Friday, 31 January 2014
Wednesday, 22 January 2014
Antiguans Could Have Owned Half Moon Bay Resort - by Hon Gaston Browne
Antigua St. John's
- The leader of the opposition Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party (ABLP) has
said the United Progressive Party (UPP) administration denied the public the
chance to own the embattled Half Moon Bay (HMB) resort.
According to Gaston
Browne, if the government had not acquired the 115-acre beachfront property,
the non-develop land tax could have been applied, and then the resort could
have been taken over for a nominal fee.
"Do you know that
Antiguans and Barbudans would have owned Half Moon Bay for little and
nothing?" the MP asked. "You know why... there is a five percent
non-develop land tax that we have on the books."
He continued,
"And Half Moon Bay is owned by expatriates, non-Antiguans, so that if they
had not developed the property, we could have applied that for the last 18
years (at) five percent per annum - that's 90 percent of the property plus they
have not paid their property taxes and so on. So I guarantee you that if these
guys had any skill whatsoever, any competence, that we could have owned Half
Moon Bay literally without even paying anything, for that matter, in the sense
that the non-citizen, non-development land tax would have amounted to about 90
percent of the value, plus other taxes, and I am sure they would have had
arrears in taxes, even prior operational taxes."
Browne said the
country has instead been left with a liability of about $54 M without any
corresponding value.
Minister of Tourism
John Maginley has said the government is in discussions with an investor to
possibly develop the resort. The agreement is still being negotiated, and no documents
have been signed yet.
The UPP administration
is yet to compensate the previous owners over US $70 M, having completed the
acquisition of the property in 2007 under the Land Acquisition Act.
In June that year, the
Privy Council allowed the government the powers of eminent domain to
expropriate HMB.
The battle between the
shareholders of HMB and the government began in 1995 after the passage of
Hurricane Luis, which destroyed the hotel.
The Lester Bird
administration started legal proceedings to obtain the resort, citing that the
move was in the best interest of the people.
Tuesday, 21 January 2014
Asot speaks on The Constituencies Boundaries Commission Report
Hon. Asot Michael
Representative of St. Peter’s Constituency
speaks
on
The Constituencies Boundaries Commission Report
House of Representative
January 14th 2014
Madame Speaker:
I wish you and all the Members of Staff of the Parliament, all Parliamentarians on both sides of the aisle, a Healthy and Prosperous New Year, and God’s richest blessings during 2014.
I wish to assure my constituents, my friends and colleagues and all those who heard rumors that I was deathly ill, that I am very healthy.
Where that rumor got its start—that Asot Michael is deathly ill—I cannot tell. I do have a problem with a herniated disc in my spine, and I am being treated for it. Other than that, I can assure you all that I am well and that my New Year will be enjoyable and victorious.
This is the year of promise, as I see it. 2014 is the year of great promise.
Thank you Madame Speaker:
I take the floor to address an issue that is clearly the most important as it relates to elections and our democracy.
Free and fair elections serve as a judgment in favour of or against the incumbent administration.
Madame Speaker:
The people of Antigua and Barbuda will have an opportunity to change the course of their current drift away from the economic and development shallows by electing a new government in 2014 to steer the ship of state. This obligation, to hold an election at least once every five years, cannot be avoided.
After ten years of two UPP administrations, the constituents of St. Peter’s eagerly welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that they would wish me to be their representative, once again. The other 16 constituencies across our nation will have the identical and simultaneous opportunity to elect a Labour Party candidate.
Countries that are democracies, countries that have constitutional guarantees, all operate parliaments that have representatives of their people, elected periodically. The People’s representatives are a feature of real democracies.
Another feature that is necessary in a democracy, in order to determine fairness in election of Representatives, is the size and population of the Constituency, relative to others. In the USA there are 435 Congressional Districts, and in Canada there are 308 districts, called “ridings;” there are 17 in Antigua and Barbuda as everyone knows.
There must be a determination of both number of inhabitants per constituency, and a reasonable allocation of geographic space per constituency. In a small island, despite an increasing number of inhabitants choosing to live near the urban center, the distribution system can be determined by consultations and the application of human intelligence.
Madame Speaker:
Decisions regarding the drawing of boundaries are usually dictated by law. The decisions are not expected to be whimsical, not arbitrary, not irrational. When either side in a political divide perceives that decisions on boundaries are not fair, are not just, or are not rational, then the referee or the umpire is called-in. Our referee is the High Court, the Court of Appeals and the Privy Council. One day, the CCJ may replace the Privy Council.
Exactly one year ago and four days, on January 10 2013, The Constituencies Boundaries Commission Guidance Act, was published in the Official Gazette Volume 33, No. 2. The law had its basis or its legitimacy under Part 4, Section 64(3) of the Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda.
Madame Speaker, I am being very careful for I want to paint a history that can be easily understood by those who are viewing or listening to this broadcast on television, ABS Radio or the Worldwide Web. The Guidance Act was not at all confusing. It required the Constituencies Boundaries Commission to “be guided by the cardinal principles that all constituencies shall contain as nearly equal numbers of inhabitants, taking into account the need to achieve voter’s parity as appear to the Commission to be reasonably practical…”
By “reasonably practical” is meant that four deviations from the cardinal principles were allowed; the Commissioners would take into account:
i. the density of population in each constituency;
ii. the adequacy of representation of sparsely populated rural areas included in each constituency;
iii. the geographical features of every constituency;
iv. the boundaries of St. John’s, the only city; the boundaries of Parham, the only other town in Antigua, the boundaries of our many villages; and the expansion of villages that require boundary delimitations; these deviations were to be taken into account.
Parishes, the basis of the Constituencies, were also to be factored into the decision-making.
Madame Speaker:
How, therefore, were 3,000+ electors from the St. Peter’s Constituency made to suffer troubling confusion when they learned that St. Peter’s Constituency, after June 28 2013, no longer existed? What is rational in deleting one of the six Parishes upon which is based the very system of electoral boundaries.
In 1937, Antigua and Barbuda was one constituency. On December 1, 1951, Antigua and Barbuda became 8 constituencies under the second Constitution, the 1951 Adult Suffrage Constitution: the 1951 Adult Suffrage Constitution: 1. St. John City (North); 2. St. John City (South) and Barbuda; 3. St. John (Rural) West; 4. St. John (Rural) South; 5. St. George and St. John (Rural) North; 6. St. Mary; 7. St. Paul; 8. St. Phillip and St. Peter. As a footnote, the whole of the Village of All Saints was included in the St. John (Rural) South Constituency.
For the general elections held on November 29 1960, the number of constituencies was increased to 10.
Barbuda became a separate constituency, no longer attached to St. John City South.
St. George was detached from St. John Rural North, and both also became stand-alone constituencies.
St. Phillip and St. Peter remained attached as a single constituency. That was 1960.
In 1970, the number of Constituencies was increased to 17, the same number as exists today. Keithly Heath was appointed as Chairman of the Boundaries Commission, and George Walter also sat on the Boundaries Commission. Elections were set for February 11 1971. No-one squabbled over the date of elections, nor the number of constituencies, nor the necessary changes to the boundaries. There was wide consensus and candidates had eight months to prepare for elections:- June 1970 to February 1971.
That was the kind of efficiency and forethought brought to a process that was far more complicated than what was required from the Boundaries Commission appointed in 2012. Let us go back though, and look again.
In 1970, re-registration took place in the month of July. It was the custom, before continuous registration became the law in 2001, for registration of new voters to take place once each year in July.
The Boundaries Commission, in 1970, created the St. Luke Constituency (and Wilbert Sterling of the PLM beat Bradley Carrott of the ALP 727 to 391 in the February 1971 contest).
St. Peter now stood alone for the first time, in 1970. It was won by Joseph Myers of the ALP over Claxton Ferris of the PLM, 405 to 355.
St. Phillip was divided into North and South (and Cyril James beat Donald Sheppard 397 to 324).
St. Mary was also divided into North and South (and Robert Hall won St. Mary North. Victor Mackay won St. Mary South, both PLM candidates).
The 1971 boundaries remained unchanged until 1984 when All Saints was divided into All Saints East and St. Luke and All Saints West. Minor changes took place in six other constituencies, in 1984. Bear in mind, however, that All Saints contained the second highest number of inhabitants after St. John Rural West, in 1984.
It seems to me, looking back, that the change in 1984 was justified.
The Representative of St. John Rural West and of St. George are of a differing view. But their view cannot colour what is being undertaken at this time in 2014.
When they mention 1984, it sounds very much like vengeful politics that burns for 30 years. That is not statesmanlike, if you ask me. It sounds like tit for tat. It cannot be justifiable to paint a picture of a series of events which the UPP leaders say took place 30 years ago, and from that draw the conclusion that it is appropriate to re-create a version of it in 2014.
If perceived 1984 wrong-doing is the UPP rationale for today’s lawless attempts at gerrymandering, then our moral and ethical framework is damaged beyond repair.
1984 is not 2014. Gaston Browne is not George Walter. The Labour Party is not the PLM, the UPM, the ACLM combination that could not mount an effective challenge to the incumbent administration.
