Tag: PNP

Categories
Genel News

RESPONSE TO MR WILLIAM HAGUE REGARDING PREMIER RUFUS EWING CARICOM SPEECH

Response to UK Foreign Secretary William Hague RE-Premier Dr. Rufus Ewing Caricom Speech
Published in TCI POST on 15th of March 2013
Dear Mr. Hague,
I appreciate your latest correspondence as of March 12. I am encouraged by your reaffirming the ideals and objectives lined out in the Overseas Territory White paper. Let me assure you that we in the TCI are equally interested in a flourishing partnership with the UK. However, as I have pointed out before and will point out again, the current situation is nowhere close to the ideals and standards that the White paper prescribes. The remarks at CARICOM were in no way meant to offend, but to correct the path that our friendship has taken in the past 4 years. Unfortunately, previous attempts to address these issues on a less public level had all fallen on deaf ears. As such, these remarks should be seen as an attempt to strengthen the relationship between our nations, and a strengthening of this relationship can only happen on terms that are perceived as fair, transparent and appropriate by both the TCI and the UK.
Before I go into detail on what we have perceived as wrong and unjust, let me make one point very clear.
The current PNP administration can in no way be held responsible for any alleged wrong-doings that happened during the previous PNP government under Michael Misick. While we still wait to see evidence presented in a court of law concerning the alleged actions of select individual of that former administration, let me remind you that the current government consists of a totally different set of persons and none of them have been implicated in the investigations surrounding the old government. As you might recall, there were a number of highly publicized scandals in recent years which involved a large numbers of British politician, both Labour and Tory. However we would never discredit your party, the Tories because of the failures of these few individuals in the past. And we will not discredit your coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, because of Chris Huhne’s personal failures and his recent criminal conviction. And neither will we discredit the good reputation of the United Kingdom and Her Majesty’s Government because of these past yet regrettable scandals. I will kindly ask you to adhere to the same standards when you refer to my party, the PNP, to my government and to the Turks and Caicos Islands as a whole. We have come a long way to reform our party and we won the recent democratic elections, bringing a group of young and energetic Turks and Caicos Islanders into government. My government deserves a chance to prove itself and we do not agree with constant comparisons and finger pointing to former members of parliament, and I am sure you will understand our concerns.
Let me move on to point out some points that we find troubling and that have caused a great amount of misunderstanding between our nations.
First of all, we welcome your acknowledgement of a broad responsibility for good governance in our territory. In fact, we would have much welcomed this commitment in previous times while alleged Mal-governance and serious wrongdoings by elected officials are said to have caused the dire financial situation we find ourselves in. But let me remind you that the judicial process was and is in no way expeditious or transparent. While our country and our people have already been burdened with a $260 Million loan for undisclosed liabilities, humongous ongoing costs of the prosecutions, the loss of democratic representation, the threat of ever rising taxes, not to mention the loss of self confidence and dignity for our nation – we have yet to see evidence presented in a court of law. While the verdict for our electorate has already been spoken and the punishment has been executed on our people over the past years, we have yet to see the bigger picture and hard facts of how all of these alleged crimes could have taken place under a British Governor and FCO.
In regards to the process of these investigations, many of my countrymen are deeply worried about the fact that foreign developers of a certain skin color involved in these alleged crimes were given the option to settle their cases for multi-million dollar settlement fees, while our own people have not been offered this option and are now facing criminal trials and jail time. It is further worrisome that the investigation stops short of investigating some individuals at all, if I can just mention the fact that no British bureaucrat has ever been mentioned in this investigation, yet it is alleged that $3 to 5 Billion in crown land assets have been removed from our country and the Governor at this time signed off on every single transaction. It is hard to see transparent and responsible action in this process.
In regards to the outcome of this investigation, I have to remind you that the recovered amounts are only barely higher than the costs of the investigation which currently stands at over $13 Million, leaving only a tiny amount of net gains after lawyers’ fees. In the scope of the overall scope of the alleged crime, this can only be labeled as the proverbial drop in the ocean.
In regards to the case of Mr. Michael Misick, let me assure you that it is totally beyond the power of myself or my government to control the actions of this one man. Mr. Misick is a grown man and he is making decisions for himself. I can only assume that he is trying to protect his legal rights and human rights during this investigation, which he is very much entitled to.
However at this point, I will have to remind you that it took the British Government more than a year to fund the investigation against Mr. Misick and a few more years to come up with official charges, and then Mr. Misick was given again more than 9 months to allegedly conceive a child in Brazil, all of which has massively deteriorated chances of bringing a proper judicial process against this one individual into motion. Once again, the current situation is unfortunate for all of us however it is not the time to cast blame on my administration which was just elected less than 5 months ago.
Then let me move on to the issue of VAT, which in itself has stood out as a frightening example of a heavy handed, non-transparent and irresponsible approach to governance executed by the British interim administration, particularly by current Governor Ric Todd and the CFO McGarel-Goves. To implement such a massive new tax burden without proper consultation, against the will of the whole electorate and the whole business community, without any consideration of our economic situation and without any fine-tuning to our specific circumstances, this alone has all the markings of an arbitrary dictatorship and not the flourishing partnership that you cited. I could go on and fill many pages on this topic, however since the whole dilemma is so well documented, I will leave it at that. I will however mention that the recent refusal to sign the VAT repeal bill and to leave the tax hanging over our heads is an unprecedented case in both the TCI and UK legislative process. This has only lead to a further hardening in emotions for my people, which was so easy to avoid had we only been listened to early last year – this is what a flourishing partnership would have easily prevented from happening.
To close my response, let me make clear that we stick with our call to recall Governor Ric Todd and the Attorney General, and that we are relieved that the current CFO is leaving and will hopefully be replace by an individual that has an ear for our concerns and a heart for our country. The country is spiraling out of control with Ric Todd at the helm. Not only has he alienated every political and religious denomination in this country, he has caused much sorrow and distress for my long suffering people. We are a forgiving people but in his case, too many lines have been crossed, and too much disrespect has been displayed towards our country and culture. On top of that, we are faced with a deteriorating health situation and a rise in crime which has lead to the historic Travel Advisory by the US embassy issued yesterday. We are thriving to accomplish a flourishing relationship with the UK, however this will only be possible with a new set of representatives and a fresh new beginning.
Let me conclude by reiterating my believe that not all is lost, and that the TCI and the UK can move forward as a partnership between equals, and that we can learn from each other rather than pull each other down. There is a lot that is still to be achieved to improve our relationship, and we will not turn down any honest attempt to assist us and pave the road to the future. I hope this open discourse will set the foundation for a process that ultimately leads to the achievement of our goals.
Rayer

