Tuesday, December 5, 2006

by Karen ‘Lioness’ Allen
Caribbean Net News Montserrat Correspondent
Email: karen@caribbeannetnews.com

BRADES, Montserrat: Last month in Montserrat revealed signs of problematic governance and an unsatisfactory constitutional revision process, deemed by some members of the Chief Minister’s (CM) Constitutional Advisory Committee and members of the public as dysfunctional and unconstitutional.

The Constitutional review process started in 1997 following the election of the Labour Government in London, England. In 1999, the Partnership for Prosperity White Paper was issued. In this White Paper, the Overseas Territories were invited to review their own constitutions locally and make any recommendations, changes, and updating that they wished, and the British Government would consider closely all proposals.

A Constitutional Review Commission was established, chaired by Sir Howard Fergus, who reports to have examined and taken views from a wide variety of Montserratians, both on and off Montserrat. He submitted a report in 2002.

According to Ian Hendry, the head of the UK Constitutional Review Team who visited Montserrat in November, Sir Howard’s report was very thorough and thoughtfully pulled together. The report was debated several times in the Legislative Council (LEDGCO) and, in due course, negotiations were opened between members of LEGCO and the UK.

Former MP Chedmond Browne and former member of the Constitutional Review Commission resigned from this commission claiming that Sir Howard Fergus repeatedly refused to incorporate into the Commission’s report any recommendation received from the public that contradicted Britain’s objectives. It was because of this reasoning that Browne tendered his resignation to the Sir Howard Fergus-led commission. In Browne’s opinion, the report submitted by the Constitutional Review Commission should have reflected the aspirations and desires of Montserrat’s public, regardless of whether or not they clashed with Britain’s preferences.

Browne is now a member of the Chief Minister’s Constitutional Advisory Committee. The purpose of the CM’s Advisory Committee is to advise the CM as to what actions they think his Government should take at this time in order for Montserrat to get something substantial from this revision process.

Along with other key members of the CM Constitutional Advisory Committee, Browne appeared on People’s Television (PTV) and made claims to certain levels of coercion taking place in the country’s constitutional revision process.

Browne said, “I have maintained that Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) has been coercing local politicians, since the 1960s, in order to ensure that HMG’s agenda is implemented. So, it should come as no surprise that the suggestion of coercion is now surfacing. Since the early 90s and certainly since the start of the volcanic activity, Montserrat finds itself in a budgetary aid situation with HMG. It is a well-known fact that budgetary aid can be and, in my opinion, is being used as the coercive tool."

When asked about the possibility of a Montserrat Constitution being established and submitted that reflects the desires of Montserrat’s public, former MP Browne says, “In the first instance, this current process was not initiated by the Government or people of Montserrat. It was initiated by HMG to satisfy her own agenda. So the direction it has taken has not actually been guided by us. The point we have reached now would make it awkward and difficult to submit something that actually represents us, our hopes, visions, and aspirations. However, the Chief Minister’s Advisory Committee has recommended that Government does, in fact, present to HMG a draft constitution that represents the hopes, visions, and aspirations of the people of Montserrat.”

Although the Partnership for Prosperity White Paper dictates that each overseas territory contribute locally to their own contributions, to date, two distinct recommendations have been matter-of-factly refused by the British Government, ‘free association’ and the initiation of a Deputy Governor.

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 15451 defines the term ‘Free Association’ as the means by which a territory, called in the United Nations Charter as a non-self-governing territory, can be taken off the list of such territories. A list of those territories is maintained with the obligation on the ministering power of that territory to make annual reports to the United Nations on the social and economic developments and so forth.

It is defined in that resolution that the territories concerned be able to write their own constitution without regard to the administering power. In Montserrat’s case, this is the United Kingdom. During a recent press conference, Hendry said, “The United Kingdom did not vote for that resolution, and it is, in any case, not a legally binding resolution.

Former Governor for Montserrat, Anthony Longrigg, made a statement on PTV that gave the public of Montserrat the distinct impression that Britain would not allow the option of Associated statehood or ‘Free Association’.

