BVI News

Vanterpool’s matter to go under judicial review next week

Mark Vanterpool

The matter of whether Mark Vanterpool should be sworn in as Fourth District Representative is scheduled for judicial review next week.

The matter was scheduled for review at the request of Vanterpool whose attorneys filed for an urgent hearing before the court.

“The High Court granted a hearing date for Wednesday, April 10, 2019,” Vanterpool said in a media release on Tuesday afternoon.

“I am still hopeful that this matter would be resolved without delay and therefore allow me some time to participate in the budgetary proceedings, having been sworn in to my rightful place in the House of Assembly.”

The court approved the hearing after first denying Vanterpool’s request of an injunction (a court order). Vanterpool wanted the court to make an order to “delay” yesterday’s April 2 sitting of the House to allow him to be able to “participate in the budget process”.

The court refused that request.

Vanterpool’s predicament happened because of his March 5 decision to resign from representational politics. He submitted what he and the governor now believe to be a ‘constitutionally invalid’ letter of resignation. Vanterpool changed his mind about resigning a week later and now wishes to be sworn in.

However, the Speaker of the House, Julian Willock, refuses to swear him in. Willock maintains that he has already accepted the resignation, notwithstanding its invalidity.

Copyright 2021 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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.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. Interested. says:

    Hahaha, really, your constituents. Since when they become yours. You didn’t know they were yours when you used them and a abandoned them. Were they yours when your personal reasons came before those who voted for you shame. You went to court to ask the court to stop the sitting of the HoA and still have the nerve to turn up. The Judge rightfully denied your request who do you really think you are. You are not going in the HoA anytime soon. Even if you win here we going all the way to England. Sit down for a while and cool your heels. We have at large candidates who will look after the interest of the 4th.

    Like 22
    Dislike 29
    • Observer says:

      @Interested…Why are you so bitter? The Governor has spoken on the matter but the Speaker has no regard nor respect for him even after he has consulted with the AG. I DO sense something personal going on here. The truth will prevail and people like you with your petty little insular jealousies will have to ‘sit down and cool your heels.’

      Like 28
      Dislike 6
      • Hmmm says:

        I have always said that a fully qualified lawyer should be the minimum requirement for the Speaker of the house. This is to ensure that we have someone in place with a sound understanding of the constitution. This is significantly lacking in this regards to the point where he is disrespecting the government legal advisor.

        To Andrew, if the public is hearing more about your staff, than you and your agenda maybe it’s time to make some tough decisions. It is not looking too good for you.

        Like 16
        Dislike 4
        • Citizen says:

          Hay, Most Esteem is half a Lawyer because he started law school and failed. So what does that make him? (a Lier)lol

      • Anonymous says:

        Thanks for you response observer. I did not detect any bitterness in my blog but if you looked for one and found one congrats. Where was the respect for the governor when the speaker of the last administration refused to allow his official ceremony in the HoA. It was her house then to do as she please. Where were you Mr Observer and the national out cry then. Can you furnish me with the date of your response so I could check it out. Guess not. The Governor made his position doesn’t mean he is correct in his call. He could very well be. I would encourage the Hon speaker to get another opinion. That is his rights your rights and mine. Not bitter my friend just speaking from a legal mind and point of view.

        Like 3
        Dislike 9
        • Hmmm says:

          Where in the constitution states that the governor must be sworn in the HOA. We are dealing with two different kettle of fish. One is constitutional and the other is ceremonial.

          Like 3
          Dislike 2
        • Another Observer says:

          Oh yes, there was plenty of bitterness in your blog. To the extreme but you will get over it, hopefully.

  2. ccc says:

    Hope he loose get on with the by election fast

    Like 8
    Dislike 19
  3. Really says:

    Stop putting WE in this. Go on along to England on your mission. Keep putting England in the headstart S**t of a mess that a bunch of I can never get anything correct Island man drama. By the way, you don’t have to go to England,England knows everything that is going on in Tortola you all are under the microscope big time.

    Like 2
    Dislike 4
  4. Disinterested says:

    The Ring—g Brothers have landed and the Ring Leaker/Carnival B—-r is leading the show/circus. The Ring Leader is taking District 4 for a wild, wild ride. He exercised residents to get re-elected in the February 25 general election then on March 05 decided he is no longer interested representing the residents of D-4. He submitted a resignation letter to Clerk of HOA (no Speaker at the time), didn’t show up to be sworn in on March 12 and days later recanted his resignation. The people of D-4 is being taken on a wild emotional ride and deserved better. The voters exercised their constitutional right and give him the nod and then was pimped slap.