That March 11 2013 attempt to slip a boundaries change past the Labour Party is not do-able. All the rancor and disagreements that beset the opposition in 1984 are not present today.
Besides, the economy was spinning in 1984. Jobs were plentiful. The people of Antigua and Barbuda rejected the failed PLM, UPM, ACLM opposition that could not function effectively in the 1971 to 1976 experiment.
The ambition of a leader, whether he has consumed pond water or Perrier is not relevant in determining competence. The drive to be the leader of a country is not a fight for status. In 2014, like in 1984, competence is the watchword. Can you manage?
Can you produce jobs? How good a job have you done when handed the reins of power?
There is absolutely no need to gerrymander if the majority regards your performance as admirable. In 1984, the vast majority showed their support for Vere Cornwall Bird and rejected George Walter. Characterize it as you may, that was the bottom line. Look at the 1980 results, the 1984 election results, the 1989 results. It is very clear, very clear, that the vast majority of eligible adults preferred the leadership of the Labour Party. Gerrymandering in 1984! Why? What would be the need?
This brings me to the matter at hand. Madame Speaker:
This is of course only one aspect of the all-out onslaught on the electoral process that this Government has made since the last election …
We, like all citizens of our country have hoped and believed, have always believed we are fortunate to have been born in Antigua, a democratic country where our rights and freedoms are enshrined by a Constitution that protects them, and all of us
What has happened is yet another example of this Government’s attack on these rights and freedoms
I am talking about all of our rights, and that most basic of our rights, to be represented in our Parliament, fairly and by whomever we choose
Our votes are vital to your freedom. But they mean nothing in a vacuum. How they are counted? It is by constituencies, divisions of our country made to ensure that all of us have a fair and an equal say
Our constituencies must be fair, they have to be equal, and they have to represent the areas in which we, the people, live our lives
Our Constitution guarantees this. It has its special Chapter, Chapter 4, Parliament. That Chapter has a special part, Part 4, Constituencies… This is all to guarantee that our elections are fair
This has to be kept under review, and the Constitution provides for this. It provides for a Constituencies and Boundaries Commission. It provides that this Commission must be fair – it must be composed of independent and fair minded men who are not politicians Senators, MPs or public officers
Not only that, the Constitution goes further, it states that Parliament may prescribe the rules for the Commission
Parliament has done so – so we have an Act, the Constituencies Boundaries Guidance Act – and this Act is intended to strengthen the Protection that the Constitution gives us all
And what does the Act say? – The Commission must carry out a review. But the Act and the Rules do not leave it at that – let me read you what they say …
Section 3 (2) of the Act says this
“During the process of review, the Commission shall where necessary hold consultations with interested persons and obtain credible data or information to assist it in its deliberations.”
So the position ought to be clear to anyone
But what has happened? The Commission has not held consultations during the process of review at all. It has not consulted any of us, the ALP, or any of the persons who are interested in the freedom that elections are supposed to protect
It has not consulted the sitting members of Parliament, it has not consulted anyone
As well as this, it has not obtained credible information – I can show you incontrovertible proof that this is the case
Instead, the Commission announces its conclusions, its so-called Recommendations, as a ‘done deal’; ‘take it or leave it’, ‘we know best’, let’s have a few sham meetings to make it look as if we care
And the final insult to your intelligence let’s call then ‘Consultations’, as if we are obeying the law, rather than flagrantly disregarding it, and breaking it
So what do you think? Is this what the Constitution intended? Is this the protection the law is there to guarantee?
Of course not – this is a cynical, political, and dishonest exercise in gerrymandering, cheating the electorate, cheating you, to give an advantage to a Government that knows it is going to lose if it has a fair fight …
Madame Speaker: I can see why the need for gerrymandering today! The polls have told you. You are history. These are your last days. Gaston Browne is far preferable as a leader than the alternative. Our polls, your polls, and independent polls have revealed the preference of the Antigua and Barbuda electorate.
All Boundaries Commissions are made up of four members, as directed by Section 63(1) of the Antigua and Barbuda Constitution.
The Prime Minister recommends three, including the Chairman; the Leader of the Opposition appoints one member.
Madame Speaker: Those appointments took place in February 2012, nearly three years following the UPP’s second term in office. It appeared like a kind of afterthought, a last minute strategy. The commencement of the work of the Boundaries Commission, to create and submit a Report, started four years following the June 2008 submission of the previous Boundaries Report.
Madame Speaker: The appointment of Members of the Boundaries Commission can commence at any time following the election of a government; but, the Boundaries Commission Report can be submitted no earlier than two years following the last Report or, in this case, on June 30 2010; or, no later than five years following the previous Report. That five-year outer limit was on June 30, 2013. Guess when the Report was submitted? On Friday, June 28 2013, the Boundaries Commission submitted its Report, two days short of the deadline.
They have five years or 1,725 days to work on a Report. Because the Report cannot be submitted on a Sunday (June 30 2013), it was submitted on the Friday, June 28 2013. The very last day! Where, Madame Speaker, is the efficiency? Where is the fairness? Where is the justification to the electorate and the candidates? 1,725 days to craft a Report and Clarence Crump submits a Report on the 1,723rd day.
Further, Madame Speaker, he had been warned publicly and privately that the Report was going to be challenged in the Courts.
The Commissioner appointed by the Leader of the Opposition told the entire world that what was taking place was unfair.
Mr. Jimmy Fuller was appointed in 2012 by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition as a Member of the Boundaries Commission. On February 13 2013, he signed a dissenting Report that clearly charged gerrymandering. I am not permitted to read from it, I have been forewarned but it should be read by those who have an interest in the workings of the Boundaries Commission. It has been cited at the High Court level in the bundle of documents, and in the Court of Appeals bundle.
The Attorney General, acting on behalf of the Boundaries Commission, agreed to withdraw the first Report following the issuance of an injunction on March 11, 2013, by a High Court Judge. That is the history, Madame Speaker.
The appointment of James Fuller has nevertheless disappointed many of us on this side of the aisle. He has made an unwarranted attack on me, four Sundays past on a local radio station.
Madame Speaker: The clear impression, given by the Commissioner to thousands of listeners, is that I did nothing to challenge the Draft Boundaries Commission Report when the Constituency of St. Phillips North disappeared in the first Draft Report. He indicated that I only took action when the St. Peter’s Constituency was eliminated in the second Draft Report.
In other words, my interest in attacking the Second Draft Report was triggered only when my own position was threatened, he asserted. That was an unwarranted and untruthful claim.
His assertions are blatantly untrue, and the Commissioner knew it. The evidence shows that I acted on the basis of information provided by the Commissioner, from the very start. Two letters written by Commissioner Fuller to the Commission dated June 20, 2012, and July 5, 2012, provide evidence of his disagreement with the methodologies being adopted by the Boundaries Commission. The lawyers retained by the Labour Party began to ready themselves because of his assertions. I was fully involved from the beginning and contributed significantly to selecting and retaining the lawyers.
His dissenting Report, was fully aired and I had Sir James Guthrie of London write a brief that examined the issues he raised.
Mr. Guthrie argued in another case here, in Antigua, before the High Court, when Anthony Astaphan could not come.
When the Commissioner’s Dissenting Report was signed on February 7 2013, several attorneys retained by the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party and by me were involved. The Commissioner knew that.
The injunction of March 11 2013 was also pursued vigorously, before the attempt to eliminate St. Peter’s. It was vigour and attention and costly litigation.
Madame Speaker: In this New Year, I would not wish to exacerbate a disagreement. However, I wish to make it pellucid that the untruthful claim leveled at me by someone selected by the Leader of the ABLP is hurtful and harmful. I wish to set the record straight.
Now, the elimination of the St. Peter’s Constituency, by a Commission whose majority is appointed by the Prime Minister, is even more hurtful to my constituents, to the people of Antigua and Barbuda, and to our democracy.
Madame Speaker: Since 1951, there existed a constituency named St. Peter. It became a stand-alone constituency 43 years ago, as I pointed out earlier. St. Peter’s has remained loyal to the party that built the schools across this country beginning 63 years ago; the party that transformed education by creating the education levy—a model according to the World bank—and a fund for scholarships at the tertiary level of education. St. Peter’s has always supported the party that created the Antigua State College and the Antigua and Barbuda International Institute of Technology (ABIIT); the party that established the National Provident Fund, forerunner to the Social Security Board, and the 1977 Medical Benefits Scheme that provides medicines to any contributor who is ill; the party that built Mount St. John Medical Center; the party that built the deepwater ports at Rat Island and Heritage Quay; the party that built the 1960 and the 1981 airports and lengthened the runway to accommodate the largest commercial planes in the world; the party that created every new economic sector and industry, including the Hotel and tourism Industry 60 years ago; the offshore banking and financial services industry 32 years ago; the offshore ship registry industry 25 years ago. St. Peter’s has always supported the party that transformed land ownership by acquiring 33,000 acres of arable lands from the Antigua Syndicate Estates and the Antigua Sugar Factory 47 years ago, in 1967; the party that pushed Antigua and Barbuda forward to 29th on the United Nations Human Development Index of 179 UN Member-States, including all Caribbean countries except Barbados, in 1994.
