http://www.gibnews.wordpress.com/

Llanito World, Gibraltar (2025)

21/10/2025

SCANDALOUS MISUSE OF PARLIAMENT

The stark failure of Gibraltar’s democracy is to be seen by how Parliament is being used now by Gibraltar’s executive government. It makes a laughingstock of Gibraltar’s Parliament, and so its democracy. It highlights the power of Parliament against any business or individual.

Actions taken in Parliament cannot be questioned unless they transgress a Fundamental Right contained in Part 1 of Gibraltar’s Constitution, which can only be used in one’s defence at great personal financial cost.

DEFENCELESS VICTIMS

The use of Parliament to punish the former Principal Auditor, and now the threat that the same forum may well be used to castigate the McGrail Inquiry Chairman by the Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo, proposing a motion in that forum if he dislikes any parts of the McGrail Inquiry Report is scandalous.

It is a forum where no victims can defend themselves. It is electoral dictatorship at its best. There again Fabian Picardo no longer seems to care. He has said he is leaving politics, so he can suffer no repercussion under our defective constitutional structure.

NOT DEMOCRACY

It is a use of parliament that uncovers how our electoral and parliamentary systems are designed not to deliver democracy, save by insisting on a four-yearly electoral cycle.

The arrangement breaches the basic constitutional rule of democracy: the separation of power between the legislature (Parliament) and the executive (Ministers, individually or collectively in cabinet). It is an accepted requirement for there to be democracy.

Without such separation, there is no independent oversight or control of the executive or its (mis)use of Parliament.

Ministers can do as they like between elections. Then they can offer ‘sweeties’ to enough voters to get re-elected for a lengthy number of terms to the detriment of the jurisdiction and its people.

GSD CRITICISM

The GSD has criticised rightly such a use of Parliament as being an “absurd farce” and a “scandalous position”.

Mr Azopardi says, “It shows a disdain [by the GSLP-Liberal Government] for processes even commenced by Government.”

“It is yet another signal to people charged with processes that either adjudicate on Government behaviour or can make critical findings of it or who have to hold Government to account that they should proceed with caution as this is a GSLP Government whose mantra is that ‘you are either with me or against me’”

GSLP ARROGANCE

The GSLP smugly replies that it recognises that Parliament is the proper forum for discussion of such matters. It ignores its inbuilt control and majority in Parliament. It is not as the Chief Minister tries to portray about the GSD wanting “to prevent the Government from doing exactly the same”, namely have its say in public.

The GSLP-Liberal Government can do the same outside Parliament, without pushing its absolute control of Parliament to the limit and making a mockery of democracy.

It is not about the GSD Opposition trying to gag the GSLP-Liberals and their leader, Fabian Picardo, it is about Parliament not being abused, but the GSLP have no regard or respect for that.

CHANGE NEEDED

There is such a crying need for constitutional change to make our governmental system truly democratic.

It is a change that will certainly not come about with the GSLP ruling.

It is a constitutional reality that came about in 2006 under the watch of a GSD Government, despite very loud warnings that what is happening today would happen, absent the necessary constitutional safeguards.

Despite the warnings the GSD failed us all. They did not build in those protections.

Will they put it right if elected to government? Others have promised to do so, not least the GSLP-Liberals, but as soon as power is gained, those promises are forgotten.

The same will happen again under a new GSD government.

There is a need for action by the UK to amend the constitution unilaterally in exercise of its overriding powers, or for a new party with a true promise to stand for election and be elected.

There again, most people don’t care.

20/10/2025

MCGRAIL REPORT AND THE POLICE

We are told that a ‘steering group’ [Group] has been set up jointly by the Governor and the Chief Minister to study and analyse how to reform (if at all) the governance of the Royal Gibraltar Police [RGP].

The Group is heavily made up of persons being, or directly or indirectly connected with, ‘core participants’ in the McGrail Inquiry, which will hopefully not influence its reasoning.

It is done jointly, despite that constitutionally the Chief Minister and his GSLP-Liberal Government is not responsible for ‘internal security’, the RGP or its governance. The Governor is, with advice from the Gibraltar Police Authority [GPA].

The joint creation of the Group gives a say on the future of the RGP, and matters engaging it, to some probably directly or indirectly concerned with matters arising in the McGrail Inquiry.

AHEAD OF MCGRAIL INQUIRY REPORT

The Group comes into existence just before the finalisation of the McGrail Inquiry Report [Report], which must be approaching very soon. It may well be that each event is unconnected.

