Got TIPS or BREAKING NEWS? Please call 1-284-442-8000 direct/can also WhatsApp same number or Email ALL news to:newsvino@outlook.com;                               ads call 1-284-440-6666

Was Hon Andrew A. Fahie 'correctly' removed as Premier? Dr Pickering not sure!

- Former Deputy Premier says he does not understand how the then sitting Premier was removed
Former Deputy Premier, Dr Kedrick D. Pickering who was a member of the 2007 Constitution Review Commission says he does not fully understand how ex-Premier, Hon Andrew A. Fahie (R1) was removed from office, which brings into questions whether the correct procedure was followed according to the VI constitution. Photo: GIS/Facebook
Dr Kedrick D. Pickering has said he will have to seek wiser counsel to fully understand if the removal of Hon Andrew A. Fahie as Premier of the Virgin Islands was constitutionally done. Photo: VINO/File
Dr Kedrick D. Pickering has said he will have to seek wiser counsel to fully understand if the removal of Hon Andrew A. Fahie as Premier of the Virgin Islands was constitutionally done. Photo: VINO/File
BAUGHERS BAY, Tortola, VI – Former Deputy Premier, Dr Kedrick D. Pickering, who was a member of the 2007 Constitution Review Commission, says he does not fully understand how ex-Premier, Hon Andrew A. Fahie (R1) was removed from office, which brings into questions whether the correct procedure was followed according to the latest version of the Virgin Islands (VI) constitution.

Dr Pickering was at the time appearing as a guest of the Honestly Speaking radio show of June 28, 2022, when he was questioned by host Claude O. Skelton-Cline on how the Premier was removed and whether the constitution was followed.

According to Dr Pickering, while he does not have an answer to the question at the moment, he would have to seek advice from greater legal minds to fully understand what transpired.

'Spirit of law is as important as the law itself' - Dr Pickering 

“I know fully well that during the constitution debate, it was subject to intense discussions and the issue of the spirit of the law is as important as the law itself, we had some long back and forth on how to remove a sitting Premier,” he said.

Legislators in the House of Assembly (HoA) on May 5, 2022, unanimously passed a resolution for the removal of Hon Fahie as Premier of the Virgin Islands after 10 legislators voted for the resolution while one Member, Hon Carvin Malone (AL) was absent and sent his regrets.

At-Large Member Hon Neville A. Smith (AL) was acting Speaker and could not vote and the resolution was passed while Hon Fahie was still detained in Miami on charges of conspiracy to import a controlled substance and money laundering.

While Governor John J. Rankin did not have to approve the resolution, he subsequently granted a request for a new Premier, Dr the Hon Natalio D. Wheatley (R7) to be sworn in. 

However, the VI constitution outlines how a sitting premier is to be removed and it remains unclear if this process was ever followed.

What the Constitution says?

The VI Constitution Order 2007 Section 53, (1) states, “If a motion on the Order Paper that the House of Assembly should declare a lack of confidence in the Government of the Virgin Islands receives in the House the affirmative votes of a majority of all the elected members of the House, the Governor shall, by instrument under the public seal, revoke the appointment of the Premier; but before so revoking the Premier’s appointment the Governor shall consult with the Premier and, if the Premier so requests, the Governor, acting in his or her discretion, may dissolve the House of Assembly instead of revoking the appointment.”

In the HoA sitting of May 5, 2022, legislators moved a Motion of Lack of Confidence against the sitting Virgin Islands Party (VIP) government; however, it remains unclear if Governor John J. Rankin, CMG ever consulted with the ex-Premier Fahie before his removal as premier.

However, the constitution also states that they are other ways to remove a Premier.

Section 53, (2) indicates, “The Premier shall vacate his or her office if, after the polling in a general election and before the House of Assembly first meets thereafter, the Governor, acting in accordance with section 52(1), informs the Premier that he or she is about to appoint another person as the Premier.” 

Removal of Ministers 

It should also be noted that section 53 (4), of the constitution, states that a minister other than the Premier shall also vacate his or her office (a) if the Premier vacates his or her office, which could mean that with the removal of ex-Premier Fahie, all others holding Ministerial office should have also been removed from office.

Dr Pickering in his analysis of the events added, “I can’t honestly tell you that what transpired, I understand.”

He further added, “based on my knowledge of the events, based on my knowledge of the constitutional discussions and debate, based on what is written in black and white. I honestly don’t think I understand, and I am going to seek wiser counsel.”