20130315-090348.jpg

20130315-090408.jpg

Categories
News

BRITAIN SLAMS TURKS AND CAICOS PREMIER’S SPEECH

Britain slams Turks and Caicos premier’s CARICOM speech
Published on March 14, 2013

By Caribbean News Now contributor

LONDON, England — In a strongly worded letter on Tuesday, Britain’s Foreign Secretary William Hague described Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) Premier Dr Rufus Ewing’s speech last month to Caribbean Community (CARICOM) heads of government as a substantial misrepresentation to the people of the TCI and to the leaders of the Caribbean.

Britain’s Foreign Secretary, William Hague
“I have seen the speech you gave to CARICOM heads of government on 18 February about the relationship between the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United Kingdom. I regret to say you substantially misrepresent both the past and the present situation to both the people of the TCI and to the leaders of the Caribbean,” Hague said.

Hague went on to remind Ewing that the previous government run by his Progressive National Party (PNP) “left behind a chaotic situation including — through incompetence, abuse of power and corruption — rapidly deteriorating public finances.”

“As a result, TCI was, in effect, bankrupt. In 2009 the UK government provided emergency funding to enable public workers to be paid. In 2010 we provided a guarantee that enabled the TCI government to borrow up to $260 million at an affordable interest rate in order to enable the government to maintain essential services while bringing public finances back under control,” he continued.

Hague said that Britain accepted broad responsibility for good governance in its Overseas Territories and referred to the 2008-2009 Commission of Inquiry in the TCI, which concluded that there was a high probability of systemic corruption among ministers, members of the legislature and public officials in the then TCI government.

The inquiry documented detailed information on corruption, dishonesty and abuse of public office by former premier Michael Misick and other ministers in the previous PNP government and recommended criminal investigation. As a result, Britain suspended parts of the TCI constitution providing for ministerial government and the House of Assembly.