The creation of the Group had been forecast by The Governor in an interview published by the Gibraltar Chronicle last July.

One hopes that the Group is not being set up to restrict the publication of the Report for consideration by the Group only, and not that of the public. It is of the utmost importance that the Report should be made fully public.

The possibility of the Report’s non-publication was explored in a blog of 30th September, under the headline, “Publication of McGrail Report?”, which blog again becomes relevant.

‘GOVERNMENT’ IS THE GOVERNOR

The Report will be addressed to the Government, which constitutionally includes the Governor.

Under the Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006 [Constitution], however, ‘internal security’, including the RGP (subject to the obligations, rights and duties of the GPA), come squarely within the province of the responsibilities of the Governor.

‘Internal security’ and the RGP are not at all within the powers of the Chief Minister nor the elected government, beyond financing. Even financing can constitutionally be resourced and imposed by the Governor from public monies.

So, for those purposes (‘internal security’, including the RGP (with the advice of the GPA)) ‘the Government’ should be interpreted under the Constitution as being the Governor.

It is most certainly not the Chief Minister, who we are told has been engaged in setting up the Group, or the elected Government.

One hopes, therefore, that the Governor sees fit to make the Report public.

GOVERNOR MUST DECIDE PUBLICATION

The final question of whether the Report should be made public is one for the Governor only under the Constitution, with possibly some input from the GPA, but not any member of it connected with Hassans.

The huge cost to the public purse, namely each and every one of us, of the Report (in the region of six million pounds so far) clearly supports publication, aside from the public interest.

It is a forceful, in fact unanswerable argument for publication by whomsoever.

Additionally, the UK’s responsibility for ‘peace, order and good government’ that the Constitution imposes, also clearly favours publication.

We wait and see what will happen on finalisation of the Report. It cannot be far away. Probably a matter of days or weeks.

DEALING WITH ANY CRIMINALITY

Further the need to uphold ‘internal security’ and the law would not only require the publication of the Report, but also action from the RGP and the prosecuting authorities should it uncover any criminality on the part of anyone.

The RGP, constitutionally separate and independently of the elected government, hence one reason why it is directly under the Governor as advised by the GPA, would be obliged in law to investigate and pursue any such possible criminality.

The GPA would, of course, need to act without the involvement of anyone connected with Hassans, the law firm involved with some of the matters under examination by the McGrail Inquiry.

The Chairperson of the GPA is a senior member of Hassans. He is also a member of the Group now.

EQUAL TREATMENT

The law must be applied to all equally, whatever the status in society of anyone in the frame of consideration.

The RGP and prosecuting authority should have that at the forefront of their minds.

The full and undistorted application of the law should not be suppressed for any reason, especially anyone’s position, or any possible perceived need for any person to finalise any ongoing process.

For example, the need to see the Gibexit treaty between the UK and the EU dealing with Gibraltar’s future relations with the EU through.

THE GROUP

The seen need to establish the Group, at this juncture, to consider and assess the existing arrangements for police governance and accountability, as specified in the Police Act 2006, indicate that shortfalls in the current governance of the RGP are seen by some to exist and further that modernisation is needed.

The Governor pointed to the possibility saying, “It has been nearly 20 years since the current model of police governance in Gibraltar was introduced.”

Coincidentally, or perhaps not, the proposed steering committee review comes about as the submission of the Report is round the corner.

Hopefully the formation of a steering committee will not interfere with the unredacted publication of the Report.

CONSTITUTION OF GROUP

The Group is to be jointly chaired by the Governor, Sir Ben Bathurst, and the Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo.

Why that is, stays unexplained considering the constitutional position as explained above.

Further the Group has three members from the law firm Hassans, despite its connection with core participants in the McGrail Inquiry.

Additionally, the Attorney-General, Michael Llamas, who is also a core participant in the McGrail Inquiry, is also a member of the Group.

They make up an influential and numerically strong four of its members, when perhaps a participation from a wider segment of society would be more proper and beneficial.

17/10/2025

PRINCIPAL AUDIT SAGA CONTINUES IN PARLIAMENT

Indeed, ex-gratia payments are aimed at reducing the size of a financial outgoing, but that calls for a value judgment, which will increase the size of a payment, if that judgment is not objectively independently reached and so has a potential to be biased.