16 Responses to “Was Hon Andrew A. Fahie 'correctly' removed as Premier? Dr Pickering not sure!”

  • asura (30/06/2022, 11:36) Like (39) Dislike (4) Reply
    the VIP government should have been dissolved period!!!!
    • NezRez (01/07/2022, 08:27) Like (9) Dislike (0) Reply
      Pickering may be correct about the way Fahie was removed. If all legal steps were not taken, Fahie should still be Premier and Wheatly should still be acting Premier. We are so angry and feel betrayed by Fahie that we may have allowed this governor to do something illegal. Did the governor even talk or meet with Fahie? PLUS Fahie has not gone to trial yet. What if he will be proven NOT GUILTY and released to return home. Then his position will still be Premier. Let us wait until Pickering investigates further, if he does it at all. We deserve some answers by those who know the laws.
  • taxpayer (30/06/2022, 11:54) Like (18) Dislike (0) Reply
    As long as he ain't wasting public hard earned funds, fed up throwing money at laywers fee for shtupiness
  • Native Senior Citizen of the British Virgin Islands (30/06/2022, 12:54) Like (8) Dislike (0) Reply
    Hmm, this is interesting. All that I can say is right is right, and wrong is wrong.
    That means any violation of righteousness law or good constitution that first has not been amended is wrong, no two ways about it.
    The I know for sure, we are in urgent need of good governance in the British Virgin Islands as soon as possible, even now.
  • Couldn't wait (30/06/2022, 13:04) Like (16) Dislike (8) Reply
    Sourwande could not wait to be king( premier) He didn't care if he himself had to be the judge and sentence Andrew, as long as he got to be premier. It's in times of trouble that you know who was with or for you. Every dog got their day and cat their Sundays. The whole house should have been dissolved. Showandeer knows he will not be re-elected. He didn't do anything as minister or District rep and he's sure not doing anything now as premier. What more does he have to do show the people that he's incompetent?
  • Give me a Break (30/06/2022, 13:35) Like (4) Dislike (8) Reply
    They need to just suspend the constitution and save us all this wrangling, which was expected.
  • Bias (30/06/2022, 13:44) Like (11) Dislike (0) Reply
    You out here hating on a video which everything on it is true.. but out here defending Andrew for what he did thats why the UK the place so...
  • Section 8 of the Constitution (30/06/2022, 14:19) Like (2) Dislike (0) Reply
    Power to amend or revoke instruments

    8. Where any power is conferred by this Constitution to make any proclamation, order or regulations or to give any directions, the power shall be construed as including a power exercisable in like manner to amend or revoke any such proclamation, order, regulations or directions.

    He was rightfully removed from office of Premier.
  • Motion (30/06/2022, 14:44) Like (1) Dislike (0) Reply
    ha paragraph 1 reminds me of what took place in st kitts, they try remove the Premier and he fired them. as for rest of statements yes the house should have been closed. if fahie was not consulted then what where is the bell for election or we sitting ducks in a poppet show.
  • 1st District (30/06/2022, 15:09) Like (4) Dislike (1) Reply
    Af, get lost not to be found!
  • Thanks Doc. (30/06/2022, 15:55) Like (0) Dislike (1) Reply
    Good info. Base on what I am understanding resolving the house was the right and appropriate action...
  • josiah'sbay (30/06/2022, 20:13) Like (8) Dislike (0) Reply
    For me vacate seems to imply a voluntary action where as removal imply a forced action. I'll like to hear the Attorney General's interpretation.
  • W*F (30/06/2022, 20:42) Like (3) Dislike (0) Reply
    the very same people who have the right to suspend this territory’s constitution are the very same people that approved the current change in administration

    oh yes!!!
    fahie remains innocent until he can be proven guilty BUT what can fahie do for our people while being restrained of his liberty

    fahie was not the head of a department when taken into custody; fahie was in the capacity as our premier…..it is almost 3 months the young man was absent

  • @ (30/06/2022, 23:16) Like (0) Dislike (1) Reply
    This man always don't know $hi****
  • Forbidden Ttuth (01/07/2022, 05:31) Like (1) Dislike (0) Reply
    All ingrates and dishonest people in the House and country needs to go. Be gone.
  • josiah'sbay (01/07/2022, 08:44) Like (10) Dislike (0) Reply
    The UK should have demanded Mr. Fahie's release guaranteeing his extradition back to the US for his trial. The UK/VI could have suspended or allow him to perform his duties until the trials' results.


Create a comment


Create a comment

Disclaimer: Virgin Islands News Online (VINO) welcomes your thoughts, feedback, views, bloggs and opinions. However, by posting a blogg you are agreeing to post comments or bloggs that are relevant to the topic, and that are not defamatory, liable, obscene, racist, abusive, sexist, anti-Semitic, threatening, hateful or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be excluded permanently from making contributions. Please view our declaimer above this article. We thank you in advance for complying with VINO's policy.

Follow Us On

Disclaimer: All comments posted on Virgin Islands News Online (VINO) are the sole views and opinions of the commentators and or bloggers and do not in anyway represent the views and opinions of the Board of Directors, Management and Staff of Virgin Islands News Online and its parent company.