Subsequent investigations have led to 12 former ministers and others being charged and the attorney general is seeking Misick’s extradition from Brazil to the TCI.

“Misick is resisting return to TCI and seeking political asylum,” Hague said.

He also pointed out that a prominent international law firm was appointed to recover misappropriated assets and has so far recovered $16.6 million, with a further $2.6 million ordered to be paid, as well as nearly 2,500 acres of Crown land recovered; all to benefit the people of the TCI.

The British Interim Administration implemented a broad programme of reform to deal with this situation and to help prevent it being repeated. It established a robust framework for good government and sound public financial management and integrity and accountability in public life.

“These steps should help minimise the chances of a few corrupt people exploiting the assets of TCI for their own benefit, instead of these assets being available for the good of all the community. We will allow neither this framework to be rolled back nor the delivery of good and honest government to be undermined,” Hague said.

He also referred to an earlier open letter by Ewing that raised the issue of value added tax (VAT).

Hague reminded Ewing that the British government in 2010 was presented with a situation in which the TCI had an annual deficit of £30 million, which was set to grow significantly.

“This unsustainable situation led to the UK Department for International Development appointing a chief financial officer whose responsibilities were to ensure that this deficit was reduced and that TCI’s finances returned to surplus,” he said.

Eight milestones were then set, before which elections would not be permitted.

“Despite the financial milestone not yet having been met, the UK government agreed in good faith to permit elections in the expectation that an incoming government would administer the island’s finances so as to build an increasing surplus and release the
UK government from its government guarantee,” Hague said.

According to Hague, introducing VAT was central to this and seen to be in the interests of the TCI and the UK. That said, UK ministers have consistently made clear that a decision to introduce VAT is one for the TCI government, and that credible alternative measures would be considered

“The TCI government is responsible for delivering sustainable public finances. As you know this means that you and your government have to meet the public finance framework, which includes debt reduction targets and should enable you to refinance your debts without a UK guarantee after 2016. UK ministers have recently accepted your proposal not to introduce VAT on 1 April but instead to set public spending at a lower level commensurate with the absence of VAT, the uncertainty about alternative revenue streams, and the weakening outlook for some existing revenue streams. We are now awaiting your specific proposals on what additional expenditure cuts and alternative revenue measures you will put in place to ensure your adherence to the public finance framework,” he reminded Ewing.

Haig said that the UK government set out a clear vision in its Overseas Territories White Paper last year.

“We want the Overseas Territories, including the Turks and Caicos Islands, to flourish in partnership with the United Kingdom. We want you to build a strong and sustainable local economy and to develop as a community. Our relationship with you entails responsibilities for both parties. We have a broad responsibility to support the Territories and to ensure security and good governance. We expect the Territories to meet the same high standards of good governance and public financial management as in the UK,” he said.

According to Hague, Britain accepts a broad responsibility for joint security and continues to provide a range of support and training for public servants, such as police, prison and immigration services.

“We expect the elected government of TCI and other territories that wish to remain British to abide by the same high standards as the UK government in maintaining the rule of law, respect for human rights and integrity in public life, delivering efficient public services, upholding the judiciary and building strong and successful communities,” he said.

Hague also referred to the issue of independence that Ewing had raised and confirmed that this is an option for the TCI.

“If the people of TCI express a wish for independence through a clear and proper process, the UK government will meet its obligations to help the territory to achieve it,” he said.

Hague concluded by reiterating his belief both in democracy and that government must be honest and transparent and behave responsibly.

“The TCI government has the chance to shape the future of your islands. The UK government has invested much in helping put TCI back on the right path. TCI has a growing economy, modernised legislation and a committed public service. I hope you will use this inheritance wisely,” he said.

20130314-120031.jpg

20130314-120119.jpg

Categories
News

MEDIA STATEMENT FROM OPPOSITION LEADER HON. SHARLENE CARTWRIGHT-ROBINSON ON THE LEGAL CHALLENGES AGAINST PDM MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CHAMBERS

MEDIA STATEMENT FROM OPPOSITION LEADER HON. SHARLENE CARTWRIGHT-ROBINSON ON THE LEGAL CHALLENGES AGAINST PDM MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CHAMBERS

My Party remains vigilant in protecting and defending the rights of every Turks and Caicos Islander through strong representation in the House of Assembly and by completing the Objectives outlined in our Party’s Constitution and Campaign Manifesto (The Blue Print), chiefly among to form the Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands through a majority of members supporting our Party, the People’s Democratic Movement. Despite the recent legal challenge against four of our members by the Attorney General’s Chambers, we will continue to provide strong representation leading our people in the Right Direction.