Chief Minister Fabian Picardo suggests as much in his seventh address to Parliament on the motion criticising the former Principal Auditor’s 2018-19 Report [Report].

LACK OF OBJECTIVITY INCREASES PUBLIC COST

An ex-gratia payment made from the public purse based on a subjective evaluation of a claim, without necessary objective input, increases public costs, at worst by the full amount paid.

That a political government expects a 25% saving, and a larger one on legal costs, on such payments, is a subjective self-serving evaluation without objective adjudication.

SETTLING NOT ALWAYS BEST

Settling is not always better than litigating. Litigating from strength is the better choice.

Settlement is a value judgment that must be made objectively by lawyers and not politicians, who may have subjective bias.

ATTENTION JUSTIFIED?

That a Principal Auditor’s Report concentrates in detail and length on an individual case is no criticism of that action, so long as the attention is justified. It is that which needs to be assessed and evaluated independently.

It is not of necessity “the sending of a message to the reader” as suggested by Mr. Picardo. To say that such a message “is designed or engineered” and “not based on accurate analysis” is to jump to conclusions and need not be “unfair in the extreme”.

The former Principal Auditor made his evaluation and came to his conclusions.

PROPER ATTENTION

Mr Picardo accepts that it is entirely proper for the Gibraltar Audit Office to look at attendance and overtime records of individual officers.

It may well be, as Mr Picardo says, “unusual that it has been done only ever in relation to one public servant and not in relation to any other.”

Unusual does not make it wrong necessarily.

CHIEF MINISTER’S SAY ONLY

It is not for one to go into the merits of the claim in question. One has only what the Chief Minister has said in his address to Parliament.

There are no grounds upon which to reject the Chief Minister’s justifications known publicly, neither are there any that justify them.

A settlement of a court claim does not make sense just because it is “possible”, nor is “That the position that most defendants would take.”, as said by the Chief Minister. It is a position that a defendant, in this case the government, takes only if it sees an inability to successfully defend a case. There is not enough in the public domain to make an independent assessment of that.

NEGOTIATIONS

To start “without prejudice” negotiations for settlement of a legal claim is a course that is opened only if there is an element of admission of liability. If there is none a Defence is filed.

If other factors militate towards a settlement they are only from perceived weaknesses in a Defence and the mitigation of costs and exposure to payment of the costs of one’s opponents.

EXTERNAL JUDGMENT IMPOSSIBLE

It is still unknown who assessed the risk that the case referred to in the Report would have been lost, giving rise to payment of double and close to £100,000 in costs.

It is certainly odd that a Claimant would settle if the strength of their case gave rise to the potential payment of such hugely increased amounts.

The issue is not whether the Government “acted entirely properly” or protect the public purse.

It is a judgment call that cannot be made without the issue being fully ventilated in an independent tribunal, Parliament not being the right venue.

INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PRECLUDED NOW

It is an event that circumstances now prevent, so the assertion that the public purse was protected, and that 50% of liability saved, cannot be figured out independently.

It is simply asserted by an interested party, namely the GSLP-Liberal Government.

MERITS OF REPORT NEED INDEPENDENT DECISION

Allegations are made by the Chief Minister that parts of the Report are ultra vires, namely outside the scope of the jurisdiction of the Principal Auditor, unconstitutional, illegal, discriminatory and party political.

It is for a suitable tribunal to decide each of those allegations, not that the word of the Chief Minister should be taken.

Finally the Report is by an officer of Parliament, accordingly it is protected by parliamentary privilege, which is a defence to any claim.

16/10/2025

‘OTHERS’ WIN IN GBC POLL

James Neish not having his GBC contract renewed, and GBC senior journalist, Jonathan Scott, being appointed head of Gibraltar House in London, points to all change in GBC and its newsroom, both at a time when a GBC poll does not favour the GSLP-Liberal Government.

It is important that the change at GBC safeguards its political independence, which is a legal requirement. Doing that requires not just the effort of employees, especially journalists, but also the effort of the independent GBC statutory Board.

ALL UP FOR GRABS

A huge 37.5% of those polled by GBC still do not know which individual candidates they will vote for in a general election.

Further 10.09% will vote for an independent, and 14.45% will split their vote, a split vote favours an independent.

The only independent known publicly to date is this blogger, Robert Vasquez.

Further 28.52% ‘don’t know’, again that favours an independent.

Altogether 53.06% of votes are up for grabs, again that favours an independent.

