Citing a lengthy list of grievances and accusing the premier of “incompetence,” the opposition attempted to topple the government with a vote of no-confidence on Tuesday in the House of Assembly.
But the plan didn’t work — at least for now.
Premier Dr. Natalio “Sowande” Wheatley responded forcefully, moving to strike the motion from the HOA’s agenda while accusing the opposition of acting out of “selfish desire for power.”
A contentious debate followed, with government legislators supporting the premier and opposition members falling in line behind Opposition Leader Ronnie Skelton before eventually walking out in protest.
Ultimately, Speaker of the House Corine George-Massicote ruled in the premier’s favour on a technicality: Mr. Skelton, she said, had breached the HOA’s Standing Orders by submitting the motion to her instead of the HOA clerk.
Her ruling meant that the motion won’t be debated until the next HOA sitting at the earliest.
The motion
Though past oppositions have put forward similar no-confidence motions, most have been voted down by government-side legislators.
But because of the current government’s narrow one-person majority, a unanimous opposition now would need only one no-confidence vote from across the aisle to topple the premier’s government.
Mr. Skelton’s motion, which was included on the order paper for the Tuesday sitting, called for the HOA to be dissolved “to allow the people of the Virgin Islands to return to the polls to elect a government in which [they] can place [their] confidence.”
The motion also heaped scathing criticism on the premier, accusing him of “poor leadership and management and sheer incompetence” abetted by his government.
In support of this accusation, the motion included 20 clauses blaming the premier for a wide range of issues: “deplorable” roads and other infrastructure; recent crime; derelict vessels littering the territory’s waters; the recently miscalculated wage increases for public officers, and others.
Additionally, the motion accused Dr. Wheatley’s government of failing to attract inward investment, develop Prospect Reef, or create plans for the economy, tourism and agriculture.
Instead, the motion alleged, the premier has continued to “squander public resources” on expenses including the “failed” VI Music Festival and “constant international travelling by him and his colleagues compliments of the public’s purse with no results to show.”
Though many of the listed problems existed long before Dr. Wheatley came to power, the motion put the blame squarely in his court by accusing him of governing “in such a way that has led to a bleak economic outlook for the territory, a rapidly declining quality of life for the people of the Virgin Islands, and a lack of public confidence in his leadership and in his government.”
Premier’s response
Shortly before Tuesday’s HOA meeting commenced, the premier criticised the opposition for calling the vote as his government is pushing to finalise the remaining Commission of Inquiry reforms after missing a Saturday deadline.
“His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition has the constitutional right to move a motion of no confidence,” Dr. Wheatley stated. “However, the timing of this motion reveals a selfish desire for power when we all should be united in the face of an order in council that can suspend our Constitution. The government has led the process of reform, which has significantly strengthened areas which have long gone unaddressed. To call a motion of no confidence against the very government who has cleaned up the mess that many in the opposition have either ignored, or in some instances caused, reveals their character and self-serving nature.”
Assembly happenings
Shortly after the Tuesday sitting got under way, the premier challenged the opposition’s motion on a point of order, claiming that Mr. Skelton submitted it to Ms. George-Massicote instead of the clerk as required by the HOA’s Standing Orders.
Mr. Skelton, however, argued that he had used the correct procedures and called the premier’s objection “unfair.”
Other opposition members — who were all present except Marlon Penn (R-D8), who was overseas at a conference — then stood in support of Mr. Skelton, claiming they had been accommodating the premier’s wishes recently and he should return the courtesy.
“It is a bad day for this democracy and a bad day for this House,” Sixth District Representative Myron Walwyn said.
But government-side legislators — who were all present except Junior Minister of Tourism Luce Hodge-Smith — all stood by the premier.
“Speaking of ‘decency’ and ‘bad for democracy,’ the fact that this matter is brought to the attention — in fact, it’s placed on the order paper yesterday without the decency to inform the leader of government business,” Deputy Premier Lorna Smith said in response to the comments from Messrs. Skelton and Walwyn. “That is lack of decency.”
One by one, the four other government members in attendance took turns voicing support for the premier.
‘Rush for power’
Then Mr. Skelton again stood to defend his motion before the premier finalised his response with pointed comments.
“Members of the opposition don’t have to act like they’re doing the government a favour or somehow or other they should be celebrated for acting in the national interest,” the premier said, garnering scattered applause from members of his government.
He ended by criticising the opposition’s decision to pursue the motion as his government is rushing to finalise the COI reforms before he and Governor Daniel Pruce visit United Kingdom Overseas Territories Minister Stephen Doughty next Wednesday in London.
“At a time when an order in council is hanging over our heads — that we could not wait at least until we went to England, that we couldn’t even wait a few days until after August 31st — [opposition members] were salivating over the opportunity to make this power grab, rush for power.”
Walkout
After the speaker asked him to wrap up, Dr. Wheatley cited Mr. Fraser’s previous contributions to the debate as evidence that the opposition had used “clandestine” tactics to get the bill on the order paper.
As Mr. Fraser rose to respond, all the other opposition members walked out of the House. Mr. Fraser followed moments later.
The speaker then noted the lack of a quorum and summoned back the opposition members. But they didn’t return immediately, and she soon called a recess.
Speaker’s ruling
When legislators from both sides of the aisle returned after the recess, the speaker ruled in the premier’s favour. Because Mr. Skelton had submitted his motion to her instead of the clerk, she said, the no-confidence vote would have to wait until the next sitting.
After she explained her reasoning, Mr. Walwyn asked how the motion made it onto the order paper if it was submitted to the wrong person.
“It would’ve had to have been brought to the clerk’s attention and then placed on the order paper,” Mr. Walwyn said. “Additionally, the order paper only came out yesterday. Why wasn’t the matter raised by the honourable premier since yesterday?”
Ms. George-Massicote responded by acknowledging that she could have paid closer attention to the Standing Orders.
“[The opposition’s motion] was passed to me and then provided to the clerk,” she said. “What I can go further in stating is that had I double-checked my Standing Orders, I would’ve had time to then redirect the member to the proper procedure. So I will take fault for that.”
Press conference
During a recess after the speaker’s ruling, the opposition held a press conference before returning to the House later that evening.
After each member read out four clauses of the motion, Mr. Skelton concluded the readings, afterwards commenting on the status of the motion which had been removed from the order paper hours earlier.
“As soon as the [speaker’s] decision was made, we handed the clerk the same motion to be placed on the next sitting of the House of Assembly,” the opposition leader said.
Asked if the opposition members believe they can get the additional vote needed from the premier’s government, Second District Representative Mitch Turnbull said he hopes that “the conscience of those on the government side would weigh in above political affiliations or the power that they sit in.”
Though the members were asked if they have been targeting a particular member of government, they declined to mention any names.
“We will be targeting the two backbenchers and the four ministers at the front,” Mr. Skelton quipped.
Mr. Skelton also defended the timing of the motion, which he claimed may not have delayed the COI reforms even if it had succeeded.
“If [the motion] is successful, it means somebody crosses the floor, then you could have a minority government,” the opposition leader said. “The COI recommendations are so important to some of the things we are doing. So it might not have affected [the timing]. The opposition would’ve had a lot more powers to do what needs to be done.”