On Friday March 8th, after a long day of waiting for the Attorney General’s Office to take legal action in the Amanda Misick’s Integrity Commission Notice matter, I instructed our Attorney’s Garland and Co. to file my Party’s case against Ms. Missick in the Supreme Court in Providenciales. We did so because the merits of our arguments are substantially different from those of the AG’s office.

At 4.00pm after our Attorneys had completed this process the PNP rushed to file a case against our candidate Oral Selver claiming that he made a false declaration. We will vigorously defend the veracity and completeness of our candidate Hon. Oral Selver in the Courts.
After more than 24 hours of rumors that the AG’s Chambers were going to be challenging sitting PDM Members and soon after this Event, our Attorneys became aware that the AG’s office was planning to file a separate matter not only against the PNP’s candidate for Cheshire Hall and Richmond Hill but also against four of sitting members namely: Hon. Edwin Astwood, Hon. Josephine Connolly, Hon. Derek Taylor and Hon. Delroy Williams.
Several attempts were made by our members to obtain the details of the allegations but the Acting Attorney General did not make it available or answer any further calls. Our members became officially aware of the nature of the case when the AG’s Office issued publicly a Press Release. Our members up until that time received no documents including a letter or Summons neither was our Party made aware. We view this move as unfortunate and unprofessional.

We view this entire act as completely misguided and untimely and will defend our Members’ right to remain sitting members of the House of Assembly. Contrary to public discourse, this matter has nothing to do with Conditional Purchase Lease, the Integrity Commission or the flipping of crown land. We will defend their good name, honor and integrity.

We wish to encourage our supporters and all Turks and Caicos Islanders to remain vigilant as the process is brought before the courts. My party respects the rule of law and we encourage our citizens to allow the matters that are now before the courts to be aired.

20130313-150245.jpg

20130313-150306.jpg

20130313-150345.jpg

20130313-150410.jpg

Categories
News

Statement by Premier Dr. Rufus Ewing about Attorney General’s Challenges in Turks and Caicos Islands

STATEMENT BY PREMIER HON. DR RUFUS EWING ON ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CHALLENGES TO SIX SEATS IN THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
The Attorney General of the Turks and Caicos Islands is duly authorized to and has issued proceedings in the Supreme Court of the Turks and Caicos Islands under section 53(2) of the Constitution, challenging the veracity of the declarations of five elected members of the House of Assembly, namely Hon. Derek Taylor, Hon. Josephine Connelly, Hon. George Lightbourne, Hon. Delroy Williams and Hon. Edwin Astwood for failing to declare their interests in freehold property with a subsisting Crown charge.
If these charges are proven, then according to the statement issued by the Acting Attorney General, these elected persons will be disqualified and By-elections will have to be held for each of the vacated seats.
The Acting Attorney General has similarly filed against Ms. Amanda Missick for failing on or before nomination day, to declare her interest in freehold property with a Crown charge, as required by section 49(1)(f) of the constitution.
Proceedings have also been issued against Mr. Oral Selver by a registered voter in the Cheshire Hall/Richmond Hill Constituency, for his failure on or before nomination day, to declare his interest in a Lease hold property, as required by section 49(1)(f) of the constitution.

