The Historical and Constitutional Background
[1] The present 1982 Constitution of
Anguilla[1]
was born out of the break-up of the Associated State of St Kitts, Nevis and
Anguilla in 1980. When in 1980 the
People’s Action Movement and its Nevis allies won the general election the new
government set about negotiating full independence from Britain. The United Kingdom government was happy to
see St Kitts and Nevis, the last of its Associated States left in the
Caribbean, go into independence, which it did in 1983.[2]
[2] There was just one loose string to be tied
before independence day. The UK had
promised Anguillians, when UK armed forces stormed into Anguilla in 1969 at the
invitation of the then St Kitts Government, that Anguillians would never again
be forced to live under an administration that they did not want. At that time, Anguilla was legally a part of
the tri-island Associated State of St Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla. The UK government technically was merely administering
a part of this Associated State on behalf of the government in St Kitts. The St Kitts-Nevis Labour Party, which then formed
the St Kitts government, put up with this arrangement so long as it appeared
that the UK would one day, somehow, persuade the rebelling Anguillians to
return to their fold. The Anguillians
for their part, under the leadership of the Father of the Nation and revolutionary
leader, Ronald Webster, were adamant that they would never again consent to
government from St Kitts. With the 1980 replacement
of the Labour Party administration by that of the People’s Action Movement, the
way ahead lay clear for Anguilla to be legally separated from St Kitts-Nevis in
exchange for those two islands going into independence as a federal, two-island
State. It became necessary for new
constitutional arrangements to be made for Anguilla now that it would no longer
be a part of the Associated State.
[3] The solution was to have the British
Parliament pass the Anguilla Act, 1980[3]
which enabled the British Government to take full legal responsibility for the
administration of Anguilla.[4] Up to that point, under the Constitution
of Anguilla, 1976,[5]
Anguillians had enjoyed all the privileges and rights of a semi-independent Associated
State. Anguilla was at this time still technically
a part of the Associated State of St Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, even if administered
directly from the UK. So, the 1976
Constitution[6]
essentially conferred on Anguilla the Constitution of an Associated State which,
at that point, it technically still was.
[4] The status of ‘Associated State’ had been
invented by the British Government as a sort of half-way house to independence
for its colonies in the West Indies after the break-up of the short-lived,
independent Federation of the West Indies, 1958-1961. When Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago and
Barbados left the Federation and went into separate independence starting in
1962, the remaining islands, to Britain’s dismay, fell back into colonial
status. Britain was under a great deal
of pressure from the United Nations to get rid of its remaining colonies. These colonies were, in any case, a burden on
the UK Treasury, and of no benefit to the UK economy. The status of Associated State, whereby the
colonies would be converted into semi-independent states with responsibility
for all their internal affairs, and Britain would remain responsible only for
foreign affairs and defence, was the strategy settled on to nudge the islands
into full independence. Associated
Statehoodship was to take effect in the year 1967. As we all know, Anguillians objected to going
into Associated Statehoodship tied to St Kitts.
The Anguilla Revolution of 1967 followed, with the St Kitts police
contingent expelled from the island by force.
The result was the independent Republic of Anguilla. This was only brought to an end two years
later by the invasion of the Royal Marines in 1969. By this act, Britain acquired its latest and
last colony, much to the chagrin of the British administration.
[5] After a number of temporary and
unsatisfactory Administration Orders which authorized direct rule of Anguilla
in the years between 1969 and 1975 by a British administrator, known as the
‘Commissioner’, the Ronald Webster government persuaded the British Government
to enact a real Constitution for Anguilla.
This was the Constitution of Anguilla, 1976. It provided for Anguilla to have a
legislature of its own to enact laws and for a ministerial system of government
to run the island. Under this Act,
Anguillians democratically enacted their first locally made statutory
instruments for the governance of their island since the year 1650 when the
island was first settled by colonists.[7]
[6] The
Constitution of Anguilla, 1976 functioned satisfactorily enough until the
year 1982. Chief Minister Ronald Webster
had been ousted from government by a palace coup of his own ministers in
1977. He was dissatisfied with some
aspects of the Constitution, in particular that it had not permitted him to
direct the Commissioner to dissolve Parliament and to call general elections
when his ministers abandoned him. The
British Government for their part were dissatisfied that the island was now
essentially self-governing, while the British administration remained
contingently liable for any illegal acts committed by a local government whose
actions they could not control. The
British wanted to bring an end to the status of self-government. Ronald Webster, now back in office after the
general elections of 1980, wanted the Constitution changed so he could force
the Commissioner to dissolve Parliament if a Motion of No-Confidence against
him should ever again succeed. The
interests of these two parties coincided.
