DeCastro challenged by discrepancies in Speaker’s actions
Junior Minister Sharie deCastro said she felt conflicted and held some level of discomfort in the way the Speaker of the House of Assembly (HOA), Julian Willock, went about his court injunction against three Commission of Inquiry (COI) lawyers.
DeCastro said her expressed discomfort should not come as a surprise to her colleagues, especially since it contributed to an amendment to the Premier’s initial motion to outrightly exempt Willock from paying the legal fees the court order him to pay for all parties brought before the High Court.
The revised motion saw a special committee being set up to effectively decide whether the burden of costs will be passed to taxpayers.
Speaking in the HOA while legislators were still debating the Premier’s motion, deCastro said the matter of whether Willock’s injunction was warranted was not up for a debate since she held the belief that it was merited.
Willock believed the COI lawyers were practising law in the BVI illegally and deCastro said she was perturbed that there was not more public outcry over the issue.
The people were not informed
As for what made her conflicted, the first-term legislator said “some of us as members [of government] were not absolutely clear as to the reason or the approach with the decision taken.“
She also noted that the way in which the injunction was approached by the Speaker left much to be desired.
“If we are posing a challenge claiming that someone is circumventing our laws, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that in doing so, we are not circumventing our own processes,” DeCastro reasoned.
She added that after considering all the circumstances, she was conflicted by the fact that the Speaker may have indeed been acting in his official capacity when he filed the injunction, but did not observe the necessary procedures.
Copyright 2024 BVI News, Media Expressions Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.
what a waste of X
another hypocrite throwing the poor speaker under the bus
Should throw his donkey far more than under the Bus. Who told him he could park there?( irony )
Pure bull DeCastro. If it was believed that the three was practicing illegally then allow the AG to proceed. The AG is a member of the house. She is the chief legal officer and adviser. How dear the esteem step ahead of her and bring a case before the courts. Conflicted or not laws and protocols must be adhered to. Out of place disrespectful to the AG. Now you trying to defend what is indefendable. We will not forget your vote when the people of the territory vote.
@Unconventional leadership
I Totally agree with you on this. But to add another point, Hon Decastro is a teacher. So she give a student a test and the test was not completed by the student. How in the name of science can she give a pass? only because they sat the text?
We all have to pay for our mistakes, But what Willock did was no mistake. He is just wilful.
No matter how you try to beat around the bush, what the speaker did was wrong.
He needs to stop behaving as if he is a law unto himself.
The attorney general is in place for a reason – to give legal advice to the government.
Spineless.
Really now. How could he have acted in his official capacity when he had to basis to take the matter to court? How were they practising illegally when they are still their doing their job, got the blessings from the AG, are deemed Legal officers for the purpose of not requiring a call to the bar?
Why didnt the Premier, the AG, the Governor’s office, the COP or any other department file the injunction?
Stop defending nonesense. He had no basis, he just wanted attention/public spotlight.
u could spin and twist your words as much as you want cherry, i can see right through you.
you had reservations but still you voted for it, how weak and spineless, at least Ms Flax had the courage to stand on her principles
YOU ARE LOST , BOTH OF YOU HAVE SOMETHING IN COMMON
What are you really saying? Sound like you are saying he half wrong and he half right..Please. stop acting crazy.. He either right or he is wrong, pick a side…
Let him pay the bill! The office of the attorney general is responsible for handling such matters and should have been allowed to do so. We can’t have every Tom, Dick and Jillian running up humongous legal bills without going through the appropriate protocols. Had the Speaker done things the right way, this matter would be a nonissue. Let him pay! Set an example that others can follow.
Do not allow your self to me manipulated. If there are DISCREPANCIES, then why support the policy ?
Find the guts to stand up and support what is not questionable ?
You should have stood by the other female . Take a page from
Her book . Your supporters would put you back . Don’t be afraid of the …..
