an entirely improper interference by the Chief Minister (who is not, and is not entitled to be, a member of the Anguilla Belonger Commission), contrary to my rights at that time under the Anguilla Belonger Commission Act (but that is water under the bridge, so I shall not elaborate unless you tell me that you wish me to do so).
5. His message further seeks to defy the Committee's warning against intimidation of witnesses, contained in Paragraph 45 of the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the above Report and referred to above.
6. The tone of the Chief Minister's attack can only be fully appreciated by hearing a recording of it. That is available on Mr Mitchell's blog at: http://corruptionfreeanguilla.blogspot.com/2008/08/intimidation.html If you find that difficult to decipher, I could send you a tape of the proceedings. There are a few words in the transcript which I found difficult to distinguish - I have highlighted those in grey on the transcript.
7. I would add that, having heard what little the Governor had to say about the matter in a meeting Mr Mitchell and I had with him, it appears to Mr Mitchell and myself that the FCO has gravely misjudged the issues involved for Anguilla and we am now very despondent about the prospects of an inquiry being established. We very much hope that the Committee will follow up on its recommendation in relation to Anguilla, with a view to ensuring that it does not wither on the vine by default.
Mr Mitchell has indicated that he would like to be associated with my above comments (except any that could be interpreted as complimentary to him!).
[1] Seventh Report of Session 2007-08, HC 147-I [2] Not published. |