The people of St. Peter’s know our history and knew that the party of choice was the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party. In a manner that can only be described as brutal, the people of St. Peter’s—of Parham, Vernons, Weirs Estate, Mount Joy, Pares, Lightfoot, Fitches Creek, Paynters—do not now have that choice to vote for their fourth-ever representative. Donald Sheppard, Joseph Meyers, Langford Jeremy, and Asot Michael have one feature in common: We represented a people in Parliament who never lost sight of their history and of their greatness. While others may have strayed, you kept the course; you kept the faith; you kept the love. Whether it was 1971 or 2004 or 2009, you would not be moved.
I wish to thank and congratulate the people of St. Peter’s for justifiably investing their undying faith in the incomparable Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party, and in me. Rest assured that this matter that is now before the Court of Appeal will end with St. Peter’s fully intact, I believe. We shall prevail. We shall overcome! Justice shall always prevail. Joy cometh in the morning, says the prophet.
The act of making St. Peter’s disappear is not magic. It is not sorcery. It is not justice. It is a deliberate attempt to rob the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party of one of its strongholds. I wish to go back to the issue of consultations that were to be held by the Constituencies Boundaries Commission.
Early in the month ofNovember 2012 the Commission promised that consultations were to be held. That promise came after quite a lot of public agitation by the opposition.
The Boundaries Commission invited the opposition, the Electoral Commission and the public to a consultation at the Multi-purpose Centre on the 29th day of November, 2012 at 7:00pm. Absolutely no information was provided to any person whether prior to or at this meeting.
The leaders of the Labour Party attended this meeting. Also present were elected Representatives and candidates of the United Progressive Party. Several members of the Antigua & Barbuda Electoral Commission, and very few members of the public, attended this November 29, 2012, event.
The Chairman of the Boundaries Commission, Mr. Clarence Crump, chaired this meeting. He indicated that the Commission was holding the meeting to invite recommendations from the persons present. He wanted the attendees to share with him what changes should be made to the existing constituency boundaries. No information whatsoever was then provided by the Mr. Crump to anyone.
Miss E. Ann Henry and Mrs. Paula Lee, who are members of the Antigua & Barbuda Electoral Commission, were present. They walked out of this meeting when the Chairman informed them that he had no intention of providing or sharing any information.
At this meeting, the Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Gaston Browne, made enquires as to the purpose of the meeting. Mr. Clarence Crump again repeated that the Commission was not there to share information or have discussions concerning any proposed recommendations to alter the boundaries.
He said the Commission wanted to hear from the persons present as to their proposed recommendations.
How this was to be done without any information from the Boundaries Commission was never explained. The Labour Party considered this meeting to be a farce and left.
The very next day, the 30th day of November, 2012, the Chairman of the Antigua & Barbuda Labour Party wrote to the Chairman of the Boundaries Commission.
The Chairman pointed out the Party’s concern on the lack of consultation, and failure to disclose the Commission’s proposed recommendations, if any. Two months later, the Boundaries Commission prepared an undated draft original report issued on or about the 5th day of February, 2013.
One Commissioner indicated, by way of his own report, that Mr. Crump was determined to ‘draw’ the boundaries first and then, and only then, decide on how many people were to be moved into the ‘new’ constituencies.
The record shows that this was his conclusion during the Commission’s meetings of May 24th and June 21st 2012.
The boundaries were determined by Mr. Crump taking members for a drive. This method of determining the proposed boundaries by driving around in a car was further established by the minutes of the Commission’s meeting held on the 24th January 2013. The proposed realignment of the boundaries was made without any population data or demographics of the existing constituencies.
Later on, Mr. Crump would elicit the help of Mr. Anthony from the Statistical Division, and the population numbers within the re-drawn boundaries were filled-in like magic. What the Labour Party was presented, on June 15 2013 for consultations on June 17 2013, quite remarkably, were bare alleged population figures for the newly configured constituencies. These figures were not for the existing constituencies, and therefore did not show any population density, disparity or otherwise of the existing constituencies. Without comparative data, it is not possible to justify any alteration of the boundaries.
In fact, Section 3 (1) of the Guidance Act passed in December 2012 and gazetted in January 2013, required that kind of justification.
What was very evident, Madame Speaker, was that the Boundaries Commission led by Mr. Clarence Crump, had cherry-picked specific geographical areas of political support, and maneuvered these areas and boundaries of the various constituencies in a manner which favoured the United Progressive Party, and disadvantaged the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party. The Boundaries Commission also chose to eliminate the St Peter’s Constituency altogether.
I fully recognize, Madame Speaker, that this is not a trial before a judge. This is a trial in the Court of Public Opinion. Parliamentary debates are just that. They are moments afforded parliamentarians to make their case before the general public. The broadcast to the public is for that reason. Arguments in the Court, as we all know, Madame Speaker, are not broadcast; only those who attend can hear the direct speech of the advocates.
Parliament is broadcast for all to hear and to judge for themselves.
The behaviour of the Boundaries Commission was and remains unlawful, and therefore the decision of the High Court Judge is being appealed. The Appeals Court will shortly hear the matter. I believe that this debate ought not to take place until the Court of Appeals has ruled. It is really very inappropriate to have a debate while a decision is pending; but, that is the way in which this parliament has chosen to operate.
Madame Speaker: “To erase St. Peter’s is to inflict a wrong on the people of St. Peter’s and on Antigua and Barbuda. Since 2004, I have contested in each General Election within Antigua and Barbuda and I have continuously and overwhelmingly been duly elected and returned as the Representative for St. Peter. In the general election of March 12, 2009, I won 63.10% of the vote cast, or 1588 of 2516 electors. If elections are held on March 12 2014, as they should be, I would again be returned by winning more than 65% of the vote in St. Peter.
The wrong that has been inflicted on the people of Antigua and Barbuda, and on the people of (St. Mary’s, the people of St. John Rural East, the people of St. John Rural South and) St. Peter shall not stand.
Our democracy is at stake; our freedom is being eroded; our elections are being made a farce. This cannot stand.
Madame Speaker, the actions of this administration do violence to fairness and justice.
The proposed changes to the boundaries are intended to create, as far as is possible, victory for the United Progressive Party in March 2014 or any time before that due date. The intention is far from good, nor is the heart pure. The intent is to win by cheating, by placing the balance squarely on the side that benefits the incumbent government. Ten on that side and seven on this side, so the ayes will always have it.
But the people of Antigua and Barbuda, witnessing this gross injustice will reject those who dare to make a mockery of their democracy. Time will tell.
Rest assured Mr. P.M., that the voters of this country other than your party base will punish you at the next general election.
Political history has shown that whenever a political party seeks to undermine the Electoral process to assist them to retain power, by using political and Electoral chicanery they have invariably been punished by the Electorate.
Thank you, Madame Speaker.
Representative of St. Peter’s Constituency
speaks
on
The Constituencies Boundaries Commission Report
House of Representative
January 14th 2014
Madame Speaker:
I wish you and all the Members of Staff of the Parliament, all Parliamentarians on both sides of the aisle, a Healthy and Prosperous New Year, and God’s richest blessings during 2014.
I wish to assure my constituents, my friends and colleagues and all those who heard rumors that I was deathly ill, that I am very healthy.
Where that rumor got its start—that Asot Michael is deathly ill—I cannot tell. I do have a problem with a herniated disc in my spine, and I am being treated for it. Other than that, I can assure you all that I am well and that my New Year will be enjoyable and victorious.
This is the year of promise, as I see it. 2014 is the year of great promise.
Thank you Madame Speaker:
I take the floor to address an issue that is clearly the most important as it relates to elections and our democracy.
Free and fair elections serve as a judgment in favour of or against the incumbent administration.
Madame Speaker:
The people of Antigua and Barbuda will have an opportunity to change the course of their current drift away from the economic and development shallows by electing a new government in 2014 to steer the ship of state. This obligation, to hold an election at least once every five years, cannot be avoided.
After ten years of two UPP administrations, the constituents of St. Peter’s eagerly welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that they would wish me to be their representative, once again. The other 16 constituencies across our nation will have the identical and simultaneous opportunity to elect a Labour Party candidate.
Countries that are democracies, countries that have constitutional guarantees, all operate parliaments that have representatives of their people, elected periodically. The People’s representatives are a feature of real democracies.
Another feature that is necessary in a democracy, in order to determine fairness in election of Representatives, is the size and population of the Constituency, relative to others. In the USA there are 435 Congressional Districts, and in Canada there are 308 districts, called “ridings;” there are 17 in Antigua and Barbuda as everyone knows.
There must be a determination of both number of inhabitants per constituency, and a reasonable allocation of geographic space per constituency. In a small island, despite an increasing number of inhabitants choosing to live near the urban center, the distribution system can be determined by consultations and the application of human intelligence.