The result was the passage by the British Parliament of the Anguilla
Act, 1980 and the resulting Constitution of Anguilla, 1982. By this Constitution, Anguilla consented to
revert to full colonial status, and all aspects of internal self-government
were removed from the Constitution. From
that moment, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (the FCO) would enjoy full
sovereignty over Anguillians, and the islanders would enjoy only an appearance
of sovereignty.
THE EXECUTIVE
[7] Under the 1982 Constitution, Anguilla
enjoys a ‘Westminster-style’ system of government.[8] This is a system based on the form of
Parliamentary Democracy, of which the exemplar is the Parliamentary form of
government headquartered in the Borough of Westminster in London, where the
British Parliament meets. In this
system, the monarch is the Head of State, as he or she still is even of
independent Commonwealth Caribbean countries.
The Westminster-style legislature is made up of a majority of elected
representatives of the people, and is known in Britain as the House of Commons,
and in Anguilla as the House of Assembly.
Sometimes there is a second chamber of Parliament, known in London as
the House of Lords, and in Antigua and Barbuda as the Senate. Sometimes, there are non-elected members who
do not sit in a second chamber, but sit among the elected representatives in a
unicameral (one-chamber) Parliament as in St Kitts-Nevis and Anguilla. Our House of Assembly consists of one
chamber, with two nominated members appointed to sit among the seven elected
representatives, in addition to the two ex-officio members. Under the Westminster system, the Cabinet,
the Executive branch of government, is a committee of the legislature. Compare this with the United States
presidential mode of government, where the President’s Cabinet consists
entirely of his nominees, and none of them is an elected member of Congress. Under the US presidential system, there is a
complete separation of the Executive from the Legislature, which we do not find
in the Westminster-style system.
[8] One characteristic of modern parliamentary
democracies is that government is considered to consist of three branches: the Executive, the Legislature, and the
Judiciary. In Britain the Executive is
the Queen in Cabinet. The Queen must
generally act on the advice of Cabinet. In
Anguilla, as a British Overseas Territory, the new term for a colony,[9]
the executive branch of government is the Queen, represented locally by the
Governor. This is provided for by
section 22 of the Constitution of Anguilla, 1982 which reads:
Executive
authority for Anguilla
22. (1)
The executive authority of Anguilla shall be vested in Her Majesty.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive
authority of Anguilla may be exercised on behalf of Her Majesty by the Governor
either directly or through officers subordinate to him, but nothing in this
subsection shall operate so as to prejudice the provisions of any laws for the
time being in force in Anguilla whereby functions are, or may be, conferred on
persons or authorities other than the Governor.
[9] The meaning of sub-section (2) is that the
Queen ‘may’ delegate executive authority to the Governor, but she may take it
back at any time. She may, for example,
make an Order in Council suspending or replacing the Constitution.[10]
[10] Section 23 of the Constitution creates the
Executive Council (the colonial name for the Cabinet) for Anguilla, which is to
consist of the Chief Minister, up to three other Ministers, and two ex-officio
members, the Deputy Governor and the Attorney-General. The Governor chairs meetings of the Executive
Council.
[11] Section 28 of the Constitution provides that
the Governor ‘shall’ consult with the Executive Council on all matters of
policy and government, and the Governor is normally required to act on the
advice given to him by the Executive Council.
[12] The
Governor is not required to consult or act on the advice of the Executive Council
in matters of (a) defence, external affairs, international financial services,
finance, internal security; or, (b) the
appointment, promotion, transfer, suspension, dismissal, retirement, or terms
or conditions of service of the public service;
or (c), any reserved powers; or
(d), any matter which the Constitution or a law authorizes him to exercise in
his discretion; or (e), any matter he
judges might prejudice the interests of the British Government; or (f), minor matters too unimportant to need
the advice of the Council; or (g),
matters that are so urgent he must act before consulting the Council (but he
must report to the Council subsequently).
No court is permitted to inquire whether or not the Governor carried out
his obligation to act on the advice of the Executive Council.