It also displays the crying need for new participants in politics, and changes within the current two parties, the GSLP-Liberals and the GSD, or even the growth of a new political force in Gibraltar.

It is soul destroying to see the little interest that there is in direct involvement in electoral politics.

BOTH PARTIES OUT OF FAVOUR

It is significant that together, the GSLP-Liberals and the GSD, the two only and main parties do not achieve, even 50% of the vote in the GBC poll.

They together get to 48.99%, with the GSLP-Liberal governing party only reaching 20.46%, and the GSD opposition party only 28.52%.

It is a sad, but true, reflection of the little regard that the voting population has for both those parties.

It is significant also that 24.39% would prefer someone other than any of the current MPs to be Chief Minister.

ACHE FOR CHANGE

It is all a clear signal that voters want change, but most of them do not favour either main party to govern, or any individual who is currently in the forefront to be Chief Minister.

In sharp contrast, no new force is forthcoming.

The only way to achieve change is to support a strong independent candidate to force it through, which would require an 8 GSLP, 8 GSD and 1 independent result at a general election to form Parliament, with that one independent standing for the needed electoral and parliamentary reforms as propounded constantly on this blog.

The huge difficulty of that happening is obvious, but this blogger will not stop standing for election and campaigning to achieve that.

GSLP CHANGES

We will be seeing changes within the GSLP-Liberals.

Mr Fabian Picrado has confirmed that he will be standing down as leader before the next general election. It is a change that will have its impact on people and on those directly involved in the GSLP.

A new GSLP leader and added changes in candidature may well attract current ‘don’t know’ voters to vote GSLP-Liberal at the next general election (if the alliance survives), once again giving them, or just the GSLP (if the alliance comes to an end), the edge to form government.

NEW GSLP LEADER

In that context we see that Gemma Arias-Vasquez gets 11.52% of those polled supporting her as Chief Minister, whilst the other known contender for the GSLP leadership, Nigel Feetham, only gets less than half, at 5.23%.

Fabian Picardo might well get more than both, at 15.49%, but that must be ignored, as he will not be a contender.

In fact, if to anyone, that support for Fabian Picardo, will probably shift to and favour Gemma Arias-Vasquez.

LIBERALS

The GSLP leadership battle will have its impact on Liberal leader Joseph Garcia.

Will he sit back and accept being second fiddle after Mr Picardo leaves? He has played the role of Deputy for decades. Does he not have personal ambition? Or is being in government just an employment for him?

If he has an ongoing ambition to remain in politics without playing second fiddle, will he want to split the alliance and go for it at the election as a separate party?

The impact of that on voter patterns could be significant, or else he and the Liberals will simply disappear into the ether.

Mr Garcia gets only 4.84% support to be Chief Minister in the GBC poll.

GSD WINNING?

Despite that the GSD gets more support overall in the GBC poll, the result over its leader, Keith Azopardi shows wide discontent within its voter ranks.

Damon Bossino gets 14.42% support to be Chief Minister. It is very close to the support that Mr Picardo has, and more than that of Gemma Arias-Vasquez.

Keith Azopardi, the GSD’s current leader is down at 11.52% for the post of Chief Minister.

He is clearly a stone in the shoe of the GSD. He does not admit it. The GSD does nothing about it, despite it being detrimental to it being elected to government.

To make matters worse for Keith Azopardi, he ranks only fourth in order of popularity, after two other members of his own GSD, Damon Bossino and Craig Sacarello.

Does that not also bring into question his leadership of the GSD? Surely it is time for him to see that and move on.

POLL CRITICISM

There are those who criticise the manner in which GBC conducts its poll as not being statistically scientific. People are stopped randomly on the street and questioned face to face.

They are right in their criticism, but despite that, the poll is indicative of voter trends within the limits of the questions that it does ask.

Hence the logic in the above analysis.

15/10/2025

FREE SPEECH IS PARAMOUNT

The Speaker, Karen Ramagge, is influencing the exercise of democracy by criticising what the GSD has said, outside Parliament, on the parliamentary process dealing with the GSLP-Liberal Government’s motion about the former Principal Auditor’s 2018-2019 report [Report].

Parliament is certainly not allowing a debate which is improper, but the Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo, is using his procedural control of Parliament to delay and so make the debate unfair, which is undemocratic on his part.

He has not yet finished his address to Parliament on that motion, after many weeks, yet he has just adjourned Parliament to the 5th November… in three weeks! Where is real democracy?