In November 2006 during his press conference, Hendry was questioned as to the reasoning behind the British Government's position not to support any recommendations of Free Association.

He said, “Free Association, as a possible method of going forward defined by that resolution is not acceptable because it would involve freedom of Montserrat to write its own constitution, not to go to independence but leave the United Kingdom responsible, internationally, constitutionally for Montserrat, and leaving it without the powers to fulfill its responsibility. Now, that is not a situation which any responsible government will accept, and the British Government does not accept that.”

Browne suggests that, if the Government of Montserrat submits documented evidence of a desire for ‘Associated Statehood’ or ‘Free Association’ as being a part of their current aspirations, hopes, and visions, the onus then lies on HMG to explain why they will not assist the people of Montserrat to fulfill their hopes, visions, and aspirations.

In addition, the Government of Montserrat asked Overseas Territories Minister, Lord Triesman, to support their request for the prompt appointment of Montserrat’s first indigenous Deputy Governor, which is also one of the suggested constitutional recommendations.

A Government of Montserrat press release says that Chief Minister Lowell Lewis recalled that on 22 November 2006, Lord Triesman, Overseas Territories Minister, made it clear that his responsibility would be through the Governor. “This indicates that he is not yet ready to delegate the special responsibilities of the Governor to local elected members. This is not a consistent policy, since in the United Kingdom and other Overseas Territories, such as Bermuda, responsibility for the Public Service and Security are delegated either to a Minister of Government or to non partisan Executive Commissions, on whose, advice the Governors must act in accordance.”

Browne went on to disclose the disadvantages that face Montserrat as a result of the current stipulations from Britain regarding the constitutional revision process. “Because of the direction that the process took, the people of Montserrat are not very much involved in it. When they were actually engaged, they had little or no knowledge of constitutional issues. Since then, the process has gone beyond them, and it is the opinion of the CM’s Advisory Committee that until a more complete educational process takes place, we would still be at a great disadvantage. It is the opinion of the Committee that the Government and people of Montserrat are getting window dressing changes and no substantial changes in this current process."

When questioned as to whether Montserrat’s Constitutional Review Commission can submit a document of their choosing, in spite of all the advice or instructions received from Britain, he said, “Of course. This Commission can submit that, and it has been recommended by the Advisory Committee that such actions be taken. However, the CM would have to get majority support from the Constitutional Review Commission to implement such a action.”

After a meeting last month, the Constitutional Review Commission and the CM decided to take excerpts from the Associated Statehood Constitution that existed between St Kitts and HMG along with continuing to discuss the current draft submitted by HMG. It is not known at this time what particular clauses were chosen.

If Montserrat’s Government produced a constitutionally revised document purporting ‘Associated Statehood’, Browne says that Britain will not submit that document. According to him, “What they will submit is whatever final document is agreed to between the Government of Montserrat and HMG. Further, they will only submit that document if it is favourable of their argument to ask the UN to delist Montserrat from it’s list of remaining colonies."

Browne says, “Britain wants to be able to present to the UN Decolonisation Committee a convincing argument that Montserrat desires, in other words and hopes, visions, and aspirations, is to maintain its status quo relationship with Britain; and therefore, it should be delisted and no longer maintained on the Decolonisation Committee list.

"Accordingly, the circumstances and actions that have emerged and are being demonstrated in Montserrat’s Constitutional revision process generate sensitive questions about its validity. Is it a process of democracy, or is it a process of strong-armed twisting by the governing colony? If indeed the UK stands by its very own Partnership for Prosperity White Paper, why does it continue to refuse considerations from the public and Government of Montserrat and superimpose its own policy? On what grounds of democracy and justice will the British Government stand to justify what appears to be an adamant disregard to the mandated UN resolution, their very own highly publicized White Paper policy, and the actual desires and aspirations of the public of Montserrat."

  Most popular articles: viewed, printed and e-mailed

  Printable version