[13] Section
29 gives the Governor the power to ignore the advice of Executive Council in
any matter in which the Secretary of State backs him up. The Governor also chairs meetings of
Executive Council, which gives the Governor an opportunity to shape its
decisions. Despite the power given to
the Governor to ignore the advice of Executive Council, this is a power seldom
or never exercised. It is more usual for
the Governor to express disapproval of a decision taken by the Ministers, but
to leave it to the Ministers to make their own mistakes, and to be content with
having the Minutes of the meeting record the Governor’s disapproval of their
decision.
[14] Recent
welcome reforms in the proceedings of Executive Council include the publication
of a much abbreviated list of decisions, called ‘Minutes’ of the Executive
Council, which appear relatively regularly on the Government website.[11] This innovation has contributed considerably
to a feeling in the community of transparency and accountability on the part of
Government.
THE LEGISLATURE[12]
[15] The power to make laws for Anguilla is
provided by section 47 of the Constitution. The section reads:
Power
to make laws
47. Subject to the provisions of this
Constitution, the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Assembly, may
make laws for the peace, order and good government of Anguilla.
In
other words, the legislative power for Anguilla is the Governor, not the House
of Assembly. Compare the wording of
section 46 of the Antigua and Barbuda Constitution 1981. This provides:
46. -
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for
the peace, order and good government of Antigua and Barbuda.
[16] Anguilla’s House of Assembly is constitutionally
described as a ‘subordinate legislature.’
Anguilla is an Overseas Territory, and as such, its law-making powers
are constrained by the Constitution and various other laws of the United
Kingdom. Strictly speaking, the Governor
is merely required to consult the House of Assembly. As a matter of convention, however, the
Governor almost invariably accepts Bills which have been passed by the House of
Assembly.[13] It would take an extraordinary constitutional
crisis for a Governor to make laws for Anguilla that have not previously been
passed by the Assembly, something that has not happened to this date.
[17] As a colony with a subordinate legislature,
Anguilla is subject to various constraints on the power of its House of
Assembly to make laws for Anguilla. Under
a combination of the Constitution and UK legislation, the FCO has reserved four
ways to make laws for us or to override our laws. They may be shortly described as, (1) the
section 56 power; (2) the section 59 power; (3) an Act of Parliament; and (4)
an Order in Council. Let us look at each
of them in turn.
1. The Power of the
Governor to Unilaterally Make Laws for Anguilla.
[18] The first power that enables the FCO to
legislate for us is found in section 56
of the Constitution. This says that,
If
the Governor considers that it is expedient in the interests of public order or
public faith (which expressions shall, without prejudice to their generality,
include the responsibility of Anguilla as a territory within the Commonwealth .
. .) that any Bill introduced . . . in the Assembly should have effect, then,
if the Assembly fail to pass the Bill . . . the Governor, acting in his
discretion, may, at any time that he thinks fit, . . . declare that the Bill .
. shall have effect as if it had been passed . . . by the Assembly . . .
[19] This means that the Governor may sign into
law any provision that the FCO considers is necessary in the interests of
public order in Anguilla. First, the
provision must have been introduced into the Assembly as a Bill. Of course, the Speaker of the Assembly has
the final say on what is or is not included on the Order Paper. The Speaker may, presumably acting on the
advice of the Chief Minister, refuse to allow the introduction by, say, the
Deputy Governor or the Attorney-General, of a politically sensitive or
objectionable Bill into the Assembly. If
that were to happen, the Governor would not be able to impose the proposed law
on Anguilla, as it had not first been introduced into the Assembly. The section 56 power would be
ineffective. Not that it has proven to
be a problem. This section 56 power has
never in the history of Anguilla been used.
[20] During the 2006 constitutional and electoral
reform exercise, Anguillians who addressed the Commission went so far as to
suggest that the section is a dead letter. The general view was that it is inconceivable
that, in the 21st Century, the people of Anguilla would willingly accept an
enactment made into law by the Governor using this provision contrary to the
wishes of their representatives. The
outrage such a use of the section 56 power would engender among Anguillians would
inevitably give rise to civil strife.
Every Anguillian who had an opinion on the subject urged the Commission
to recommend that the section be repealed.
The Commission did so at paragraph
130 of its Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission Report 2006
in these words, “The Commission recommends that the section be repealed in its
entirety.”
2. The Power to Disallow
an Act Passed by the Assembly.
[21] Let us now look at the second way in which
the FCO can, in effect, legislate for Anguilla.
This is found in section 59
of the Constitution. The section says
that,
Any
law to which the Governor has given his assent may be disallowed by Her Majesty
through a Secretary of State.
