Speaker only wanted CoI lawyers to follow VI’s law - Skelton-Cline
Skelton-Cline was addressing the issue of the motion brought before the HoA to exempt the speaker from having to pay legal fees in his personal capacity, in the withdrawn case against the three Commission of Inquiry Lawyers.
According to Skelton-Cline, Mr Julian Willock could not on his own, go into the court of law to "address a matter relative to the functionaries, the practitioners who were carrying out the exercise of the Commission of Inquiry,” he said in the November 3, 2021, edition of his show.
He said the Speaker’s motive was based on VI laws, its constitution and the principles that are embedded in that constitution, which states that the three lawyers, Bilal M. Rawat, Andrew King, and Rhea Harrikissoon, should have been admitted to the VI Bar.
“Apparently that was not done, so there was a breach of the law, the Speaker of the House [and] his Deputy… on behalf of the Branch of government that he presides over… then seeks to remedy the situation.”
The CoI lawyers have since made an application to be admitted to the VI Bar.
Who will defend VI laws?
Skelton Cline further stated the Speaker called attention to the matter based upon the law, principle, practice, and the constitution to say that the CoI cannot be investigating good governance, processes and system and while simultaneously violating one of the territory’s laws through its three lawyers.
“Now if the legislature, if the House of Assembly, and the Speaker of the house… as the fiduciary, if they in their posts do not and cannot and or will not ensure that our laws, our institution, our constitution, the principles that undergird all of that, are hold strong, then tell me who else can, or who else will, or who should have?” he questioned.
Skelton-Cline related that Hon Willock therefore, in his official capacity, did exactly such to ensure the laws of the territory are upheld.
The Speaker and the deputy had lodged objections to the Applications of the three to practice law for the CoI on the basis that the Applicants are not fit and proper persons because they; (i) Were practicing law despite not having being admitted to practice law in the Virgin Islands; and/or (ii). Held themselves out to be solicitors and barristers despite not having being admitted to practise law in the Virgin Islands; and/or (iii.) Have practiced law in the Virgin Islands without a practicing certificate.
Judicial overreach
However, Hon Willock subsequently withdrew his application after it was found that Attorney General Dawn J. Smith did not grant consent for him to move forward with an injunction that had already been filed in the court.
In a strange move, Justice Adrian Jack ruled that Hon Willock, despite making the application in his capacity as Speaker, be made to pay the legal fees out of his own pocket.
Jack's decision has been labeled a judicial overreach.
.png)
.png)
.png)
Follow Us On
18 Responses to “Speaker only wanted CoI lawyers to follow VI’s law - Skelton-Cline”
If it’s good for the governor it is good for you
Precisely! So since he did try to do exactly that and failed, he should pay for it. He had neither the approval of the AG, nor the Finance Minister, so he decided to "go rogue". Once you do that, you have to pay the consequences.
If Premier Fahie was on board with this (as he seems to be claiming now), why did he not give his approval in advance? This was a serious allegation (hence the level of legal fees involved). How is it that the speaker could be "reasonably assured that his actions would be approved by HoA?" Why ever would he take such a gamble? Taxpayers should not foot this bill. There has to be accountability in government.
And CSC, hitching your cart to these horses will likely backfire. But I guess when you're speaking "honestly", once a future government comes to power, you'll be right there with them! Maybe rebrand your talk show Follow the Money!
If it is not a part of his duties then he is acting privately. The Judge sends a clear message. Keep your nose out of what does not concern you and stay in your corner. Please go read your duties again Sir Honorable.
We all have our different personalities. Peaple do not like me because i do not mix nor mingle and i am very happy with myself
The speaker, irrespective of his intent did not follow protocol/policy. He was in fact acting in his capacity as the speaker of the house and not as a private citizen. His situation is no different than a police office working in his "official" capacity in law enforcement, and committing an act such as police brutality. Does the officer pay for legal fees in his/her defense? If the speaker is guilty of acting without consent of the AG or the house then he should be disciplined accordingly... whatever is deemed appropriate.
$120,000.00 is chump change in comparison for the millions of dollars government mismanages. Is that not at taxpayers expense too? People are making it seem as though each individual person in the community is directly responsible for this bill.
All this noise is simply being made as ammunition for discussion for the next elections. We'll either elect this same government or we will elect a new government who will do the same or worse. This IS politics. What we need is good governance. There is a difference. Politicians do the same thing all over the world and that is look out for their own personal interests and those of their supporters.
The judge ruled that the speaker should be responsible for the legal fees as a means of emasculating the speaker and putting in his place for daring to stand against the imposition...I mean inquisition.