Attorney General (AG) Dawn Smith has expressed her discontent with the manner of which Minister for Labour and Immigration Vincent Wheatley was treated in a recent Commission of Inquiry (COI) hearing.
The Attorney General’s concerns were raised in a letter penned to the Commissioner of Inquiry Sir Gary Hickinbottom dated today September 30.
The letter specifically addressed the oral examination of Minister Wheatley during his COI hearing on Tuesday September 28, which revealed sensitive information regarding the approval of Belongership status to a previously convicted rapist.
This letter was attached in a media release from the Attorney General’s Chambers which denounced such claims that the VIP government did approve any such Belongership status to a convicted person.
“No application for Belonger Status was granted by the Cabinet in the two cases it discussed in November 2019, nor since. Indeed, in one of the two cases the discussion was about a person whose Belonger Status was granted long ago, and years before a subsequent conviction for a serious offence,” the AG Chambers stated.
In the letter addressed to Sir Hickinbottom, AG Smith described the conduct of the hearing as “wholly avoidable”, creating a misleading impression of the true situation and damaging to the public interest.
She said, “I say “avoidable” because, the matter appears to have been raised in a manner that not only violated your own protocols and the essential assurances on which confidential government documents are disclosed to you but also prevented the Minister from being able to present the facts on a matter that was bound to be of acute public concern.”
Information was disclosed without seeking Cabinet consent
AG Smith also criticized the COI’s team for disclosing confidential content from the Cabinet’s minutes without first seeking permission of consent from the Cabinet, a protocol she said was agreed to by the COI which she said was breached.
“The Minute is a Cabinet document, which attracts Cabinet Confidentiality under the vital public interest and constitutional principle of Collective Ministerial Responsibility. Those I represent disclosed the Minute voluntarily to the COI Team alone on an expressly confidential basis, and in the reliance of the assurances in given in the COI Protocols of the “safeguard” provided by the two-stage disclosure process,” Smith stated.
She added, “At various times during the Inquiry, the Cabinet has provided consent for otherwise confidential documents to be used at public hearings. However, at no stage between its disclosure on 16 March 2021 and the hearing on 28 September 2021 did the Cabinet give such consent in relation to the Minute.”
Solicitor General was not given ample time to verify consent
The Attorney General also highlighted that the Solicitor General was not given the time to verify if whether consent was given to disclose Cabinet Minutes to the public and she also said that counsel Bilal Rawat neither drew to the Commissioner’s attention that such privilege was not granted by Cabinet.
The AG said, “She was not afforded the opportunity to make submissions on whether on balance the public interest in public disclosure outweighed Cabinet Confidentiality, or even provided with a copy of the Minute. I would be most grateful if you would confirm whether a decision was made to use the confidential Minute at a public hearing without first discussing it with the IRU, or whether the unauthorised use was accidental.”
Minister was not given notice to prepare for such criticism
AG Smith also emphasized the damaging nature of the hearing to the minister and his government which she said mainly resulted from the failure of the COI to brief the minister on the subject matter prior to hearing date.
She said this would have allowed Minister Wheatley to prepare factual information for submission to the COI, instead of what resulted, with the minister having no time to fact check his statements.
“The lack of notice to me and to the Minister as to the use of this confidential Cabinet minute, and of the criticisms made in respect of these matters, denied him the opportunity to check the facts and remind himself that the individuals had either not been granted Belonger Status or were not under consideration for Belonger Status at the time. This means that a false impression has been created (as can be seen in social media posts on this subject) that these persons have indeed been granted Belonger Status by the current government,” she stated.
Smith added that these revelations have prejudiced the rights to privacy and administrative fairness of the individuals and victims concerned, which she believes should have been the predictable conclusion of any responsible reflection on the subject matter.
She said being that the BVI is a small close nit society, personal references are easily identified, and the resulting uproar “will have caused unnecessary, acute and deep distress to the families of the persons concerned.”
AG Smith therefore asked for the assurance of the Commissioner and his team not to use or disclose to the public in future hearings, information relating to Cabinet Papers without first notifying Members of Cabinet and gaining their consent.