Have the courts even ruled as to whether the three lawyers were practicing law in the BVI illegally? Have they committed a crime? If that question is still unanswered then the rule should be innocent until proven guilty. From the information that is publicly available from members of the bar, there are conflicting views on the matter so I don’t understand why the Hon. DeCastro is perturbed by the lack of public outcry.
On the other hand, the Courts have ruled on Hon. Willocks matter and he has been found at fault. It is because he has been adjudicated to be at fault and the HOA is not seeking to undo that verdict is why there is so much public outcry.
What I think persons have failed to consider is that it is not only the three lawyers that Willock is required to pay but also the Hon. Attorney General. Imagine, the Government’s Chief Legal Advisor went to court and stated that Willock was not nor did not have the authority to do what he did yet the Government is not trying to undo.
It is curious that Wither’s in its aggressive defense of the government has not raised this issued even after it was brought to light. Have they realized that this may be a case of much ado about nothing.
Finally, it is interesting that the resolution provided some carefully worded and structured conclusions from which the Committee must select one. If the committee was intended to be independent i think they should have been allowed to look at the facts of the matter and come to its own independent conclusions. Why did the Premier find in necessary to provide conclusion.
I am really concerned by the actions of those we have elected to lead us.
By providing conclusions before the inquuiry the same thing that the Government was accusing the COI of doing. But not the Premier can call a similar inquiry in this matter and provide predetermined conclusions. Who are we trying to fool here. If this committee was intended to be truly independent then such limitations should not be place on the outcome.
I agree that the resolution was carefully crafted the deliberate use of the word “expressed” in all options makes me wonder if instructions were given otherwise. Why not be forthright and state that permission was not given by the HOA. What I would like to know is on what basis would the Hon. Speaker have believe that permission was implied. It could not be based on his position as speaker since we already know that the speaker does not have such authority. Is it possible the Speaker does not know the limits of his authority. I wonder if there is a man behind the curtain.
Perhaps it was ‘implied’ through directions or instructions received from the Premier and a few other ministers.
Damage control! You are an accomplice. You are the biggest disappointment. Your silence while all of the atrocities have been committed by your leader is an endorsement of corruption. Change your name from Watchman. You don’t deserve that. Huge disappointment!
Nice try….but no cigar.
No X next go around.
Complicit!
No madam, there’s nothing here to be conflicted about. The gentleman overstepped his authority and in so doing is completely liable for his actions. No need for special committees or considerations or debates. What is it that we the people are not understanding? It appears that this matter will cost the VIP reelection.
What a waste of an “x”
total wastage…
I understand her position.
1. It is illegal to practice law in the territory without being called to the bar and the COI is working to correct that now, hence submitting the applications after Willock’s application.
2. How Willock went about it was against procedure, so he could of had a case of it was done right.
So the question is should he supported is the decision that has merit although he went about it the wrong way?
We as citizens should of had an uproar when the COI broke the law but how many of us know our laws?
The AG office is the institution that should have addressed these questions, not the Speaker. He even went as far as threatening to sue the AG who understood the law and was applying it accordingly. There is no excuse! He had no case!! He overstepped his boundaries and it was two private citizens that brought the lawsuit. You might sound logical but logic is not lawful here! Besides, she does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. This is all damage control.
DeCastro has a point. Willock failed to adhere to procedures in an attempt to penalise others for doing the same, so what makes him right and the COI lawyers wrong? Now he wants to saddle the taxpayers with the bill for his negligence – Stupes.
What a disappointment. This chick seems st**id. I can’t believe she taught kids. A order was made, that’s it. What’s confusing about that?
Four types of people:
Helpless: people who benefit others at their own expense
Intelligent: people who provide gains for both themselves and others
Scamps: people who gain at others expense
Stupid: people who cost others without gaining, or even losing, something themselves
HTSS =SNAKE
Do not be fooled by all this hissing and spitting, if nonsense is repeated long enough it still remains nonsense!
“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.”
“Stupidity isn’t punishable by death. If it was, there would be a hell of a population drop.”
“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”
― George Carlin
― Laurell K. Hamilton, The Laughing Corpse
― Napoleon Bonaparte