Madame Speaker:
Decisions regarding the drawing of boundaries are usually dictated by law. The decisions are not expected to be whimsical, not arbitrary, not irrational. When either side in a political divide perceives that decisions on boundaries are not fair, are not just, or are not rational, then the referee or the umpire is called-in. Our referee is the High Court, the Court of Appeals and the Privy Council. One day, the CCJ may replace the Privy Council.
Exactly one year ago and four days, on January 10 2013, The Constituencies Boundaries Commission Guidance Act, was published in the Official Gazette Volume 33, No. 2. The law had its basis or its legitimacy under Part 4, Section 64(3) of the Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda.
Madame Speaker, I am being very careful for I want to paint a history that can be easily understood by those who are viewing or listening to this broadcast on television, ABS Radio or the Worldwide Web. The Guidance Act was not at all confusing. It required the Constituencies Boundaries Commission to “be guided by the cardinal principles that all constituencies shall contain as nearly equal numbers of inhabitants, taking into account the need to achieve voter’s parity as appear to the Commission to be reasonably practical…”
By “reasonably practical” is meant that four deviations from the cardinal principles were allowed; the Commissioners would take into account:
i. the density of population in each constituency;
ii. the adequacy of representation of sparsely populated rural areas included in each constituency;
iii. the geographical features of every constituency;
iv. the boundaries of St. John’s, the only city; the boundaries of Parham, the only other town in Antigua, the boundaries of our many villages; and the expansion of villages that require boundary delimitations; these deviations were to be taken into account.
Parishes, the basis of the Constituencies, were also to be factored into the decision-making.
Madame Speaker:
How, therefore, were 3,000+ electors from the St. Peter’s Constituency made to suffer troubling confusion when they learned that St. Peter’s Constituency, after June 28 2013, no longer existed? What is rational in deleting one of the six Parishes upon which is based the very system of electoral boundaries.
In 1937, Antigua and Barbuda was one constituency. On December 1, 1951, Antigua and Barbuda became 8 constituencies under the second Constitution, the 1951 Adult Suffrage Constitution: the 1951 Adult Suffrage Constitution: 1. St. John City (North); 2. St. John City (South) and Barbuda; 3. St. John (Rural) West; 4. St. John (Rural) South; 5. St. George and St. John (Rural) North; 6. St. Mary; 7. St. Paul; 8. St. Phillip and St. Peter. As a footnote, the whole of the Village of All Saints was included in the St. John (Rural) South Constituency.
For the general elections held on November 29 1960, the number of constituencies was increased to 10.
Barbuda became a separate constituency, no longer attached to St. John City South.
St. George was detached from St. John Rural North, and both also became stand-alone constituencies.
St. Phillip and St. Peter remained attached as a single constituency. That was 1960.
In 1970, the number of Constituencies was increased to 17, the same number as exists today. Keithly Heath was appointed as Chairman of the Boundaries Commission, and George Walter also sat on the Boundaries Commission. Elections were set for February 11 1971. No-one squabbled over the date of elections, nor the number of constituencies, nor the necessary changes to the boundaries. There was wide consensus and candidates had eight months to prepare for elections:- June 1970 to February 1971.
That was the kind of efficiency and forethought brought to a process that was far more complicated than what was required from the Boundaries Commission appointed in 2012. Let us go back though, and look again.
In 1970, re-registration took place in the month of July. It was the custom, before continuous registration became the law in 2001, for registration of new voters to take place once each year in July.
The Boundaries Commission, in 1970, created the St. Luke Constituency (and Wilbert Sterling of the PLM beat Bradley Carrott of the ALP 727 to 391 in the February 1971 contest).
St. Peter now stood alone for the first time, in 1970. It was won by Joseph Myers of the ALP over Claxton Ferris of the PLM, 405 to 355.
St. Phillip was divided into North and South (and Cyril James beat Donald Sheppard 397 to 324).
St. Mary was also divided into North and South (and Robert Hall won St. Mary North. Victor Mackay won St. Mary South, both PLM candidates).
The 1971 boundaries remained unchanged until 1984 when All Saints was divided into All Saints East and St. Luke and All Saints West. Minor changes took place in six other constituencies, in 1984. Bear in mind, however, that All Saints contained the second highest number of inhabitants after St. John Rural West, in 1984.
It seems to me, looking back, that the change in 1984 was justified.
The Representative of St. John Rural West and of St. George are of a differing view. But their view cannot colour what is being undertaken at this time in 2014.
When they mention 1984, it sounds very much like vengeful politics that burns for 30 years. That is not statesmanlike, if you ask me. It sounds like tit for tat. It cannot be justifiable to paint a picture of a series of events which the UPP leaders say took place 30 years ago, and from that draw the conclusion that it is appropriate to re-create a version of it in 2014.
If perceived 1984 wrong-doing is the UPP rationale for today’s lawless attempts at gerrymandering, then our moral and ethical framework is damaged beyond repair.
1984 is not 2014. Gaston Browne is not George Walter. The Labour Party is not the PLM, the UPM, the ACLM combination that could not mount an effective challenge to the incumbent administration.
That March 11 2013 attempt to slip a boundaries change past the Labour Party is not do-able. All the rancor and disagreements that beset the opposition in 1984 are not present today.
Besides, the economy was spinning in 1984. Jobs were plentiful. The people of Antigua and Barbuda rejected the failed PLM, UPM, ACLM opposition that could not function effectively in the 1971 to 1976 experiment.
The ambition of a leader, whether he has consumed pond water or Perrier is not relevant in determining competence. The drive to be the leader of a country is not a fight for status. In 2014, like in 1984, competence is the watchword. Can you manage?
Can you produce jobs? How good a job have you done when handed the reins of power?
There is absolutely no need to gerrymander if the majority regards your performance as admirable. In 1984, the vast majority showed their support for Vere Cornwall Bird and rejected George Walter. Characterize it as you may, that was the bottom line. Look at the 1980 results, the 1984 election results, the 1989 results. It is very clear, very clear, that the vast majority of eligible adults preferred the leadership of the Labour Party. Gerrymandering in 1984! Why? What would be the need?
This brings me to the matter at hand. Madame Speaker:
This is of course only one aspect of the all-out onslaught on the electoral process that this Government has made since the last election …
We, like all citizens of our country have hoped and believed, have always believed we are fortunate to have been born in Antigua, a democratic country where our rights and freedoms are enshrined by a Constitution that protects them, and all of us
What has happened is yet another example of this Government’s attack on these rights and freedoms
I am talking about all of our rights, and that most basic of our rights, to be represented in our Parliament, fairly and by whomever we choose
Our votes are vital to your freedom. But they mean nothing in a vacuum. How they are counted? It is by constituencies, divisions of our country made to ensure that all of us have a fair and an equal say
Our constituencies must be fair, they have to be equal, and they have to represent the areas in which we, the people, live our lives
Our Constitution guarantees this. It has its special Chapter, Chapter 4, Parliament. That Chapter has a special part, Part 4, Constituencies… This is all to guarantee that our elections are fair
This has to be kept under review, and the Constitution provides for this. It provides for a Constituencies and Boundaries Commission. It provides that this Commission must be fair – it must be composed of independent and fair minded men who are not politicians Senators, MPs or public officers
Not only that, the Constitution goes further, it states that Parliament may prescribe the rules for the Commission
Parliament has done so – so we have an Act, the Constituencies Boundaries Guidance Act – and this Act is intended to strengthen the Protection that the Constitution gives us all
And what does the Act say? – The Commission must carry out a review. But the Act and the Rules do not leave it at that – let me read you what they say …
Section 3 (2) of the Act says this
“During the process of review, the Commission shall where necessary hold consultations with interested persons and obtain credible data or information to assist it in its deliberations.”
So the position ought to be clear to anyone
But what has happened? The Commission has not held consultations during the process of review at all. It has not consulted any of us, the ALP, or any of the persons who are interested in the freedom that elections are supposed to protect
It has not consulted the sitting members of Parliament, it has not consulted anyone
As well as this, it has not obtained credible information – I can show you incontrovertible proof that this is the case
Instead, the Commission announces its conclusions, its so-called Recommendations, as a ‘done deal’; ‘take it or leave it’, ‘we know best’, let’s have a few sham meetings to make it look as if we care
And the final insult to your intelligence let’s call then ‘Consultations’, as if we are obeying the law, rather than flagrantly disregarding it, and breaking it
So what do you think? Is this what the Constitution intended? Is this the protection the law is there to guarantee?
Of course not – this is a cynical, political, and dishonest exercise in gerrymandering, cheating the electorate, cheating you, to give an advantage to a Government that knows it is going to lose if it has a fair fight …
Madame Speaker: I can see why the need for gerrymandering today! The polls have told you. You are history. These are your last days. Gaston Browne is far preferable as a leader than the alternative. Our polls, your polls, and independent polls have revealed the preference of the Antigua and Barbuda electorate.
All Boundaries Commissions are made up of four members, as directed by Section 63(1) of the Antigua and Barbuda Constitution.