This
is a ‘disallowance section’ rather than a law-making section. The section permits the FCO to intervene
after the Assembly has passed a Bill, and after the Governor has signed it into
law, and after it has become an Act. The
Secretary of State may ‘disallow’ the Act.
That is, he may repeal a properly made Act of our Parliament.
[22] This provision is not a new one. It is a traditional colonial power. It has existed in British colonial
administration law for hundreds of years.[14] The ‘power of disallowance’ had its
usefulness in the days of the sailing ship.
News and documents travelled very slowly in those early days. A colonial Assembly might in good faith pass
an Act. When the copy of it arrived in
London several months later, it might be found to be objectionable for some
reason, eg, it conflicted with a Treaty or Convention recently entered into by
the British Government. So, it was
considered a good precaution to have the power for the Secretary of State to
disallow a colonial Act to ensure Britain was not in conflict with its
international obligations. In the old
colonial days, the records are filled with examples of this happening.
[23] Since we have entered the electronic age, the
need for this power is unlikely ever to arise again. It has never in modern times been used. The FCO now knows of every proposed colonial Bill
long before it is passed into law by the local colonial Assembly. The FCO has plenty of time to send its
comments to the A-G's Chambers. Long
before the Bill gets to the House of Assembly, the FCO can recommend amendments
to the local draughtsman, thus ensuring that an unobjectionable Bill arrives
before the Members of the Assembly.
[24] The retention of this supervisory provision,
bedded as it is in the days of the sailing ship, is now an anachronism. Every person who addressed the Commission on
the implications of this section during the 2006 constitutional review was of
the view that it should not continue into the future as part of the
Constitution of Anguilla. It was
universally objected to. The Commission,
therefore, recommended at paragraph 133
of its 2006 Report as follows, “The Commission recommends that it be removed.”
3.
An Act of the British Parliament
[25] The third way that the British government can
legislate for us is by the passage of a substantive law by the Parliament of
the United Kingdom. From the earliest
days of colonialism, the UK Parliament had the power to legislate for the
colonies. A modern example of this
mechanism at work is the Anguilla
Act 1980 Itself. This is the
law under which Britain took responsibility for administering the government of
Anguilla. Providing this form of
legislation is done responsibly and with prior consultation, there would not
normally be any objection that could properly be made to the right of the
British Parliament to pass a law for one of its overseas territories. That is what it means to be a British
Overseas Territory. When a British
colony achieves independence, the British Parliament expressly relinquishes the
power to legislate for the now independent and sovereign nation. That relinquishment is one of the signposts
of independence.
[26] Nevertheless, it is not inappropriate for us
to expect that the British Parliament will never legislate for us except in two
circumstances. The first is if we
request it. If, for some reason, it is
inconvenient for us to pass our own law on a particular subject, for example,
nuclear energy regulation, we could, conceivably, request the British
Parliament to do it for us. The second
is where it may be necessary for Britain to make a law for our collective
well-being without us having first asked.
If the bona fides of such a
law were to be clearly established, none of us would object to it.
[27] During the 2006 constitutional review
process, no one in Anguilla had any comment or suggestion to make adverse to
the proper use of an Act of Parliament by the British to affect the laws of
Anguilla. The Commission, therefore,
made no recommendation concerning the passing of an Act for Anguilla by the
British Parliament. None is appropriate.
4.
The Order in Council
[28] The fourth way in which the FCO can legislate
for Anguilla is by the Order in Council. Orders in Council are very old. They are now mainly regulated by
statute. The Order in Council is
expressly provided for in those Acts of Parliament that enable the British
administration of overseas territories.
The Anguilla Act, 1980
is an example of this type of legislation.
This Act permits the Secretary of State, acting in the name of the
Queen, to make subsidiary legislation for Anguilla by way of an Order in
Council. So, section 1(2) of the Act provides,
Her
Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision as appears to Her expedient
for and in connection with the government of Anguilla.
The Constitution
of Anguilla, 1982 is an example of such an Order in Council. It was made under the Anguilla Act, 1980.