If either of Ms. Amanda Missick or Mr. Oral Selver is found in violation of section 49(1)(f )of the Constitution, then that person would be disqualified from being nominated and the remaining candidate would run unopposed. If both Ms. Misick and Mr. Selver are found to be in violation then both would be disqualified, and a new By-election date would have to be set. If neither is disqualified, then the By-election would proceed as planned on March 22.
The case against Ms. Missick, along with that against Mr. Selver and all other members of the House of Assembly will be heard this week.
It is unfortunate that we have found ourselves at this point when our country, political parties and candidates can ill afford the exorbitant cost associated with elections, campaigning, and court hearings. We can call these teething pains of a new Constitution and electoral system or perhaps it is the manifestation of poorly drafted laws, which in many instances are in conflict with each other. There was also an obvious lack of oversight on the part of the Integrity Commission, Elections Office and Political Parties, which might have otherwise have prevented this situation from arising.
At this time, I am calling on the Attorney General Chambers, Integrity Commission, Elections Office, Political parties and Judiciary to work diligently and all together to expeditiously resolve these issues, and to once and for all put mechanisms in place to prevent them from happening in the future. It is past time for us as a country to move beyond politics and focus instead on the business of the restoration of democracy, political stability, economic recovery and nation building.

20130311-184432.jpg

Categories
News

The Electoral and Constitutional Fiasco in Turks and Caicos Islands

Published in TCI POST on 09th March 2013.

The Attorney General vs Ms. Amanda Missick
The Acting Attorney General of the Turks and Caicos Islands has filed in the supreme court against Ms. Amanda Missick stating the following:
“Following receipt of copies of the section 49(1)(f) Notices and related correspondence supplied to me by the TCI Integrity Commission and having caused background research to be undertaken in the Lands Division of the Chambers, I have come to the conclusion that I should act under section 50(3) of the Constitution, and today a challenge to the veracity of the declaration made by Ms. Amanda Missick, PNP candidate for the upcoming by-election in the Cheshire Hall and Richmond Hill Electoral District on 22 March 2013 has been filed before the Supreme Court.
FACT: It is a fact that Ms. Amanda Missick has a property 60804/138 with a TCIG belonger discount charge (see exhibit A)
According to the Integrity Commission and the Attorney General such a charge is considered to be a contract with Government and the Candidate shall to give NOTICE to the Integrity Commission on or before Nomination Day, in accordance with Section 49 (1)f of the TCI Constitution.
Disputable: It is disputable whether someone who has a Crown freehold property with a subsistent belonger discount charge (having had the property for less than 10 years after obtaining freehold title), is considered as having a contract with Government.
FACT: If a potential Candidate does not comply with Section 49 (1)f of the TCI Constitution 2011 he /she shall not be qualified to be an elected member of the House of Assembly. It states: 49.—(1) No person shall be qualified to be an elected member of the House of Assembly who, on the date of his or her nomination for election: (f) is a party to, or a partner in a firm or a director or manager of a company which is a party to, any contract with the Government and has not, by that date, disclosed in a notice to the Integrity Commission the nature of such contract and his or her interest, or the interest of such firm or company, in it;
FACT: The Constitution does not give a defined time period prior to Nomination Day during which such notice of contract with Government should be made. It simply states that such contracts should be “by that date (NOMINATION DAY), disclosed in a notice to the Integrity Commission the nature of such contract and his or her interest, or the interest of such firm or company, in it”
FACT: There is no prescribed form for giving such notice of contract with Government to the Integrity Commission. It simply says “disclosure in notice to the Integrity Commission”. This fact is also supported by the varied instruments of submission used by other elected members of the House of Assembly during the 2012 nomination process, who have made declarations under section 49 (1)f. Some used emailed submission, some used written hand delivered letters and some could have even called in.

Amanda-Lease Cancellation
THEREFORE:
FACT: Ms Amanda Missick made a Declaration to the Integrity Commission in on Oct 24, 2012 and this was publicized by the Integrity Commission in a Contracts Notice Register (see exhibit B). This declaration should have satisfied the condition under Section 49 (1)f of the Constitution, for nomination in the By-election, since such the notice is not time bound prior to nomination day and there is no legal requirement to make another declaration to the Integrity Commission unless there is additional information to be declare or remove, which is not the case with Ms. Missick.
Conclusion: Ms. Amanda Missick should not be disqualified. She did declare her interest to the Integrity Commission on time as she did so on October 24, 2012 and again on February 15, 2013, on a form used for members of the House of Assembly to declare their registrable Interest (including contracts with Government) which is a public document.
Also if the Judge rules that Crown freehold land with subsistent belonger discount charge is NOT contract with Government, then Ms. Missick would have had nothing to declare and should not be disqualified.
Furthermore:
If it is determined by the Courts that Crown Freehold title with subsistent belonger discount charge is a contract with Government, this should not affect Ms Missick as she made declaration of such contract on October 24, 2012 and again on February 15, 2013.
I rest my case and the learned Judge should see it likewise.
So I am encouraging all PNPs to Stay the Course!
Cheshire Hall Voter (Plaintiff) Vs Oral Selver