The Prime Minister recommends three, including the Chairman; the Leader of the Opposition appoints one member.
Madame Speaker: Those appointments took place in February 2012, nearly three years following the UPP’s second term in office. It appeared like a kind of afterthought, a last minute strategy. The commencement of the work of the Boundaries Commission, to create and submit a Report, started four years following the June 2008 submission of the previous Boundaries Report.
Madame Speaker: The appointment of Members of the Boundaries Commission can commence at any time following the election of a government; but, the Boundaries Commission Report can be submitted no earlier than two years following the last Report or, in this case, on June 30 2010; or, no later than five years following the previous Report. That five-year outer limit was on June 30, 2013. Guess when the Report was submitted? On Friday, June 28 2013, the Boundaries Commission submitted its Report, two days short of the deadline.
They have five years or 1,725 days to work on a Report. Because the Report cannot be submitted on a Sunday (June 30 2013), it was submitted on the Friday, June 28 2013. The very last day! Where, Madame Speaker, is the efficiency? Where is the fairness? Where is the justification to the electorate and the candidates? 1,725 days to craft a Report and Clarence Crump submits a Report on the 1,723rd day.
Further, Madame Speaker, he had been warned publicly and privately that the Report was going to be challenged in the Courts.
The Commissioner appointed by the Leader of the Opposition told the entire world that what was taking place was unfair.
Mr. Jimmy Fuller was appointed in 2012 by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition as a Member of the Boundaries Commission. On February 13 2013, he signed a dissenting Report that clearly charged gerrymandering. I am not permitted to read from it, I have been forewarned but it should be read by those who have an interest in the workings of the Boundaries Commission. It has been cited at the High Court level in the bundle of documents, and in the Court of Appeals bundle.
The Attorney General, acting on behalf of the Boundaries Commission, agreed to withdraw the first Report following the issuance of an injunction on March 11, 2013, by a High Court Judge. That is the history, Madame Speaker.
The appointment of James Fuller has nevertheless disappointed many of us on this side of the aisle. He has made an unwarranted attack on me, four Sundays past on a local radio station.
Madame Speaker: The clear impression, given by the Commissioner to thousands of listeners, is that I did nothing to challenge the Draft Boundaries Commission Report when the Constituency of St. Phillips North disappeared in the first Draft Report. He indicated that I only took action when the St. Peter’s Constituency was eliminated in the second Draft Report.
In other words, my interest in attacking the Second Draft Report was triggered only when my own position was threatened, he asserted. That was an unwarranted and untruthful claim.
His assertions are blatantly untrue, and the Commissioner knew it. The evidence shows that I acted on the basis of information provided by the Commissioner, from the very start. Two letters written by Commissioner Fuller to the Commission dated June 20, 2012, and July 5, 2012, provide evidence of his disagreement with the methodologies being adopted by the Boundaries Commission. The lawyers retained by the Labour Party began to ready themselves because of his assertions. I was fully involved from the beginning and contributed significantly to selecting and retaining the lawyers.
His dissenting Report, was fully aired and I had Sir James Guthrie of London write a brief that examined the issues he raised.
Mr. Guthrie argued in another case here, in Antigua, before the High Court, when Anthony Astaphan could not come.
When the Commissioner’s Dissenting Report was signed on February 7 2013, several attorneys retained by the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party and by me were involved. The Commissioner knew that.
The injunction of March 11 2013 was also pursued vigorously, before the attempt to eliminate St. Peter’s. It was vigour and attention and costly litigation.
Madame Speaker: In this New Year, I would not wish to exacerbate a disagreement. However, I wish to make it pellucid that the untruthful claim leveled at me by someone selected by the Leader of the ABLP is hurtful and harmful. I wish to set the record straight.
Now, the elimination of the St. Peter’s Constituency, by a Commission whose majority is appointed by the Prime Minister, is even more hurtful to my constituents, to the people of Antigua and Barbuda, and to our democracy.
Madame Speaker: Since 1951, there existed a constituency named St. Peter. It became a stand-alone constituency 43 years ago, as I pointed out earlier. St. Peter’s has remained loyal to the party that built the schools across this country beginning 63 years ago; the party that transformed education by creating the education levy—a model according to the World bank—and a fund for scholarships at the tertiary level of education. St. Peter’s has always supported the party that created the Antigua State College and the Antigua and Barbuda International Institute of Technology (ABIIT); the party that established the National Provident Fund, forerunner to the Social Security Board, and the 1977 Medical Benefits Scheme that provides medicines to any contributor who is ill; the party that built Mount St. John Medical Center; the party that built the deepwater ports at Rat Island and Heritage Quay; the party that built the 1960 and the 1981 airports and lengthened the runway to accommodate the largest commercial planes in the world; the party that created every new economic sector and industry, including the Hotel and tourism Industry 60 years ago; the offshore banking and financial services industry 32 years ago; the offshore ship registry industry 25 years ago. St. Peter’s has always supported the party that transformed land ownership by acquiring 33,000 acres of arable lands from the Antigua Syndicate Estates and the Antigua Sugar Factory 47 years ago, in 1967; the party that pushed Antigua and Barbuda forward to 29th on the United Nations Human Development Index of 179 UN Member-States, including all Caribbean countries except Barbados, in 1994.
The people of St. Peter’s know our history and knew that the party of choice was the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party. In a manner that can only be described as brutal, the people of St. Peter’s—of Parham, Vernons, Weirs Estate, Mount Joy, Pares, Lightfoot, Fitches Creek, Paynters—do not now have that choice to vote for their fourth-ever representative. Donald Sheppard, Joseph Meyers, Langford Jeremy, and Asot Michael have one feature in common: We represented a people in Parliament who never lost sight of their history and of their greatness. While others may have strayed, you kept the course; you kept the faith; you kept the love. Whether it was 1971 or 2004 or 2009, you would not be moved.
I wish to thank and congratulate the people of St. Peter’s for justifiably investing their undying faith in the incomparable Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party, and in me. Rest assured that this matter that is now before the Court of Appeal will end with St. Peter’s fully intact, I believe. We shall prevail. We shall overcome! Justice shall always prevail. Joy cometh in the morning, says the prophet.
The act of making St. Peter’s disappear is not magic. It is not sorcery. It is not justice. It is a deliberate attempt to rob the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party of one of its strongholds. I wish to go back to the issue of consultations that were to be held by the Constituencies Boundaries Commission.
Early in the month ofNovember 2012 the Commission promised that consultations were to be held. That promise came after quite a lot of public agitation by the opposition.
The Boundaries Commission invited the opposition, the Electoral Commission and the public to a consultation at the Multi-purpose Centre on the 29th day of November, 2012 at 7:00pm. Absolutely no information was provided to any person whether prior to or at this meeting.
The leaders of the Labour Party attended this meeting. Also present were elected Representatives and candidates of the United Progressive Party. Several members of the Antigua & Barbuda Electoral Commission, and very few members of the public, attended this November 29, 2012, event.
The Chairman of the Boundaries Commission, Mr. Clarence Crump, chaired this meeting. He indicated that the Commission was holding the meeting to invite recommendations from the persons present. He wanted the attendees to share with him what changes should be made to the existing constituency boundaries. No information whatsoever was then provided by the Mr. Crump to anyone.
Miss E. Ann Henry and Mrs. Paula Lee, who are members of the Antigua & Barbuda Electoral Commission, were present. They walked out of this meeting when the Chairman informed them that he had no intention of providing or sharing any information.
At this meeting, the Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Gaston Browne, made enquires as to the purpose of the meeting. Mr. Clarence Crump again repeated that the Commission was not there to share information or have discussions concerning any proposed recommendations to alter the boundaries.
He said the Commission wanted to hear from the persons present as to their proposed recommendations.
How this was to be done without any information from the Boundaries Commission was never explained. The Labour Party considered this meeting to be a farce and left.
The very next day, the 30th day of November, 2012, the Chairman of the Antigua & Barbuda Labour Party wrote to the Chairman of the Boundaries Commission.
The Chairman pointed out the Party’s concern on the lack of consultation, and failure to disclose the Commission’s proposed recommendations, if any. Two months later, the Boundaries Commission prepared an undated draft original report issued on or about the 5th day of February, 2013.
One Commissioner indicated, by way of his own report, that Mr. Crump was determined to ‘draw’ the boundaries first and then, and only then, decide on how many people were to be moved into the ‘new’ constituencies.
The record shows that this was his conclusion during the Commission’s meetings of May 24th and June 21st 2012.
The boundaries were determined by Mr. Crump taking members for a drive. This method of determining the proposed boundaries by driving around in a car was further established by the minutes of the Commission’s meeting held on the 24th January 2013. The proposed realignment of the boundaries was made without any population data or demographics of the existing constituencies.
Later on, Mr. Crump would elicit the help of Mr. Anthony from the Statistical Division, and the population numbers within the re-drawn boundaries were filled-in like magic. What the Labour Party was presented, on June 15 2013 for consultations on June 17 2013, quite remarkably, were bare alleged population figures for the newly configured constituencies. These figures were not for the existing constituencies, and therefore did not show any population density, disparity or otherwise of the existing constituencies. Without comparative data, it is not possible to justify any alteration of the boundaries.