It is rightly criticised by the GSD accordingly, despite that more care in phrasing the criticism may have been more proper.

PUBLIC CRITICISM JUSTIFIED

How parliamentary procedure is being used by Mr Picardo is a matter that is open to public criticism.

An ongoing parliamentary debate does not curtail the constitutional right to free speech, which is a fundamental right of all, as recognised by the Speaker.

DEFENCE OF DEMOCRACY

The Opposition, currently the GSD, but be it who it may be, has a democratic duty to promote democracy.

If it considers that parliamentary procedures are being used to curtail democracy, as is the case about the way the Motion is being taken, it is right for it to bring that belief in the misuse of parliamentary time to public attention.

ASPERSIONS ON CHIEF MINISTER?

In doing so “improper aspersions” are not necessarily being cast on Parliament.

It may well be that criticism is being made of the Chief Minister who controls the timetable of debates in Parliament. His use of that discretion is being criticised.

The motion on the Report is indeed, so far, after weeks a “one-sided slow-drip monologue” by the Chief Minister. Everyone sees and believes that.

THE OTHER SIDE

Indeed, others, the GSD Opposition, will have their say in Parliament in time, and one would hope they will be afforded the same patience and time.

However, it will happen only once the arguments of the Chief Minister have been drip-fed in a propagandist manner to the public.

SUBJECTIVE PROCEDURAL MISUSE

The system by which the Leader of the House (the Chief Minister) has always set the parliamentary calendar is open to misuse.

Any perceived misuse is open to criticism by those who are the victims.

It is not an abuse to criticise that use of power if the Opposition form the view that democracy is undermined.

It is not just down to advocating parliamentary reform, as suggested by the Speaker.

It is down to publicly pointing out the wrong use of procedure, however much that is permissible, and seeking that the perpetrator, in this case the Chief Minister, puts it right.

The criticism is not that of Parliament, nor that that is impermissible, it is about how the Chief Minister is using his discretion on timetabling meetings to the detriment of proper debate and democracy, not that there is much in Gibraltar anyway.

PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC LIFE

All Members of Parliament may have a duty to uphold integrity, including the Chief Minister.

The integrity of Parliament is upheld by keeping the Seven Principles of Public Life (the Nolan Principles.

Is the Chief Minister upholding those by the way he is timetabling debate of the motion on the Report? That is a question for the Speaker. Should the Speaker not suggest a better way forward?

The Seven Principles of Public Life (Nolan Principles) apply to those who are elected, as well as many others. They are as follows.

Selflessness

Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.

Integrity

Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

Objectivity

Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.

Openness

Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.

Honesty

Holders of public office should be truthful.

Leadership

Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour and treat others with respect. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.

COMPLIANCE?

Is the Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo, acting by all those principles in his decisions to adjourn Parliament and so prolonging the debate engaging the motion over the Report of the former Principal Auditor?

Each voter will make up his/her own mind when the time comes, now that the GSD has made the issue public.

14/10/2025

PICARDO KEEPS SELF-HARMING

What childishness from Chief Minister Fabian Picardo in his reply to Keith Azopardi, the Leader of the Opposition over the GSD public statement about the ongoing debate over the former Principal Auditor. Mr Picardo just keeps digging political holes for himself.

Each listener (if any are left) to Mr Picardo’s attack on the Principal Auditor’s Report 2018-19 [Report] can decide for themselves.

Ex Gratia payments are precisely that: payments that are made without them being legally due.

Mr Picardo can squirm as much as he likes but there is no getting away from that. Just one comes to mind over £600,000 paid to one individual without known liability in law.

NO IMPARTIALITY

To listen to a defence, it must have substance. It must also be in front of an impartial tribunal. Parliament is not impartial in deciding over the Chief Minister’s attack against the Report.

It is both politically partial and biased due to the inability for the Principal Auditor and others to defend themselves, and because of the inbuilt Government executive majority. Mr Picardo stop pretending!

FEW LISTENING

Mr Picardo may well, in his mind, be “taking our [Government’s] time to meticulously, respectfully, in keeping with Parliamentary rules of address, to properly challenge …” but the reality is that few are listening and fewer are believing.

There is no doubt that it is for the electorate to decide that it is time to have full transparency and for the government web of companies to be undone. It is no justification that both each of the GSLP, the GSD and the GSLP-Liberals have seen fit to resort to that opaque form of administration.