Oral Leasehold
A Cheshire Hall Voter filed in the Courts on March 8, 2013 against Isaac Oral Selver on the grounds that he failed to comply with the provisions of Section 49(1)f of the TCI Constitution.
It has been discovered that Mr. Oral Selver is the Leasee of Crown land 50206/1/1 – North Caicos (2.5 acres) which was issued on 12.11.2004 for a period of 3 years. Mr. Selver failed to pay his lease and in April 2011, he wrote to the PS of the Lands Department to have his lease extended. His letter was acknowledged in April 2011, and he was given conditions upon which the lease would be extended. The conditions included obtaining a building permit which he had, as stated in his reply letter and payment of arrears on the lease. Mr. Selver accepted the Offer and paid the arrears on the Property on December 24, 2012 (shortly after 2012 general elections).
Oral Lease Payment
The Plaintiff is of the view that Mr. Selver had a contract with Government on nomination day 2012 (October 25, 2012) and did not declare this interest at that time as required by Section 49(1)f of the constitution.
The Plaintiff is also of the view that Mr. Oral Selver still has a contract with Government i.e. the lease on property 50206/1/1 as he has accepted the conditional offer to extend the lease and is actively engaged with the Lands Department to retain the lease, which still remains in his name on the Lands register (see exhibit). Also of note is that the application procedure by the Lands Department for the termination of the lease has not been done. This procedure was use in the termination of a Conditional Purchase Lease (CPL) owned by Ms Amanda Missick, on property 60400/277 –Chalk Sound. Ms. Missick obtained the CPL around the same time as Mr Selver in 2004 and was denied extension without hesitation, that culminated in the cancellation of her lease on March 22, 2010.
Therefore:
We conclude that Mr Oral Selver failed to declare his contract with Government by nomination days October 25, 2012 and March 1, 2013 and should be disqualified under Section 49 (1)f.
The Attorney General
Vs
George Lightbourne
Hugh Derek Taylor
Josephine Connelly
Edwin Astwood
Vaden Delroy Williams
The Acting Attorney General is challenging the defendants listed, under section 53(2) of the constitution “An application to the Supreme Court for the determination of any question under subsection (1) may be made by the Attorney General or by any person who is a registered elector; and an application for the determination of any question under subsection (1)(b) may also be made by any member of the House of Assembly” It has been determined that the defendants have not filed all of their contracts (Crown freehold property with subsistent belonger discount charge) with Government and should be disqualified.
Contracts Notice Register – General Elections_001 Copy
The question for the Judge to rule on in this case is whether Crown freehold land with subsistent belonger discount charge is a contract with Government. If the Judge rule that it is then all of the elected members listed above will be disqualified and cease being members of the House of Assembly.
The next question to be determined by (Judge or AG?) is how should the vacated 5 seats in the House of Assembly be filled?
I am of the view that:
A constituency in the 2012 election, which had more than 2 candidates contesting but returning only 1 member to the House of Assembly (eg Wheeland), should go to a By-election if the elected member is disqualified.
A constituency in the 2012 election, which had only 2 candidates contesting and returning only 1 member to the House of Assembly (eg Grand Turk North or Grand Turk South), that the seat should be turned over to the other candidate upon disqualification of the elected candidate. If the non-elected Candidate is unavailable then the seat should go to a By-election.
A constituency in the 2012 election, which had more than 2 candidates contesting but returning more than 1 member to the House of Assembly (eg All-Islands Constituency), that the vacated seats due to disqualifications should be filled using the non-elected candidates based on the next highest number of votes and availability.
The British has indeed made a mockery of our democracy and the judicial system has fallen victim to the poorly drafted and ill-conceived laws enacted by the British, including of 2011 Constitution which is top of the list.
This is indeed a time for the PNP and PDM to come together and form a coalition Government and to fast track this country towards independence. I firmly believe that it is our people as opposed to our leaders and elected officials that are against unity and coalition in preference of the euphoria of partisan politics. It is however, our leaders who must make that bold decisions and lead the people in the direction of a united front in the best interest of the Turks and Caicos Islands.

