Ministers not the problem; VI Premier rules out cabinet reshuffle
Responding to a question on the reshuffling of cabinet from the Talking Points programme co-host Damion C. Grange on July 20, 2026, the Premier praised ministers’ efforts and said the main challenge is not individual ministers’ performance.
“Generally, I don't think it’s ministers where we have the challenge,” he said, explaining that movement between portfolios and progress on subjects are being hampered by systemic weaknesses rather than ministerial capability.
Implementation challenge
Honourable Wheatley said he recently met with his permanent secretaries and the Financial Secretary to discuss operational shortcomings and reiterated the need for urgent governance reform.
“We have an implementation challenge that we have to tackle,” he said, adding that his administration or any future government must address those implementation failures seriously.
Highlights constitutional issues
The Premier compared the VI’s system unfavourably with the United Kingdom. In the UK, he noted, the Prime Minister leads the cabinet while the Cabinet Secretary leads the public service and is accountable to the cabinet.
“That cabinet secretary will be responsible for making sure the cabinet’s decisions are implemented across the public service. It's a direct line of accountability straight to the elected leader of government, who ultimately is held accountable by the people of the United Kingdom,” he said.
The premier argued that the VI’s present structure leaves those with accountability too distant from those with responsibility. “The persons who have the tools of accountability are far too far from the people who have responsibility,” he said. “The persons who are responsible must have the tools of accountability as well. So our system just doesn't work well.”
_(Small).jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
Follow Us On
9 Responses to “Ministers not the problem; VI Premier rules out cabinet reshuffle”
Two major sources of gridlock are permanent secretaries and statutory boards. Although disciplinary procedures exist, they are often too slow and indirect. An ineffective or resistant permanent secretary can frustrate a minister’s programme and simply wait for the next election.
The answer is not to politicize the public service, but to establish firm deadlines, measurable performance standards and a faster process for disciplining, reassigning or removing officials guilty of proven insubordination or persistent failure.
An elected government cannot be held responsible for delivering its programme while unelected officials can obstruct it without consequences.
Statutory boards should also justify their existence. Those performing necessary independent functions should remain; those duplicating oversight and delaying decisions should be consolidated or abolished.
Checks and balances should prevent abuses of power—not make elected governments powerless.
It's either you live on Mars or your SARCASM is heavy. I want to believe the latter cause ain't no way you just said wah you said.
Moreover, creative destruction is vital for organizational growth and development, taking advantage of innovation, revising policies, processes, procedures periodically and as needed; improving programmes, systems, etc.