The Editor
The Anguillian

Dear Sir:

I refer to my letter in last week's issue of The Anguillian, in which I strongly criticised the terms which the government had conceded in their Memorandum of Agreement with Cap Juluca and feel compelled to bring your readership up to date. I certainly have no confidence that the government will do so.

It is often said that it is the truth that hurts the most, so I leave it to your readership to draw conclusions from the fact that on the very date of publication of my letter I received a "letter before action", from counsel for the government ministers, threatening me in uncompromisingly hostile terms with an action for libel and a claim for damages.

In particular, it was alleged that my letter to The Anguillian amounted to a charge that the ministers, individually and in their collective capacity as the government of Anguilla, had engaged in corruption and dishonesty in the discharge of their official duties. Quite extraordinarily, and with no connection to reality, it went on to say that my letter alleged that the ministers entered into the MoA "for personal gain". Why would such an interpretation enter their heads, when my letter made no reference, either directly or by inference, to personal gain and was confined to criticising the terms of the MoA and the failure of the government to consult before entering into it?

Since the government appear to be unswerving in their determination to muzzle legitimate criticism of their lamentable performance, to fetter the fundamental right (enshrined in the constitution) of freedom of expression and to attempt to intimidate me in my bid for office, by this and other questionable means, let them answer this: when they have delivered to the British government a proposed draft constitution (upon which they have admittedly singularly failed to consult) which states in Section 102(4):
102(4). No Crown land in Anguilla in excess of one acre may be sold, leased, charged, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of without a resolution of the House of Assembly authorising the transaction.

what makes them think that they can reasonably give away close to 100 acres of the most precious land in Anguilla, under the terms of an MoA that has been negotiated and entered into secretly, without such a resolution? And what makes them then think that they can sue someone for libel for criticising an MoA that they have entered into secretly and which appears to comprise what amounts to a give-away of the birthright of Anguillians, but makes no suggestion whatsoever that such give-away was made "for personal gain"?

If they are personally desperate for money, I am not the person to whom they should be looking to enrich them with an unreasonable claim for damages. And if they are looking for money for the Anguilla exchequer - as it certainly needs in order to protect Anguillians from the threats of the recession - they should call an election immediately and give a more competent government the opportunity to sort out the terrible challenges they have inflicted on the Anguillian people by their incompetent economic management.

Yours faithfully,
Pam Webster
APP Candidate for District One

| Printer-friendly page | Send this article to a friend |

World News