Skelton Cline warns against ousting Attorney General from Cabinet
Claude Skelton Cline is urging caution over proposals to remove the Attorney General as an automatic member of Cabinet and the House of Assembly, warning that doing so could deprive lawmakers of vital legal guidance at the highest level of government.
Speaking on a recent airing of his Honestly Speaking programme, Skelton Cline weighed in on recommendations stemming from the House of Assembly’s review of the Constitutional Review Commission’s 2022–2023 report, which proposes adopting a Bermuda-style model for the office of Attorney General.
Under the proposal, the Attorney General would no longer sit in Cabinet or the House of Assembly by virtue of holding the office. Instead, if appointed as a public officer, the Attorney General would only attend Cabinet meetings when specifically summoned to provide legal advice. Alternatively, if a lawyer is elected as a member of the House of Assembly, that person could be appointed Attorney General while serving as an elected representative.
It’s unclear why the legislators are seeking to make this change to the Attorney General’s role. Skelton Cline questioned whether the change would serve the territory’s best interests.
“You always need your attorney in the room, especially as legislators,” he argued. “Especially as non-lawyers, especially as members of the highest decision-making body in the country, namely, the Cabinet.”
“I’m not sure what the rationale is behind putting the AG out,” he further said.
Skelton Cline also expressed concern that the proposed model could allow an elected lawyer with limited experience to become Attorney General simply because they won a seat in the House of Assembly.
“Can you imagine you get a bush lawyer, gets elected, and then you could just appoint him or her to be AG?” he asked. “He or she may not be fit for the post of AG, even though they are a lawyer. All lawyers ain’t equal. All preachers ain’t equal. All OBGYN ain’t equal,” Skelton Cline said, arguing that experience and competence should remain central considerations when selecting the territory’s chief legal adviser.
Copyright 2026 BVI News, Media Expressions Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.
As the pastor that you claims to be why don’t you pick up your Bible and do something constructive and worth while with your time win souls for the most high instead of you making things that don’t concern you, creating diversion between the nation wishing my brothers bobmarley ,culture, lucky dubbe and peter tosh was still alive and wright a song about you false prophet.
Dictatorship, Form of government in which one person or an oligarchy possesses absolute power without effective constitutional checks.
Claud is correct!!!
It is very clear to me why they are doing this.
What we are witnessing in real time is the making of dictators, they do not want anyone to tell or advise them what to do.
This is dangerous.
What we really need to do is the fire the DPP
That idiot man don’t have a wife or family why can’t they talk some sense into him telling him to give it a rest who gave him the title pastor have alot to answer to.
Please to Hush! You took ppl blogging name and still can’t complete or construct a proper sentence. You should stop blogging on dis or any newsite because you don’t make any sense!
how the house and cabinet work, but I’d presume that the presence of the AG provides legal cushioning and guidance for our elected officials. We see the number of clueless folks being voted in, I think legal guidance is a must at those levels.
Smell right.
A Bush Pastor wannabe who never held a position in elected office seems to parrot whatever effluent flows through that incapacitated mind. I agree with the recommendation to adopt the Bermuda type of approach in regards to the AG appointment.
Now if we could only get you sanctioned under a state proposed Mental Health Act that would be a blessing!
The reasoning seema obvious to me. They are changing the constitution to address their issues with the current AG. They want her out of cabinet not the AG but the prob is that she is the AG and they cant legally remove her. It is bad governance to change permanent format for a temporary problem. Of course we need an AG in the room.
Why are his thoughts news?
The government should continue with an Attorney General whose own record is terrible in my opinion because this mouth piece says so?
In my view, she should have been sacked years ago. This is an AG who cannot win major cases if her own life depended in it. She needs to go.
The only reason she is still in that position is because she is “one of us”. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am for any local competent AG who can get the job done, but this AG I do not support.
This mouth piece needs to stop supporting mediocrity who needs to hire expensive outside help to assist the DPP office try cases that has cost the Treasury lots of taxpayers money
If her performance was better than what it is, I would be the first in line to support her continued tenure but that’s not the case unfortunately.
I presume she will remain in that position no matter her poor performance because everyone are buddy buddy around here laughing up in each other’s faces as if everything is alright and no one having the courage or backbone to do the right thing and call a spade a spade.
It seems to me this should only be a consideration when looking at why the AG is in Cabinet in the first place. What is the remit of Cabinet? Are there legal contracts and legal decisions made that will affect the running of the country? Is it important to have someone versed in the law present to speak on such contracts and legal decisions?
Seems to me that the excessive travel of this young Government is backfiring. Not because something is done somewhere else should it be adopted in our Territory. My opinion is that the AG is vital for both Cabinet and the HOA and should give her opinion on all legal documents passing through both places.
Remove the Attorney General, Leave the position where it is
We know that is a direct recommendation from his highness from district 3. District 3 needs to retire him before his thinking space mash up this place. Let him go home to age gracefully, walk his dog, go to the beach, relax himself.
Why is it that we cannot fire or remove/transfer local persons holding AG and DPP posts?