    This wild emotional ride is making a mockery of the electoral process and creating a national embarrassment. The BVI is a joke around the region and wider afield. Has the former MCW no shame? If he truly cares about the well-being of D-4 residents and the territory overall, he should call it a day, for clearly his heart is not into effectively representing D-4. The former MCW may win the legal battle yet will lose the political battle, image tarnished. He will be seen as a joker in the of BVI politics. If he wins, he still loses; it is a lose-lose scenario.

    Like 9
    Dislike 8
  5. Not2Sure says:

    I will be very interested to see who Mr Willock’s lawyer is, because I don’t think it will be the Attorney General turning up to defend this on his behalf.

    Like 12
    • Lawyer says:

      He used Jamal Smith in the disastrous (at least for him) libel
      Litigation with Dr O’Neal.

    • OVER HERE... says:

      He has already notified the Ay Gee that he will not require the services of the Chambers in the matter. Did you not hear that?

  6. wow says:


    Like 4
    Dislike 2
  7. :) says:

    Mark could have saved a lot of time and money if he just accepted his win like the other 12 elected members of the HOA.

    Like 13
  8. AC says:

    The “Great JW he refers to himself as and is evident he really thinks he is… what kind of statement is “the matter is now closed” in his comment to Hon. Penn in the House yesterday. This guy really thinks he can leave a district seat empty …THE CITY SEAT AT THAT! He’ll be the downfall of the VIP if the sitting government doesn’t appropriately address this matter.

    The above article states “However, the Speaker of the House, Julian Willock, refuses to swear Willock maintains that he has already accepted the resignation, notwithstanding its invalidity.” Is this the reason he was ousted from the Public Service? This narcisstic attitude is not becoming of a Speaker.

    Like 28
    Dislike 5
  9. Hello says:

    @ Interested…so true.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Over the last few weeks we have had a lot of different opinions from the public about this ordeal. I hope everybody accept whatever the judge decides and move on.

    Like 4
    Dislike 1
  11. This! says:

    This Statement right here says everything there needs to be said about this matter.

    ” Willock maintains that he has already accepted the resignation, notwithstanding its invalidity.”

    So the question is: How can you accept something which is invalid?

    That is like saying to a man that he has to pay child support for a child that is not biologically his, that he has not adopted as his, just because the mother says to the court, i want him to pay it because he was in a relationship with me.

    That make sense to you?!

    Why are we entertaining this insantity?

    Like 10
  12. WAIT A WHILE says:

    Mark has the VI as a joke. Let him wait a while. I believe he will be sworn I but he needs to learn the hard way. You don’t campaign so hard as he did to come and change your mind because of PERSONAL reasons and then want us to take you back. Your personal reasons were resolved I guess(pure lies). Let the court decide. I guess they didn’t want you as the Leader of the Opposition.

    Like 5
    Dislike 6
  13. julian says:

    @ his age and experience in politics mrk was too emotional too have resigned just lucky he sublitted to the wrong person. after realising the stupidity he had put himself his friends familly etc in not a very comfortable situation now give him a slap le him continue the job he was elected to do and tell him no more chances will be given him to represent [his people.. with such a low emotional stabilty he is unfit to represent [his people shameon you mark.

    Like 3
    Dislike 4
  14. H Kettle says:

    A long-term, popular and likable employee of a major institution went AWOL.

    Doesn’t matter if he/she left without saying a word, whispered their intention to another employee who forwards it to their higher-up at the time, wrote a note to one of the employees who then passed it on, a supervisor or someone who happens to be there at the time of he/she decided.

    One week late, when everyone has already moved on, this very popular and very likable employee suddenly appeared, demanding their job back like nothing ever happened.

    The employees of this major institution love this employee so much, they encourage him to demand his job back, let him/her know that they are behind him/her 100% regardless because they love having he/she around for all these years.

    What is the best option for the institution to take in which to set the institution’s precedence for what is accepted as conditions and terms of employment and dismissal for the institution’s long-term and sustainable well-being moving forward?

    Footnote: The policy at the time of scenario was not foreseen and therefore not part of the institution’s employment and dismissal conditions.


    Like- not to take back this employee.
    Dislike – to take back this employee.

    Like 2
    Dislike 1
  15. ddg says:

    He could not have done this nonesense in Anguilla. I hope the court don’t put he… in de….

  16. cdc says:

    Mark out, he Need to Stay Out. That’s the final decision he made, no one else. He did.

Leave a Comment