20130309-124642.jpg

20130309-124544.jpg

Categories
Turksjournal Picks

ANARCHY

20130309-120017.jpg

Categories
News

Who is behind the New Political Chaos in Turks and Caicos Islands?

MEDIA STATEMENT BY ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL RHONDALEE BRAITHWAITE-KNOWLES ON CHALLENGES AGAINST MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

“Separate and apart from the confidential declaration required to made to the Integrity Commission under the Integrity Commission Ordinance by a person in public life, the Constitution requires a candidate for election, on nomination day to make a declaration that he or she is qualified for election and that no disqualification mentioned in section 49(1) of the Constitution applies to him or her. In addition, section 49(1)(f) of the Constitution requires such a candidate to notify the Integrity Commission, prior to nomination day, of the existence of any contract between that candidate and the Government. Failure to so notify the Integrity Commission would result in a candidate being disqualified to stand in an election.

“Following receipt of copies of the section 49(1)(f) Notices and related correspondence supplied to me by the TCI Integrity Commission and having caused background research to be undertaken in the Lands Division of the Chambers, I have come to the conclusion that I should act under section 50(3) of the Constitution, and today a challenge to the veracity of the declaration made by Ms. Amanda Missick, PNP candidate for the upcoming by-election in the Cheshire Hall and Richmond Hill Electoral District on 22 March 2013 has been filed before the Supreme Court.

“On the basis of the background research undertaken I have also come to the conclusion that the election of certain sitting members of the House of Assembly should be challenged under section 53(2) of the Constitution. In that regard, challenges have also been filed today before the Supreme Court challenging the elections of Mr George Lightbourne elected member in the House of Assembly for the Grand Turk North Electoral District; Mr. Edwin Astwood elected member in the House of Assembly for the Grand Turk, South Electoral District; Mr. Derek Taylor member in the House of Assembly for the All Islands Electoral District; Mrs. Josephine Connolly elected member in the House of Assembly for the All Islands Electoral District and Delroy Williams elected member in the House of Assembly for the Wheeland Electoral District.

“The basis of each of these challenges is that when each of the individuals made their section 50(1) Nomination Day declaration to the Supervisor of Elections for the 9th November 2012 General Election and the upcoming 22nd March 2013 by-election, a disqualification mentioned in section 49(1)(f) applied to each them in that each of them has a contract with the Government which, by that date, they had not given notice of to the Integrity Commission, as required by section 49(1)(f) of the Constitution. The type of contract in each case is a charge to secure the payment to the Crown of a “Belonger Discount” (applicable under the Crown Land Policy) in the event of a sale in prescribed circumstances.

“I have asked the Court to determine whether in each case, the individual is or is not qualified to be an elected member of the House considering the failure to give notice of the respective charges.

“The Constitution provides for a process for challenge in each of these cases in the public interest. If the Court determines that each member is disqualified then,

a) In the case of Ms. Missick, she will not be able to stand for election on 22nd March and the sole remaining candidate will be declared elected;

b) In the case of the members of the House of Assembly, their seats will be vacated and a by-election will have to be called. A decision on their disqualification would not prevent them from standing in a subsequent by-election called as a result.

20130309-112009.jpg

20130309-112030.jpg

20130309-112050.jpg

Categories
News

Dellis Cay Groundbreaking June 2008

Dellis Cay Groundbreaking in June 2008.
Please click on the link and watch the video.

