Our governors wrongfully using powers of assent as ‘veto’
Education Minister Dr Natalio Wheatley has contended that UK appointed governors are now using their powers of assent to legislation as a veto power.
The term ‘veto’ refers to a constitutional right to reject a decision or proposal made by a lawmaking body, such as the House of Assembly.
The Education Minister’ statements comes on the heels of a refusal by former governor Augustus Jaspert to grant assent to the Cannabis Licensing Act and other legislation passed in the House of Assembly (HOA) more than a year ago.
Prior to leaving office, Jaspert forwarded the cannabis legislation to the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office for further consultation, arguing that some necessary provisions had not been made.
“The reality is these governors that they send down here won’t assent to these things, if you do those type of things. The assent has now become a veto on any provision in any Act that they disagree with,” Dr Wheatley said.
“I don’t think the assent should be used that way, but unfortunately this is the way it has been used, especially of late,” added the Deputy Premier who was at the time debating the Integrity in Public life Act.
Among other things, the Act provides for an Integrity Commission to be established in the BVI.
Dr Wheatley called the way in which the commission is to be established — with input from, and agreement between the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition — an example of progressive politics.
He said it was important to demonstrate this type of politics if the BVI is to be able to advance towards more autonomy and to have some form of freedom of association, integration or even independence at some stage.
And according to the Deputy Premier, the existence of independent bodies such as the proposed commission was key to the entire concept of having good governance.
He said this would ensure that they are able to operate without any hindrance.
Copyright 2024 BVI News, Media Expressions Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.
First, they are not vetoing, they are “withholding assent”, as they are entitled and obligated to do under their charter from the home country.
they may do this for a variety of reasons, such as the law being presented is poorly written, contradicts common law or attempts to remove a right guaranteed under the home country’s laws.
In essence, they are doing the same thing a court would do later on, in striking down a bad attempt at passage of a law.
Natalio is correct. Anyone that is needed to consent to legislation before it can become law has a veto.
Mr Minister Time to Ditch The Queen and go the Barbados way. Republic of the Virgin Islands sounds good. Nothing any more British. No US Dollar. Sounds exciting.
Better yet, why don’t you move Barbados. We far from ready for that. Do you think the solution for poor governance and lack of transparency is to go independent so that the territory does not have to give account? Very few Caribbean countries do well under independence that’s why we have so much people from st Vincent and Jamaica in the BVI.
Your moniker is perfect. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, until you cross it, though I seriously, I doubt Barbados has the same attitudes towards accountability as are found here. No more USD? So, what currency do you propose? ECD? Will you be excited to pay exchange fees and commissions everytime you go the US mainland?
You might also consider that for decades Barbados has heavily invested in education, something that has not happened here where we would apparently prefer to have A/C in a Sports Center than fix the schools, soon 5 years after they were damaged.
After that COI it’s obvious that no money-making programmes should be approved until they get hey, hey, hey out of the ministry of finance.
Everything that brings in $$ is under the Premier & the other 8 settle for this arrangement….
We need to Veto you and the whole VIP next election.
In the UK, royal assent is needed for a bill passed by Parliament to become law. Similarly, in the VI (British), the Governor (the Crown Rep, de facto head of state) has to assent to bills passed by the HOA, a people’s duly elected body, before bills can become law. Moreover, though the Monarch has the right to refuse assent to a bill, it is rarely done. It has been over 400 years since a Monarch refuse to assent to a bill; Queen Anne in 1707 refused to assent to the Scottish Militia Bill.
Moreover, I will take a WAG that a 100% of VI residents don’t approve of the medical marijuana ( cannabinol (CBD)) bill ; CBD and THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) are two different strains of cannabis sativa; THC is psychoactive. Continuing, in democracy a 100% is typically not required to pass bill(s); bills can be passed by a simple majority, supermajority, etc. Most democracies operate on the majoritarian practice. Elections has consequences.
The current situation between the UK and VI in regards to assenting to bills seemed like the UK telling the VI do as I say, not as I do. No surprise. The colonialists have always dictated to the colonies what is good for them. There has always been a disparity between what the supposed Mother countries do and what they permit the colonies to do. The system is flawed(the West Minister system is flawed), for the VI has no mechanism to overcome/address a Governor’s veto. Another item for the constitutional review.
It’s “Westminster” not “West Minister”.
Westminster is the part of London where the UK Parliament is located.
Isn’t the main issue re the Cannabis bill that if it’s passed it will put the UK and the BVI in default of certain treaties the UK has signed upto; and the UK deals with the BVI’s foreign relations while it remains an OT?
@Resident, what treaties are being violated? You cannot drop s.. t and leaving things hanging. Other than ‘West Minister v Westminster,’ Leonard seemed to have made his points clear. So if you want to counter m, you have to bring the facts, not just suppositions. I got a question. Why the crown has not refused to assent a bill in over 400 years? Is it because, Parliament is skilled at drafting bills and the BVI is a novice or is it something else?
I posed it as a question because I didn’t remember the detail. I recall reading that that was the reason, I think in a statement from his Exvellency. I welcome elucidation.
If treaty(s) violations are truly the reason for not assenting to or vetoing the medical marijuana bill, should not PSs, Ministers and other members of Team VIP know this? Is it not prudent for government to consult with the Governor’s office since it is crucial in determining if a bill lives or die?
You are saying the people overwhelming disagree with the Bill but yet blaming the Governor for not signing the Bill? If this is not something the people want, why is it before the Governor for signature? That seems to be an issue you’ve ignored here.
If you do not agree with a law why not air your reason and have a discussion? No that is too much to do with the little boys who believe they have power. That is the respect the elected leaders get. From a country that prides itself on democracy it is a pellucid that with the colonies it is not practiced.
pellucid
. translucently clear
. easily understood