In fact, Section 3 (1) of the Guidance Act passed in December 2012 and gazetted in January 2013, required that kind of justification.
What was very evident, Madame Speaker, was that the Boundaries Commission led by Mr. Clarence Crump, had cherry-picked specific geographical areas of political support, and maneuvered these areas and boundaries of the various constituencies in a manner which favoured the United Progressive Party, and disadvantaged the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party. The Boundaries Commission also chose to eliminate the St Peter’s Constituency altogether.
I fully recognize, Madame Speaker, that this is not a trial before a judge. This is a trial in the Court of Public Opinion. Parliamentary debates are just that. They are moments afforded parliamentarians to make their case before the general public. The broadcast to the public is for that reason. Arguments in the Court, as we all know, Madame Speaker, are not broadcast; only those who attend can hear the direct speech of the advocates.
Parliament is broadcast for all to hear and to judge for themselves.
The behaviour of the Boundaries Commission was and remains unlawful, and therefore the decision of the High Court Judge is being appealed. The Appeals Court will shortly hear the matter. I believe that this debate ought not to take place until the Court of Appeals has ruled. It is really very inappropriate to have a debate while a decision is pending; but, that is the way in which this parliament has chosen to operate.
Madame Speaker: “To erase St. Peter’s is to inflict a wrong on the people of St. Peter’s and on Antigua and Barbuda. Since 2004, I have contested in each General Election within Antigua and Barbuda and I have continuously and overwhelmingly been duly elected and returned as the Representative for St. Peter. In the general election of March 12, 2009, I won 63.10% of the vote cast, or 1588 of 2516 electors. If elections are held on March 12 2014, as they should be, I would again be returned by winning more than 65% of the vote in St. Peter.
The wrong that has been inflicted on the people of Antigua and Barbuda, and on the people of (St. Mary’s, the people of St. John Rural East, the people of St. John Rural South and) St. Peter shall not stand.
Our democracy is at stake; our freedom is being eroded; our elections are being made a farce. This cannot stand.
Madame Speaker, the actions of this administration do violence to fairness and justice.
The proposed changes to the boundaries are intended to create, as far as is possible, victory for the United Progressive Party in March 2014 or any time before that due date. The intention is far from good, nor is the heart pure. The intent is to win by cheating, by placing the balance squarely on the side that benefits the incumbent government. Ten on that side and seven on this side, so the ayes will always have it.
But the people of Antigua and Barbuda, witnessing this gross injustice will reject those who dare to make a mockery of their democracy. Time will tell.
Rest assured Mr. P.M., that the voters of this country other than your party base will punish you at the next general election.
Political history has shown that whenever a political party seeks to undermine the Electoral process to assist them to retain power, by using political and Electoral chicanery they have invariably been punished by the Electorate.
Thank you, Madame Speaker.
Thursday, 16 January 2014
Hon. Asot Michael
*Hon. Asot Michael*
*Representative of St. Peter’s Constituency*
*speaks*
*on*
*The Constituencies Boundaries Commission Report*
*House of Representative*
*January 14 2013*
Madame Speaker:
I wish you and all the Members of Staff of the Parliament,
all Parliamentarians on both sides of the aisle, a Healthy and Prosperous New Year,
and God’s richest blessings during 2014.
I wish to assure my constituents, my friends and colleagues
and all those
who heard rumors that I was deathly ill, that I am very healthy.
Where that rumor got its start—that Asot Michael is deathly
ill—I cannot tell. I do have a problem with a herniated disc in my spine, and I
am being treated for it. Other than that, I can assure you all that I am well
and that my New Year will be enjoyable and victorious.
This is the year of promise, as I see it. 2014 is the year
of great promise.
Thank you Madame Speaker:
I take the floor to address an issue that is clearly the
most important as it relates to elections and our democracy. Free and fair
elections serve as a judgment in favour of or against the incumbent
administration.
Madame Speaker:
The people of Antigua and Barbuda will have an opportunity
to change the course of their current drift away from the economic and
development shallows by electing a new government in 2014 to steer the ship of
state. This obligation, to hold an election at least once every five years,
cannot be avoided.
After ten years of two UPP administrations, the constituents
of St. Peter’s eagerly welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that they would
wish me to be their representative, once again. The other 16 constituencies
across our nation will have the identical and simultaneous opportunity to elect
a
Labour Party candidate.
Countries that are democracies, countries that have
constitutional guarantees, all operate parliaments that have representatives of
their people, elected periodically. The People’s representatives are a feature
of real democracies.
Another feature that is necessary in a democracy, in order
to determine fairness in election of Representatives, is the size and
population of the Constituency, relative to others. In the USA there are 435
Congressional Districts, and in Canada there are 308 districts, called
“ridings;” there are 17 in Antigua and Barbuda as everyone knows.
There must be a determination of both number of inhabitants
per constituency, and a reasonable allocation of geographic space per constituency.
In a small island, despite an increasing number of inhabitants choosing to live
near the urban center, the distribution system can be determined by
consultations and the application of human intelligence.
Madame Speaker:
Decisions regarding the drawing of boundaries are usually
dictated by law.The decisions are not expected to be whimsical, not arbitrary,
not irrational. When either side in a political divide perceives that decisions
on boundaries are not fair, are not just, or are not rational, then the referee
or the umpire is called-in. Our referee is the High Court, the Court of Appeals
and the Privy Council. One day, the CCJ may replace the Privy Council. Exactly
one year ago and four days, on January 10 2013, *The Constituencies Boundaries
Commission Guidance Act, *was published in the Official Gazette Volume 33, No.
2. The law had its basis or its legitimacy under Part 4,
Section 64(3) of the Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda.
Madame Speaker, I am being very careful for I want to paint
a history that can be easily understood by those who are viewing or listening
to this broadcast on television, ABS Radio or the Worldwide Web. The Guidance
Act was not at all confusing. It required the Constituencies Boundaries Commission
to “*be guided by the cardinal principles that all constituencies shall contain
as nearly equal numbers of inhabitants, taking into account the need to achieve
voter’s parity as appear to the Commission
to be reasonably practical…*” By “reasonably practical” is
meant that four deviations from the cardinal
principles were allowed; the Commissioners would take into
account:
i. the
density of population in each constituency;
ii. the
adequacy of representation of sparsely populated rural areas included in each
constituency;
iii. the geographical
features of every constituency;
iv. the
boundaries of St. John’s, the only city; the boundaries of
Parham, the only other town in Antigua, the boundaries of
our many villages; and the expansion of villages that require boundary delimitations;
these deviations were to be taken into account.
Parishes, the basis of the Constituencies, were also to be
factored into the decision-making.
Madame Speaker:
How, therefore, were 3,000+ electors from the St. Peter’s
Constituency made to suffer troubling confusion when they learned that St.
Peter’s Constituency, after June 28 2013, no longer existed? What is rational
in deleting one of the six Parishes upon which is based the very system of electoral
boundaries. In 1937, Antigua and Barbuda was one constituency. On December 1,
1951,Antigua and Barbuda became *8 constituencies* under the second Constitution,
*the 1951 Adult Suffrage Constitution*: the 1951 Adult Suffrage Constitution:
*1. St. John City (North); 2. St. John
City (South) and Barbuda; 3. St. John
(Rural) West; 4. St. John (Rural)
South; 5. St. George and St. John
(Rural) North; 6. St. Mary; 7. St. Paul;
8. St. Phillip and St. Peter.* As a footnote, the whole of the Village
of All Saints was included in the St. John (Rural) South Constituency. For the
general elections held on *November 29 1960*, the number ofconstituencies was
increased to *10.*
*Barbuda* became a separate constituency, no longer attached
to St. John City South.
*St. George* was detached from St. John Rural North, and
both also became stand-alone constituencies.
St. Phillip and St. Peter remained attached as a single
constituency. That was 1960.
In 1970, the number of Constituencies was increased to *17*,
the same number as exists today. Keithly Heath was appointed as Chairman of the
Boundaries Commission, and George Walter also sat on the Boundaries
Commission. Elections were set for February 11 1971. No-one
squabbled over the date of elections, nor the number of constituencies, nor the
necessary changes to the boundaries. There was wide consensus and candidates
had eight months to prepare for elections:- June 1970 to February 1971. That
was the kind of efficiency and forethought brought to a process that was far
more complicated than what was required from the Boundaries Commission
appointed in 2012. Let us go back though, and look again. In 1970,
re-registration took place in the month of July. It was the custom, before
continuous registration became the law in 2001, for registration of new voters
to take place once each year in July. The Boundaries Commission, in 1970,
created *the St. Luke Constituency* (and Wilbert Sterling of the PLM beat
Bradley Carrott of the ALP 727 to 391 in the February 1971 contest).
*St. Peter* now stood alone for the first time, in 1970. It
was won by Joseph Myers of the ALP over Claxton Ferris of the PLM, 405 to 355. *St.