20130308-151702.jpg

Categories
News People

Life of Cem Kinay, Developer of Dellis Cay Turks and Caicos Islands

Life of Cem Kinay,Developer and owner of Dellis Cay in Turks and Caicos Islands

PLEASE CLICK  ON THE LINK TO WATCH THE VIDEO

20130307-134506.jpg

Categories
News

Turks and Caicos Premier’s Response to UK Minister Mark Simmonds

Hon. Premier’s Response to Mr. Mark Simmonds Re: VAT

Minister Mark Simmonds MP
Minister for the Overseas Territories
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
King Charles Street
London SW1A 2AH
Dear Minister Simmonds,
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 25th instant. As your letter does much more than convey the decision of Her Majesty’s Government not to implement VAT come April 1st, my sentiments were that it required more than a mere acknowledgment of receipt.
The Turks and Caicos Island Government does not doubt your commitment to the development of the TCI and so to the extent that we disagree it must necessarily be on our respective paths to that end. In turn I hope that Her Majesty’s Government recognizes that the commitment of the TCI Government to the economic, social and indeed political development of the TCI must be greater, not least because that development benefits Turks and Caicos Islanders and all those who call these Islands home.
In that context and in the true spirit of partnership I trust that HMG will allow the TCI Government the discretion to implement those policies which in our view, will result in our economic recovery and social development. We cannot bear the responsibility of ensuring sound finances without a commensurate degree of autonomy with respect to revenue generation and spending initiatives.
I can say without fear of contradiction that our Government has always been open to frank debate and compromise with HMG and all its representatives. We will not, however, allow our desire for compromise to cause us to abdicate our responsibility to the people of the TCI. I turn now to the several issues in your letter that require specific comment.
Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands
You have invited the members of the Assembly to condemn what you describe as “vitriolic public attacks” on members of the judiciary and public servants. I do not know what it is you describe as vitriolic public attacks as you have provided no example. In any event I am sure that like me, my colleagues in the House would be slow to take any position that would leave any person in this country feeling that they are unable to comment on matters of public importance or to be critical of any institution or public officer.
The concept of free speech is a bastion of democracy. It is a check and balance against tyranny. The essential ideal of self government by the people is undermined if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by either withholding information or stifling criticism. It was the English author Edward Bulwer-Lytton who wrote: “Beneath the rule of men entirely great. The pen is mightier than the sword”. It is therefore no wonder that the right of free speech has been described as “a safety valve to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on revolution”. Those who abuse the right of free speech open themselves to criminal prosecution or civil suit. The courts in my view are best suited to determine whether laws have been breached or whether unabashed but otherwise lawful criticism, is being characterized as vitriolic public attack.
You have also denounced the Assembly’s decision to bring the VAT Repeal by way of Private Members Motion as being unacceptable. The Bill was neither conceived nor presented as a Government Bill with the result that both Cabinet and the Attorney General’s Chambers were properly excluded. The purpose of the Bill was to repeal legislation passed by the Interim Administration. The Interim Administration was headed by the same Governor who continues to be the President of the Cabinet and who together with the FCO had much vested in the VAT Ordinance. It would in the circumstances, be foolhardy for a Parliament that was united in its resolve to see the Ordinance repealed, to seek to have the Repeal Bill originate in a Cabinet where the Opposition does not have a voice and where the Governor wields disproportionate power and influence to the extent that he may refuse to have the question of the Repeal Ordinance placed on the Cabinet Agenda.
The fact that the Governor has refused to assent to the Repeal Bill and that you have failed to instruct him to assent to it and his comments immediately following the passage of the Bill through the Assembly, is justification enough for our decision. The members of the Assembly are bound by the Constitution and the laws of the Turks and Caicos Islands generally and we each have a duty to represent the best interest of the Turks and Caicos Islands. In acting as we did we have been true to both law and duty and in the circumstances we need neither the blessing nor approval of the FCO. That you have ascribed a sinister motive to our action is indeed regrettable. Your castigation of the Assembly’s actions in the way that you have could leave one with the clear impression that you see the Assembly as no more than an extension of the Executive and that is likewise most unfortunate.
Finally we remain concerned that you have decided against instructing the Governor to assent the Repeal Bill. Unless the Bill is assented to, the people of these Islands will continue to question Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to the ideals of democracy in the Turks and Caicos Islands and that will not augur well for the partnership that we are desirous of building.
The Government will likewise have legitimate reason to believe that there is not a genuine intention on the part of Her Majesty’s Government to allow the TCI Government to move forward unimpeded. There will always be the real threat that the VAT can be implemented by the stroke of a pen without the need for further debate. I am firm in my conviction that on the question of VAT the only fair solution is for the Ordinance to be repealed thus removing once and for all the possibility of taxation without representation. I hope that you will give this course further consideration.
For the reasons you indicate I am likewise copying this letter to the Leader of the Opposition.
Sincerely
Dr. The Hon. Rufus W. Ewing
Premier, Turks and Caicos Islands

20130301-143327.jpg

20130301-143427.jpg