BVI News

UPDATE: Willock usurped AG! Committee says he must pay fees

Former Speaker of the House of Assembly (HOA), Julian Willock will have to pay the legal costs for the court injunction he filed against three Commission of Inquiry (COI) attorneys but later abandoned.

This was the indication given in the final report drafted by the Special Parliamentary Committee that was formed to decide on the matter.

During the special committee’s proceedings, it heard evidence from three primary witnesses — Willock, Deputy Speaker Neville Smith, and Attorney General (AG) Dawn Smith.

Willock’s testimony

In his testimony to the committee, Willock indicated that he received “expressed verbal support” from then-Premier Andrew Fahie as well as the Deputy Speaker to file the injunction. Willock further said his post grants him powers to “speak on behalf of the House of Assembly”. Having this power, Willock said he “believed that permission was implied by members of the House of Assembly to file the injunction”; and so he did through the law firm hired to represent the HOA, Silk Legal.

The Deputy Speaker

Meanwhile, Deputy Speaker Neville Smith told the committee that then-Premier Fahie instructed him to be the liaison between himself (Fahie) and Willock. The Deputy Speaker said Fahie further “ordered” him to advise Willock that the government was in support of the injunction but he (Willock) would need the support of the Opposition. The Deputy Speaker claimed the Opposition was “on board as well but he (Willock) did not ask to what extent”.

The AG’s side

As for the Attorney General, she indicated that the Speaker did not seek her permission to file the injunction (which he legally needed to do) till after the fact. She told the committee in her testimony that Willock acted “ultra vires” (beyond his powers) to the Constitution and the HOA rules when he initiated his injunction.

According to the Special Parliamentary Committee’s report, the AG said Silk Legal was clearly only hired to represent the HOA in the COI. 

“Further, it is the Attorney General and not the Speaker who is the guardian of public interest. The Speaker’s action, therefore, usurped the function of the Attorney General and accordingly the [legal] costs of the claim,” the AG reportedly testified.

The committee’s conclusion

As such, the Special Parliamentary Committee determined that no expressed permission was given to Willock to file the injunction. However, the committee was satisfied that Willock acted in his official capacity and in good faith on the “assumption” that permission would be given. 

“The action [of the injunction] is not deemed warranted and it is without merit and as a result there should be no consideration of the matter by the House of Assembly,” the committee concluded.

The total legal fees amounted to approximately $98,000.



Copyright 2024 BVI News, Media Expressions Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.


Disclaimer: BVI News and its affiliated companies are not responsible for the content of comments posted or for anything arising out of use of the comments below or other interaction among the users.

  1. Time longer than twine says:

    Yes. Hallelujah. Thsts is one I am elated about. I am now waiting on government official one and that will be the cherry ontop the cake for me.

    Pride goes before destruction amd a haughty spirit before the fall.

    Like 35
    Dislike 1
  2. Oink oink says:

    Time for wiggy to break that piggy bank and fork up the coins LOL LOL cha-chingggggg!!!

    Like 30
    Dislike 1
  3. Lol says:

    W will have to pay up

    Like 16
    Dislike 1
  4. Mufeng says:

    Good for him. Let he pay up yes. Like to be in things. I am laughing all the way from down island.

    Like 24
  5. Jack says:

    Look what they did to our esteemed

    Like 4
    Dislike 21
  6. Dumb says:

    No expressed permission? Didnt they say Fay-hee gave permission for the government side and JW had the support of the opposition? If they want to say no approval from AG, then they should say so. Clearly he had some expressed permission, which he acted on.

    Dislike 22
    • Nancy says:

      They did not trust the AG.

      • Nancy_Drew says:

        While the AG is indeed the guardian of the public’s interest, she also needs to understand that it is essential to develop and maintain a constructive working relationship with the civil servants and branches of government. The present AG doesn’t possess good interpersonal or leadership skills. She spends far too much time over reaching in areas outside her scope or skill set and not enough time adding real value to areas where she is needed. Simply put, she hasn’t demonstrated that she understands her role and as a result she has neither the confidence or the trust of her colleagues. Sadly, at best she doesn’t care or, at worse doesn’t understand why this is even important.