Phillip* was divided into North and South (and Cyril James beat Donald Sheppard
397 to 324).
*St. Mary* was also divided into North and South (and Robert
Hall won St. Mary North. Victor Mackay won St. Mary South, both PLM
candidates).
The 1971 boundaries remained unchanged until 1984 when *All
Saint*s was divided into *All Saints East and St. Luke* and *All Saints West*.
Minor changes took place in six other constituencies, in 1984. Bear in mind,however,
that All Saints contained the second highest number of inhabitants after St.
John Rural West, in 1984. It seems to me, looking back, that the change in 1984
was justified. The Representative of St. John Rural West and of St. George are
of a differing view. But their view cannot colour what is being undertaken at this
time in 2014. When they mention 1984, it sounds very much like vengeful
politics that burns for 30 years. That is not statesmanlike, if you ask me. It
sounds like tit for tat. It cannot be justifiable to paint a picture of a
series of events which the UPP leaders say took place 30 years ago, and from
that draw the conclusion that it is appropriate to re-create a version of it in
2014. If perceived 1984 wrong-doing is the UPP rationale for today’s lawless attempts
at gerrymandering, then our moral and ethical framework is damaged beyond
repair.
1984 is not 2014. Gaston Browne is not George Walter. The
Labour Party is not the PLM, the UPM, the ACLM combination that could not mount
an effective challenge to the incumbent administration. That March 11 2013
attempt to slip a boundaries change past the Labour Party is not do-able. All
the rancor and disagreements that beset the opposition in 1984 are not present
today. Besides, the economy was spinning in 1984. Jobs were plentiful. The
people of Antigua and Barbuda rejected the failed PLM, UPM, ACLM opposition
that could not function effectively in the 1971 to 1976 experiment.
The ambition of a leader, whether he has consumed pond water
or Perrier is not relevant in determining competence. The drive to be the
leader of a country is not a fight for status. In 2014, like in 1984, competence
is the watchword. Can you manage?
Can you produce jobs?
How good a job have you done when handed the reins of power? There is
absolutely no need to gerrymander if the majority regards your performance as
admirable. In 1984, the vast majority showed their support for Vere Cornwall
Bird and rejected George Walter. Characterize it as you may, that was the
bottom line. Look at the 1980 results, the 1984 election results, the 1989
results. It is very clear, very clear, that the vast majority of eligible
adults preferred the leadership of the Labour Party. Gerrymandering in 1984!
Why? What would be the need? This brings me to the matter at hand. Madame
Speaker: This is of course only one aspect of the all-out onslaught on the
electoral process that this Government has made since the last election … We,
like all citizens of our country have hoped and believed, have always believed
we are fortunate to have been born in Antigua, a democratic country where our
rights and freedoms are enshrined by a Constitution that protects them, and all
of us What has happened is yet another example of this Government’s attack on these
rights and freedoms
I am talking about all of our rights, and that most basic of
our rights, to be represented in our Parliament, fairly and by whomever we
choose Our votes are vital to your freedom. But they mean nothing in a vacuum.
How they are counted? It is by constituencies, divisions of our country made to
ensure that all of us have a fair and an equal say Our constituencies must be
fair, they have to be equal, and they have to represent the areas in which we,
the people, live our lives Our Constitution guarantees this. It has its special
Chapter, Chapter 4, Parliament. That Chapter has a special part, Part 4,
Constituencies… This is all to guarantee that our elections are fair
This has to be kept under review, and the Constitution
provides for this. It provides for a Constituencies and Boundaries Commission.
It provides that this Commission must be fair – it must be composed of independent
and fair minded men who are not politicians Senators, MPs or public officers Not
only that, the Constitution goes further, it states that Parliament may prescribe
the rules for the Commission
Parliament has done so – so we have an Act, the
Constituencies Boundaries Guidance Act – and this Act is intended to strengthen
the Protection that the Constitution gives us all And what does the Act say? –
The Commission must carry out a review. But the Act and the Rules do not leave
it at that – let me read you what they say …
Section 3 (2) of the Act says this “During the process of
review, the Commission shall where necessary hold consultations with interested
persons and obtain credible data or information to assist it in its
deliberations.”So the position ought to be clear to anyone But what has
happened? The Commission has *not* held consultations during the process of
review at all. It has *not* consulted any of us, the ALP, or any of the persons
who are interested in the freedom that elections are supposed to protect It has
*not* consulted the sitting members of Parliament, it has not consulted anyone As
well as this, it has *not* obtained credible information – I can show you
incontrovertible proof that this is the case Instead, the Commission announces
its conclusions, its so-called Recommendations, as a 'done deal'; 'take it or
leave it', 'we know best', let's have a few sham meetings to make it look as if
we care
And the final insult to your intelligence let’s call then
'Consultations', as if we are obeying the law, rather than flagrantly
disregarding it, and breaking it So what do you think? Is this what the
Constitution intended? Is this the protection the law is there to guarantee?
Of course not – this
is a cynical, political, and dishonest exercise in gerrymandering, cheating the
electorate, cheating you, to give an advantage to a Government that knows it is
going to lose if it has a fair fight … Madame Speaker: I can see why the need
for gerrymandering today! The polls have told you. You are history. These are
your last days. Gaston Browne is far preferable as a leader than the
alternative. Our polls, your polls, and independent polls have revealed the
preference of the Antigua and Barbuda electorate. All Boundaries Commissions
are made up of four members, as directed by
Section 63(1) of the Antigua and Barbuda Constitution.
The Prime Minister recommends three, including the Chairman;
the Leader of the Opposition appoints one member. Madame Speaker: Those
appointments took place in February 2012, nearly three years following the
UPP’s second term in office. It appeared like a kind of afterthought, a last
minute strategy. The commencement of the work of the Boundaries Commission, to
create and submit a Report, started four years following the June 2008
submission of the previous Boundaries Report. Madame Speaker: The appointment
of Members of the Boundaries Commission can commence at any time following the
election of a government; but, the Boundaries Commission Report can be
submitted no earlier than two years following the last Report or, in this case,
on June 30 2010; or, no later than five years following the previous Report.
That five-year outer limit was on June 30, 2013. Guess when the Report was
submitted? On Friday, June 28 2013, the Boundaries Commission submitted its
Report, two days short of the deadline. They have five years or 1,725 days to
work on a Report. Because the Report cannot be submitted on a Sunday (June 30
2013), it was submitted on the Friday, June 28 2013. The very last day! Where,
Madame Speaker, is the efficiency? Where is the fairness? Where is the
justification to the electorate and the candidates? 1,725 days to craft a
Report and Clarence Crump submits a Report on the 1,723rd day.
Further, Madame Speaker, he had been warned publicly and
privately that the Report was going to be challenged in the Courts. The
Commissioner appointed by the Leader of the Opposition told the entire world
that what was taking place was unfair. Mr. Jimmy Fuller was appointed in 2012
by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition as a Member of the Boundaries Commission.
On February 13 2013, he signed a dissenting Report that clearly charged
gerrymandering. I am not permitted to read from it, I have been forewarned but
it should be read by those who have an interest in the workings of the
Boundaries Commission. It has been cited at the High Court level in the bundle
of documents, and in the Court of Appeals bundle. The Attorney General, acting
on behalf of the Boundaries Commission, agreed to withdraw the first Report
following the issuance of an injunction on March 11, 2013, by a High Court
Judge. That is the history, Madame Speaker. The appointment of James Fuller has
nevertheless disappointed many of us on this side of the aisle. He has made an
unwarranted attack on me, four Sundays past on a local radio station.
Madame Speaker:
The clear impression, given by the Commissioner to thousands of
listeners, is that I did nothing to challenge the Draft Boundaries Commission
Report when the Constituency of St. Phillips North disappeared in the first
Draft Report. He indicated that I only took action when the St. Peter’s
Constituency was eliminated in the second Draft Report. In other words, my
interest in attacking the Second Draft Report was triggered only when my own
position was threatened, he asserted. That was an unwarranted and untruthful
claim. His assertions are blatantly untrue, and the Commissioner knew it. The evidence
shows that I acted on the basis of information provided by the Commissioner,
from the very start. Two letters written by Commissioner Fuller to the
Commission dated June 20, 2012, and July 5, 2012, provide evidence of his
disagreement with the methodologies being adopted by the Boundaries Commission.
The lawyers retained by the Labour Party began to ready themselves because of
his assertions. I was fully involved from the beginning and contributed
significantly to selecting and retaining the lawyers.His dissenting Report, was
fully aired and I had Sir James Guthrie of London write a brief that examined
the issues he raised.Mr. Guthrie argued in another case here, in Antigua,
before the High Court, when Anthony Astaphan could not come. When the
Commissioner’s Dissenting Report was signed on February 7 2013, several
attorneys retained by the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party and by me were
involved. The Commissioner knew that. The injunction of March 11 2013 was also
pursued vigorously, before the attempt to eliminate St. Peter’s. It was vigour
and attention and costly litigation.
Madame Speaker:
In this New Year, I would not wish to exacerbate a disagreement.