[29] The
Order in Council has been described as Britain's ‘nuclear
option’ when it comes to legislating for a British Overseas Territory. The term ‘nuclear option’ derives from
nuclear warfare, and refers to the option of a country using nuclear weapons to
defend itself. This is a drastic
solution to any conflict. In military
terms, the use of a nuclear weapon has never arisen since the end of the Second
World War. Since that time, its use has
been recognised as involving the possibility of mutual annihilation.[15]
[30] Imperial legislation, by way of an Order in
Council, may always legitimately be used if it is with the consent of the
people. Generally speaking, such consent
would be conveyed through the instrumentality of the government of the
day. For example, in matters of
international security, international aviation, international piracy, trade
with Serbia or Iraq in contravention of UN resolutions, it would be appropriate
for a BOT government to signify consent to the UK government to pass the
appropriate Order in Council. These
matters do not directly impose on our liberties. No one in Anguilla would have any objection
to the government of Anguilla consenting to the FCO legislating for us on such
matters by way of an Order in Council.
No objection was raised when it was in fact done.
[31] During the 2006 Constitutional review
process, no person made any recommendation to the Constitutional and Electoral Reform Commission proposing any
restriction by the FCO on the future use of the Order in Council. The Commission made no recommendations
concerning the use of the Order in Council.
[32] To conclude, the Anguilla House of Assembly
is the ‘normal’ way in which laws are made for the peace and good government of
Anguilla. But, the House of Assembly is
a subordinate one, and the British Government retains extraordinary powers to
legislate for us.
THE JUDICIARY
[33] The third branch of government is the
Judiciary. The function of the judiciary
under the Constitution is to settle disputes that arise between citizen and
citizen, and the citizen and the State. In
Anguilla, there are four levels of the Judiciary: the Magistracy, the High Court, the Court of
Appeal and the Privy Council.
[34] The Magistracy is created under a local
statute, the Magistrates Code of Procedure. The courts at this level deal with the
majority of criminal cases and with civil disputes below a value of
EC$15,000.00.
[35] The High Court has unlimited jurisdiction,
and deals with more serious criminal cases and civil and constitutional
disputes.
[36] The Court of Appeal hears appeals from
decisions of Magistrates and from the decisions of juries and High Court
Judges. The High Court and the Court of
Appeal are the two levels of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (the
ECSC). They were enabled by the British
Government[16]
while most of our islands were still colonies, after the break-up of the
Federation of the West Indies and the Federal Court of the West Indies came to
an end. The Chief Justice of the ECSC is
appointed by the unanimous decision of all the Prime Ministers and Chief
Ministers of the nine participating countries of the court. The other judges are appointed by an
independent Judicial and Legal Services Commission made up of judges and senior
public servants appointed by rotation among the islands and states. The judiciary of the ECSC is considered to be
one of the most independent and least politically influenced institutions of
the Eastern Caribbean.
[37] The
highest level of the judiciary in Anguilla is the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council. This sits in London, and
hears only the most important appeals that come to it from the Court of Appeal.
[38] There are two principal initiatives for
reform of the judiciary of the Eastern Caribbean. The first is to remove the Magistrates from
appointment by the Executive and transfer their appointment, discipline,
conditions and terms of service, to the regional Judicial and Legal Services
Commission. The second is the replacement
of the Privy Council by the Caribbean Court of Justice (the CCJ).
THE MAGISTRACY
[39] The transfer of the Magistracy to the
regional Judicial and Legal Service Commission has enjoyed universal approval
from the Magistracy, the Bar Associations, the governments, and the public of
the region. Its progress is being held
up by the need for constitutional reform to achieve this end.
THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF
JUSTICE
[40] The second initiative, of the replacement of
the Privy Council by the CCJ, is favoured by the Privy Council itself, regional
academic lawyers, and most of the Bars and the public throughout the West
Indies. This initiative does not affect
Anguilla at this time. It is considered
to be a matter principally for the independent countries of the Commonwealth
Caribbean, and not for British Overseas Territories. The CCJ is presently the final court for
Barbados, Guyana, Belize, and Dominica.
In the coming years it is expected that the independent countries will
replace the Privy Council by the CCJ. The
principal hold-back to wholesale replacement of the Privy Council by the CCJ is
the need to amend the Constitution, where necessary, to permit this alteration
to the judicial system.
[41] It is unlikely that the British Government
would look favourably on the transfer of the final court for its Overseas
Territories to a court outside of its control.
In theory, the British Government would want our final Court of Appeal
to be a British Court in order to ensure that British standards of human rights
are followed, something that, in theory at least, is not guaranteed when the
court is not a British court.
THE FUTURE
[42] With a new administration in place in
Anguilla following the conclusive success of the United Front party in the 2015
General Elections, we look forward to initiatives that will promote reform and constitutional
advance in a number of different areas.
