US Virgin Islands (USVI) Governor, Kenneth E. Mapp. Photo: VIC

The July 22, 2016 judgement served as a setback for Mr Mapp, who had hoped to replace Judge Dunston with Judge Harold A. Willocks to lead the Superior Court as presiding judge; and as a win for Judge Dunston, who argued that the governor’s attempt amounted to an ill-conceived, “egregious abuse of executive power, ” and misguided. The lawsuit also assailed the governor for violating the separation of powers balance.

On Friday, June 17, 2016 Mr Mapp announced the appointment of Judge Harold A. Willocks to serve as presiding judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, replacing current Presiding Judge Dunston.

The Consortium described the action as one that might have been without precedent, as it’s extremely rare that a governor, aside from appointing judges, becomes involved in matters of the judicial branch of government.

The governor cited Virgin Islands Code Title 4, Chapter 71, which he says gives him the authority to replace Judge Dunston with Willocks as presiding judge.

That section of the code reads:

“The Governor shall designate one of the judges of the court to serve as presiding judge of the court to preside for such term, perform such duties, and exercise such authority as may be otherwise provided by law, or by rules of the court.”

But the law, while clear on the ability of a governor to appoint a presiding judge, does not say that a governor can remove a judge from the position without the term of said judge being expired. Judge Dunston was appointed by former Governor John P. de Jongh in 2013 for a six-year term.

Mr Mapp said his decision to replace Judge Dunston was based on the slow pace in which cases go to trial in the Virgin Islands. He said the Superior Court lost millions while attempting to computerise its system, and still remains out of sync in an age of technology. Amplifying the problem, Mr Mapp added, some judges were failing to report to work. And while the federal judiciary has offered the Superior Court access to use its system for little to no fees, the Superior Court had yet to utilise the offer. “The Superior Court remains lethargic, non-functioning and simply, in 2016, a paper operation,” Mr Mapp said.