However, I wish to make it pellucid that the untruthful claim leveled at me by
someone selected by the Leader of the ABLP is hurtful and harmful. I wish to
set the record straight. Now, the elimination of the St. Peter’s Constituency,
by a Commission whose majority is appointed by the Prime Minister, is even more
hurtful to my constituents, to the people of Antigua and Barbuda, and to our
democracy.
Madame Speaker: Since 1951, there existed a constituency
named St. Peter. It became a stand-alone constituency 43 years ago, as I
pointed out earlier. St. Peter’s has remained loyal to the party that built the
schools across this country beginning 63 years ago; the party that transformed education
by creating the education levy—a model according to the World bank—and a fund
for scholarships at the tertiary level of education. St. Peter’s has always
supported the party that created the Antigua State College and the Antigua and
Barbuda International Institute of Technology (ABIIT); the party that
established the National Provident Fund, forerunner to the Social Security
Board, and the 1977 Medical Benefits Scheme that provides medicines to any
contributor who is ill; the party that built Mount St. John Medical Center; the
party that built the deepwater ports at Rat Island and Heritage Quay; the party
that built the 1960 and the 1981 airports and lengthened the runway to
accommodate the largest commercial planes in the world; the party that created
every new economic sector and industry, including the Hotel and tourism
Industry 60 years ago; the offshore banking and financial services industry 32
years ago; the offshore ship registry industry 25 years ago. St. Peter’s has
always supported the party that transformed land ownership by acquiring 33,000
acres of arable lands from the Antigua Syndicate Estates and the Antigua Sugar
Factory 47 years ago, in 1967; the party that pushed Antigua and Barbuda
forward to 29
th on the United Nations Human Development Index of 179 UN
Member-States, including all Caribbean countries except Barbados, in 1994. The
people of St. Peter’s know our history and knew that the party of choice was
the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party. In a manner that can only be described as
brutal, the people of St. Peter’s—of Parham, Vernons, Weirs Estate, Mount Joy,
Pares, Lightfoot, Fitches Creek, Paynters—do not now have that choice to vote
for their fourth-ever representative. Donald Sheppard, Joseph Meyers, Langford
Jeremy, and Asot Michael have one feature in common: We represented a people in
Parliament who never lost sight of their history and of their greatness. While
others may have strayed, you kept the course; you kept the faith; you kept the
love. Whether it was 1971 or 2004 or 2009, you would not be moved. I wish to
thank and congratulate the people of St. Peter’s for justifiably investing
their undying faith in the incomparable Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party, and
in me. Rest assured that this matter that is now before the Court of Appeal
will end with St. Peter’s fully intact, I believe. We shall prevail. We shall
overcome! Justice shall always prevail. Joy cometh in the morning, says the
prophet. The act of making St. Peter’s disappear is not magic. It is not
sorcery. It is not justice. It is a deliberate attempt to rob the Antigua and
Barbud Labour Party of one of its strongholds. I wish to go back to the issue
of consultations that were to be held by the Constituencies Boundaries Commission.
Early in the month of November 2012 the Commission promised that consultations
were to be held. That promise came after quite a lot of public agitation by the
opposition. The Boundaries Commission invited the opposition, the Electoral
Commission and the public to a consultation at the Multi-purpose Centre on the
29th day of November, 2012 at 7:00pm.
Absolutely no information was provided to any person whether prior to or
at this meeting. The leaders of the Labour Party attended this meeting. Also
present were elected Representatives and candidates of the United Progressive
Party. Several members of the Antigua & Barbuda Electoral Commission, and
very few members of the public, attended this November 29, 2012, event. The
Chairman of the Boundaries Commission, Mr. Clarence Crump, chaired this meeting.
He indicated that the Commission was holding the meeting to invite recommendations
from the persons present. He wanted the attendees to share with him what changes
should be made to the existing constituency boundaries. No information
whatsoever was then provided by the Mr. Crump to anyone. Miss E. Ann Henry and
Mrs. Paula Lee, who are members of the Antigua & Barbuda Electoral
Commission, were present. They walked out of this meeting when the Chairman
informed them that he had no intention of providing or sharing any information.
At this meeting, the Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Gaston Browne, made enquires
as to the purpose of the meeting. Mr. Clarence Crump again repeated that the
Commission was not there to share information or have discussions concerning
any proposed recommendations to alter the boundaries. He said the Commission
wanted to hear from the persons present as to their proposed recommendations.How
this was to be done without any information from the Boundaries Commission was
never explained. The Labour Party considered this meeting to be a farce and
left. The very next day, the 30th day of November, 2012, the Chairman of the Antigua
& Barbuda Labour Party wrote to the Chairman of the Boundaries Commission. The
Chairman pointed out the Party’s concern on the lack of consultation, and
failure to disclose the Commission’s proposed recommendations, if any. Two
months later, the Boundaries Commission prepared an undated draft original
report issued on or about the 5th day of February, 2013.One Commissioner
indicated, by way of his own report, that Mr. Crump was determined to ‘draw’
the boundaries first and then, and only then, decide on how many people were to
be moved into the ‘new’ constituencies. The record shows that this was his
conclusion during the Commission’s meetings of May 24th and June 21st 2012. The
boundaries were determined by Mr. Crump taking members for a drive. This method
of determining the proposed boundaries by driving around in a car was further
established by the minutes of the Commission’s meeting held on the 24th January
2013. The proposed realignment of the boundaries was made without any
population data or demographics of the existing constituencies. Later on, Mr.
Crump would elicit the help of Mr. Anthony from the Statistical Division, and
the population numbers within the re-drawn boundaries were filled-in like
magic. What the Labour Party was presented, on June 15 2013 for consultations
on June 17 2013, quite remarkably, were bare alleged population figures for the
newly configured constituencies. These figures were not for the existing
constituencies, and therefore did not show any population density, disparity or
otherwise of the existing constituencies. Without comparative data, it is not
possible to justify any alteration of the boundaries. In fact, Section 3 (1) of
the *Guidance Act* passed in December 2012 and gazetted in January 2013,
required that kind of justification.
What was very evident, Madame Speaker, was that the
Boundaries Commission led by Mr. Clarence Crump, had cherry-picked specific
geographical areas of political support, and maneuvered these areas and boundaries of the various constituencies in a
manner which favoured the United Progressive Party, and
disadvantaged the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party. The Boundaries Commission
also chose to eliminate the St Peter’s Constituency altogether. I fully
recognize, Madame Speaker, that this is not a trial before a judge. This is a
trial in the Court of Public Opinion. Parliamentary debates are just that. They
are moments afforded parliamentarians to make their case before the general
public. The broadcast to the public is for that reason. Arguments in the Court,
as we all know, Madame Speaker, are not broadcast; only those who attend can
hear the direct speech of the advocates. Parliament is broadcast for all to
hear and to judge for themselves. The behaviour of the Boundaries Commission
was and remains unlawful, and therefore the decision of the High Court Judge is
being appealed. The Appeals Court will shortly hear the matter. I believe that
this debate ought not to take place until the Court of Appeals has ruled. It is
really very inappropriate to have a debate while a decision is pending; but,
that is the way in which this parliament has chosen to operate.
Madame Speaker:
*“To erase St. Peter’s is to inflict a wrong on the people of St.
Peter’s and on Antigua and Barbuda*. *Since 2004, I have contested in each
General Election within Antigua and Barbuda and I have continuously and overwhelmingly
been duly elected and returned as the Representative for St. Peter. In the
general election of March 12, 2009, I won 63.10% of the vote cast, or 1588 of
2516 electors*. *If elections are held on March 12 2014, as they should be, I
would again be returned by winning more than 65% of the vote in St. Peter.*
*The wrong that has been inflicted on the people of Antigua
and Barbuda, and on the people of (St. Mary’s, the people of St. John Rural
East, the people of St. John Rural South and) St. Peter shall not stand.* *Our
democracy is at stake; our freedom is being eroded; our elections are being
made a farce. This cannot stand.*
Madame Speaker, the actions of this administration do
violence to fairness and justice. The proposed changes to the boundaries are
intended to create, as far as is possible, victory for the United Progressive
Party in March 2014 or any time before that due date. The intention is far from
good, nor is the heart pure. The intent is to win by cheating, by placing the
balance squarely on the side that benefits the incumbent government. Ten on
that side and seven on this side, so the ayes will always have it. But the people
of Antigua and Barbuda, witnessing this gross injustice will reject those who
dare to make a mockery of their democracy. Time will tell. Rest assured Mr.
P.M., that the voters of this country other than your party base will punish
you at the next general election. Political history has shown that whenever a
political party seeks to undermine the Electoral process to assist them to
retain power, by using political and
Electoral chicanery they have invariably been punished by the Electorate.
Thank you, Madame Speaker.
*Secretary to the Honorable Asot A. MichaelThe Palms,
Crosbies St. John's,
AntiguaOffice: 1-268-561-2690
<1-268-561-2690>/2691**Fax: 1-268-560-3314
<1-268-560-3314>/ 561-2689*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)