The precedent established by the Governor of the Cayman Islands in appointing a Commission of Enquiry on his own initiative now seems to be playing out in some of the other Overseas Territories in the region.

On Thursday of last week, the Governor of the Turks and Caicos Islands finally followed suit and appointed a Commission of Enquiry to investigate allegations of government corruption. This follows a hard-to-ignore recommendation to that effect contained in the recently released report on the Overseas Territories by Britain’s Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC).

In fact, three of the region’s six British Territories were the subject of such a recommendation. In addition to the Turks and Caicos Islands, where widespread, systemic government corruption has been alleged, an enquiry is recommended in Anguilla, where government ministers have been accused of accepting bribes, and in Bermuda, where the Premier and others were allegedly involved in corrupt dealings in relation to the Bermuda Housing Authority and in election fraud.

If we include the Cayman Islands, where similar enquiries had already been undertaken before the FAC issued its recommendations, serious issues of corruption and fraud occurring in four out of the six Overseas Territories in our region does not represent a very good batting average for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).

The FCO has traditionally employed a somewhat hands-off approach to the Overseas Territories, unless and until complaints and/or other external factors achieve the necessary critical mass for action to be taken.

The power and ability of the respective governors to initiate necessary action has also come under the spotlight in recent months and it seems clear from the initiatives taken by our own governor that responsibility for the situation deteriorating does rest to a large extent in that quarter, subject no doubt to ultimate FCO supervision and approval.

It is not certain, for example, to what extent if at all our Governor sought and obtained FCO approval before appointing the Commission of Enquiry into the removal of files from the Ministry of Tourism by then Permanent Secretary, now Minister for Tourism, Hon Charles Clifford.

What does seem to be beyond doubt, notwithstanding our own elected Cabinet ministers grandstanding to the contrary, is that the Overseas Territorial governors have the necessary power to appoint Commissions of Enquiry without consulting the Cabinet.

In case the position needed to be restated, the FAC did so in their recent report. Susan Dickson, Legal Counsellor at the FCO, confirmed that the Turks and Caicos Islands had (no doubt in common with every other Overseas Territory) a Commission of Inquiry Ordinance, which gave the Governor complete discretion to set up such a Commission. While it would be usual for the Governor to consult the Cabinet in advance, he did not have to do so under the Ordinance and, if he did so, and his decision was blocked by Cabinet, the Cabinet could be overruled by the FCO.

What perturbed us about the threats and lawyer-rattling on the part of our elected Cabinet ministers in relation to the Cliffordgate enquiry was that it demonstrated that elected officials cannot be relied upon to pursue allegations of wrongdoing, unless it suits them politically – against a previous administration, for example.

And then, like a spoilt child stamping its foot and throwing a tantrum, they said the government was not going to pay for it. No doubt the Governor and/or the FCO set them straight on that score also.

Even more bizarrely, the elected Ministers then rejected the clear findings of wrongdoing on the part of Mr Clifford. We are not sure if they are still living in such a state of denial, because everyone seems to have been keeping their heads down since the Metropolitan Police investigation was announced.

Whether that investigation and/or any further enquiries undertaken by Senior Investigating Officer Martin Bridger and his team, will pre-empt the necessity or desirability of a second Commission of Enquiry here, to investigate possible government corruption, presumably remains to be seen.

It would seem, however, that past and present government officials here, as well as in the other Overseas Territories, must now be looking with some trepidation at the new vigour apparently being displayed by Britain in ensuring good, corruption-free governance in belated acknowledgement of its obligations in this respect.