        Like 6
        Dislike 13
        • Contrary says:

          She does not support furor behaviour which that was

        • @Nancy Drew says:


          Sounds like you have a personal grudge against the AG ( Miss Smith ) as an Individual and not the Character or Disposition of the Attorney General.
          Can you do Anything if you were in here Position. NOT She qualified not YOU!

          Like 1
          Dislike 1
        • Nancy says:

          Maybe that is why she was not found to be compromised by the COI.
          At times a certain distance is important to maintain objectivity and professionalism.

    • Dumb dumb says:

      Furthermore, the committee’s findings is dumb because how can you punish someone who you said acted in good faith. Obviously, this suggests he had good reason to believe he had the support. This statement is not about whether I think he should pay or not as obviously he should (to all the thick heads who dislike). This is about the glaring incompetence of a committee for concluding one thing which does not match up with the reasoning they have provided. They have contradicted themselves to say the least. Stop using terminology that you all do not understand.

      Like 6
      Dislike 9
  7. Rolling Stone says:

    How does it feel to be on your own like a rolling stone. Anybody could be a victim still y’all keep supporting the evil beast system while it eats us one by one. How clever is that.

  8. London Bridge.. says:

    Since Fahie gone the Corrupt and criminal bridge is falling down..

    Like 17
  9. Trout says:

    If the AG’s office is “the guardian of public interest” then why did they permit all of the high crimes and misdemeanors illuminated by the COI to develop and remain unchallenged? Shouldn’t the AG’s office be replaced alongside all the others? I

    Like 13
    Dislike 5
  10. Licker and Sticker says:

    What was the use of wasting time and money on this committee? Government needs to be audited to ensure no payments to this guy through the back door. VIP still there and I wouldn’t put it past them.

    Like 14
  11. At last! says:

    Pay up Willock!

  12. Pat says:

    The government need to pay this bill just like they paid the one for the governor

    Like 3
    Dislike 18
    • Wake up says:

      Cross examination of the The governor was requested by the government’s legal representative. I believe it would have been conflict and very much to the Governor’s disadvantage to have the same person representing him, who was also representing the government, but yet cross questioning him on behalf of the government; it spells conflict through and through. The Governor didn’t bring the expense our leaders did. Until we stop leaving our heads in the sand we’re not going to get better. AG is the government’s legal representative when did the then Speaker take over her role? Under what rule was the Speaker covered under to take that step? Obviously none because he is now saddled with the bill. The highest court in our land and a political House of Assembly could overturn that? Nonsense. We demonstrated through the leaders that we put there that we disregard the law; yet another example. Wake up.

      Like 6
      Dislike 1
      • @Pat says:

        If you want to comment about a conversation as this one, please get an education in the rule of law first. Please don’t decide what is fact. This is what these folks involved did. They went to college and Law School. Way too many folks seem to practice as you do.

  13. Why? says:

    This matter has already been ruled by court, why bring it up again. It was for sure not in benefit of people of the BVI.

    Like 10
  14. Expensive says:

    This is what happens when you over reach and lacks respect for others around you. The same thing happened in Mark’s case when the AG was sidestep for a private firm and it would happen over and over again if the courts never stop the esteem. Acting in good faith does not meant it is lawful.

  15. VIP sacrificial goat says:

    Thrown under electric bus

  16. Commital says:

    time if he don’t pay legal fees today!

  17. Wondering says:

    What took so long to come to this conclusion, nothing but corruption, and cronyism? Sickening and absolutely nothing has changed because we still have the same gang.

  18. Yellow site says:

    Why isn’t this breaking news as yet on the yellow site ?

  19. @ NANCY (WIGO says:


  20. Hog city says:

    Can’t wait to see julian willock back in the house of assembly

  21. Will Lock (him up) says:

    The fact that the apparently not so honourable Fahie and certain opposition members might have given implied support of an entirely frivolous and unnecessary lawsuit is irrelevant. Willock didn’t have the authority to pursue a lawsuit using public money to protect what we now know are probable criminals from investigation by the COI. It is obvious that the public interest was being served by the COI not impeded by it. If Willock ran up a $100k legal bill through his own stupidity and hubris then of course he should pay it himself.

  22. Smack Dab says:

    W need to pawn his wig. He might fetch a couple grand for that artifact.

  23. Solved says:

    as suggested by the COI the house of assembly must be dissolved, this will ensure no such misuse of authority again.

    case closed

Leave a Comment