The party’s Manifesto, on which they ran, includes the following
promises:[17]
CONSTITUTIONAL
AND ELECTORAL REFORM – VISION 2020
A revised constitution will
be introduced, the electoral system will be reformed and expanded, democratic
participation will be increased, the political climate will be improved,
conduct in the House of Assembly will improve and participation in the
democratic process will be increased.
PRINCIPAL STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
1) Increased
constitutional autonomy.
2) A reformed
and updated electoral system.
3) Greater public participation in governing Anguilla and in
determining policies.
PROGRAMME PRIORITIES
i) Introduce a revised and improved
constitution within 24 months.
ii) Update and modernize the elections system.
iii) Increase public
input into determining national policies, laws, strategies and plans.
iv) Develop a local
government system in Anguilla’s villages and constituencies.
v) Institute an ongoing
public education process for greater self-rule and independence.
vi) Review and revise the Rules and Procedures of the House of
Assembly to limit abuse of its privileges and improve its operations.
[43] If half of these promises are kept, Anguilla
will have made more constitutional and electoral progress in the next 5 years
than in the past 20 years. It will be
your role as parliamentarians to do everything you can to educate yourselves on
these issues, and to push continuously for the promises to be kept.
A
presentation made to local, regional and international parliamentarians at a
post-general elections seminar held on Monday 10 August 2015 at La Vue Hotel
Conference Room, South Hill, Anguilla.
[1] The Anguilla Constitution Order,
S.I. 1982 No 334
[2] The Constitution of Saint Kitts and
Nevis, 1983
[3] The Anguilla Act 1980, c 67.
[4] It was necessary for a separate Act to be
passed, as the West Indies Act, 1962 (S.I. 1962 c 19) under which the
other colonies had been governed, did not apply to Anguilla which did not exist
as a separate colony in 1962. See Peter
Clegg, Governing the UK Caribbean
Overseas Territories: A Two-Way Perspective. In Peter Clegg and Emilio Pantojas-Garcia, eds,
2009. Governance in the Non-Independent Caribbean: Challenges and
Opportunities in the Twenty-First Century. Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers,
p.4.
[5] The Anguilla (Constitution) Order,
S.I. 1976 No 50.
[6]
Which Dame Dr Bernice Lake QC helped
the Ronald Webster government negotiate with the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office.
[7]
Anguilla had previously between 1650
and 1825 had no form of legislature of any kind, and no laws were passed
locally to govern the island. In 1825,
with the collapse of Anguilla’s economy as a result of a long drought and the British
wars with the French, the Secretary of State took the opportunity to persuade
the St Kitts colonial administration to have its Legislative Council pass the Anguilla
Act of 1825. This provided for Anguilla
to become a part of the colony now styled St Kitts and Anguilla. The arrangement was that the Anguillians
would elect one member to the St Kitts Assembly, and he would have a seat on
the St Kitts-Anguilla Executive Council.
Despite various Leeward Islands constitutional changes over the next 140
years this remained essentially the constitutional status of Anguilla until the
1967 Revolution changed everything.
[8] For the most modern constitutional law
study, see Tracy Robinson, Arif Bulkan and Adrian Saunders, 2015. Fundamentals of Caribbean Constitutional Law.
London: Sweet & Maxwell.
[9] Since the British Overseas Territories
Act, 2002.
[10] As she did recently in the Turks &
Caicos Islands when the Turks and Caicos Islands Constitution Order 2006,
S.I. 2006 No 1913 was first suspended by the Turks and Caicos Islands
Constitution (Interim Amendment) Order 2009, S.I. 2009 No701, as amended,
and later replaced by the Turks and Caicos Islands Constitution Order 2011,
S.I. 2011 No 1618.
[11] http://gov.ai/
Though, it is to be noted that some seem to be permanently suppressed, eg,
those of 14 November 2013; 24 March
2014; and 20 January, 28 May and 1 July
2015.
[12] For a modern constitutional law study, see
Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson, 2011. British
Overseas Territories Law. Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing.
[13]
The last time a Governor rejected a
Bill passed by the Anguilla House of Assembly was in December 2012 when
Governor Harrison refused to assent to it until the Government agreed to
certain conditions required by the FCO.
[14] Its current legislative authority in the UK
is the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, 1865 c 63.
[15] In US constitutional dialectic, the term
was first used by Senator
Trent Lott to refer to the attempt by the presiding officer of the Senate
to end a filibuster by majority vote.
[16]
Under the West Indies Act 1967,
c 4.
