Groups want Constitutional Talks in Cayman
Five organisations involved in the Constitutional Review process are urging the United Kingdom Government to hold constitutional discussions in the Cayman Islands rather than in private meetings with selected representatives in London.
The Chamber of Commerce, Caymanian Bar Association, Cayman Ministers' Association, People for Referendum and Concerned Citizens Group presented a letter to Governor Bruce Dinwiddy last week noting their disapproval of the proposed London meetings.
They stated that the decision to hold private discussions in London is not in accordance with the principles of transparency, accountability and openness and would prevent the people of the Cayman Islands from participating fully in the constitutional talks.
"All of the people of these Islands will be affected by whatever changes to the Constitution of the Cayman Islands that may be agreed upon during these private discussion," they wrote in the letter to the Governor.
The letter to the Governor has been copied to Mr. Alan Huckle, Head of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), the Hon. W. McKeeva Bush, OBE., JP., Leader of Government Business, Members of the Legislative Assembly and the United Nations.
The five organisations have asked the United Kingdom Government to re-consider holding the meetings on constitutional reform in the Cayman Islands and allowing such meetings to be open to members of the public and the media.
They believe this will afford the representatives of Her Majesty's Government an opportunity to meet with members of the public and thereby obtain a more accurate picture of which proposed constitutional changes are acceptable to a majority of the public and which ones are more controversial.
The organisations are requesting Her Majesty's Government to document and communicate the steps to complete the process of constitutional modernization prior to any discussions.
"We believe an essential step will be to allow for further public discussion, debate and education on the final draft constitution before it is tabled and debated in the Legislative Assembly," stated the letter.
The five organisations are hopeful that, after receiving their letter, His Excellency the Governor will seriously reconsider this recent decision and lobby to have the talks moved to the Cayman Islands.
The letter stated: "We believe that the meetings on constitutional modernisation should be held in the Cayman Islands and should be open to members of the public and the media. This will afford the representatives of HMG an opportunity to meet with members of the public and thereby obtain a more accurate picture of which proposed constitutional changes are acceptable to a majority of the public and which ones are more controversial.
"Additionally, an open meeting will allow the members of the public the opportunity to know what representations were made on their behalf during these meetings.
"We believe that the decision to hold private constitutional discussions on December 9th and 10th in London is not in accordance with the principles of transparency, accountability and openness and would prevent the people of the Cayman Islands from participating fully in the constitutional talks. All of the people of these Islands will be affected by whatever changes to the Constitution of the Cayman Islands that may be agreed upon during these private discussions.
"To date, HMG has not documented and communicated the steps to complete the process of constitutional modernization. We hereby request that HMG communicates the steps prior to the discussions. Moreover, we believe an essential step will be to allow for further public discussion, debate and education on the final draft constitution before it is tabled and debated in the Legislative Assembly.
"In reply to a letter from the Chamber of Commerce to the then Governor, Mr. Peter J. Smith, dated 25 September 2000, Mr. John White, who was at the time Head of the Overseas Territories Department of the FCO, stated the following:
"It would be consistent with the policy set out in the 1999 White Paper on the Overseas Territories for HMG to require a satisfactory process of public consultation to have taken place, with a view to ensuring that any proposed amendments to the Constitution enjoyed wide public acceptance. At a minimum the culmination of such a process would normally be expected to be a debate and vote on proposed amendments by the elected legislature of the Territory. But much would depend on the range and depth of Constitutional change proposed. It would also depend on the degree of acceptance of such changes demonstrated in whatever public debate or consultation took place outside the legislative deliberation. Again, there is no set formula."
"There was no true "debate" or consensus reached by our elected representatives on the proposed constitutional changes in the Legislative Assembly. Additionally, whilst public input was sought by the Constitutional Commissioners and a report submitted to the Governor and our elected representatives, no public forums have taken place to discuss the proposed changes. Accordingly, the constitutional review process was not culmi-nated in accordance with the minimum standards described by Mr. White.
"Over 7,000 people (including 3,542 of whom were confirmed as registered voters by the Elections Office which represents 32% of the electorate) have signed a petition seeking a referendum on certain constitutional issues.
"We strongly recommend that HMG require the Government of the Cayman Islands to take further steps to show which positions on the constitutional issues set out in the aforementioned petition the majority of the public are in favour.
"Additionally, we be-lieve that the aforementioned decision to hold the constitutional talks in London is not in accordance with the principle of self-determination espoused by the United Nations, of which the United Kingdom is a charter member. It is our view that in order for this principle to be observed the people of the Cayman Islands must have an opportunity to fully participate in all stages of constitutional reform.
"In light of the foregoing, we request that the United Kingdom Government reconsider its decision on this matter," the letter ended.