CHARLES GOMEZ

Mr Gomez has replied to the assertion that the government has spent more than £1,200,000 on him and his law firm since 2011.

He asserts that is not true, but rather that a large part of that is money paid over to third parties on the instructions of the Chief Minister’s Office, so it did not benefit from the whole amount.

Aside from getting it inaccurate, should the Chief Minister be going there at all?

After all his firm, Hassans, received £1,300,000 in fees just in 2023 (one year) directly from the GSLP-Liberal Government and huge amounts more in legal fees from government owned and controlled entities.

The amount received by Hassans directly or indirectly annually is huge compared to what has been paid to other firms.

ROBERT VASQUEZ

Mr Picardo’s praise of me is refreshing and shows huge political maturity.

He says I have “enjoyed [Mr Picardo’s] fulsome support since the days that [I] set out to become leader of the Bar despite then not being one of H[is] Majesty’s Counsel.”

He continues I am “contrary and consistent in [my] criticism of our system of government and Parliament”: totally true.

Mr Picardo has “no issue with [my] positions, [my] blogs or anything. [He] may strongly disagree with some and strongly agree with others. [He] obviously disagree[s] with some of [my] current political positions, not least about [him].”

He adds, “But Robert is being consistent in taking positions on democratic governance. And he is almost consistent in changing his mind. At least he is transparent and honest about that.”

Mr Picardo continues, “And his statement is given credence to because he says that under the GSLP Liberals “secret government continuing with companies being used to hide public finances. In saying this, he is acknowledging that was the position under the GSD. Because, of course, if one considers the use of companies to be ‘secret government’, which we don’t, then it is right to point out that the GSD in Government was as guilty of it as the GSLP/Liberals. We do not agree, but his position is consistent.” I could not agree more.

“Much less can we agree when at least under us we are filing the accounts of the companies and publishing the required parts of them.” That does not reveal enough about the use of public (our) money.

“But, for all of those reasons, I distinguish the position of Mr Vasquez.”

Mr Picardo’s fairness and recognition of freedom of expression must be recognised and is praiseworthy, but I am back blogging, from my short hospital stay during which he wished me well. I thank him and fully recognise that I received messages of good wishes from him during my stay in hospital.

EX-GRATIA PAYMENTS

Indeed, an ex-gratia payment is one made “as a matter of grace” or “out of grace” or “as a favour”, one made “voluntarily, “without legal obligation” and “without admitting liability”. They are paid as a “gesture of goodwill”. All as admitted by Mr Picardo.

It is precisely that which makes them so dangerous when made from public funds. Cases should be settled. Settlements should be for good reason and made sensibly and with huge care.

Payments being ex-gratia does not, however, preclude the need for proper authorisation in law, or for some valid reason for making the payment. It is not a ‘free gift’. Some of those payments criticised have the semblance of being ‘free gifts’.

That is recognised in the highest-level case law. Discretion must be exercised to promote the policy of a statute, but courts respect ministerial discretion where policy choices are involved.

Therefore, ministerial discretion does not exist without authority in law. Its exercise is reviewable on the grounds of illegality, irrationality (a decision being “… so reasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it”) or procedural impropriety.

The courts will intervene frequently to prevent misused executive authority especially if lawful authority is absent.

It is for the GSD Opposition to go into the detail during the debate in Parliament, but “golden handshakes”, if made, would seem wrong as having no authority in law.

DELAYED PUBLIC SERVICE RESPONSES

It is for the GSD Opposition to elicit explanations about the allegations about the non-production of information from the Chief Secretary, GDC Secretary and from the Director of Personnel and development for the former Principal Auditor.

It is irrelevant that many requests do not relate to the year being audited, but if untrue, as alleged by the Chief Minister, then the consequences are serious.

UNCHECKED DISCRETION

The Chief Minister accepts that there is a need for a structured framework in making ex gratia payments of any type, which is non-existent beyond the approval of the Chief Minister and/or the Chief Secretary and/or the Financial Secretary and sometimes all three, which is the present arrangement.

The Chief Minister confirms that need, in terms that “a structured approach, with clear criteria, documentation, and internal review, would strengthen public confidence, ensure fairness, and safeguard against misuse, while preserving the flexibility needed to resolve complex or sensitive claims…” The future should provide accordingly.

There must be a more structured system recording the decision and full reasons for all decisions, with full evidence to allow for a full audit.

It is not sufficient to just think “that this centralised signoff provides a degree of oversight and accountability…”.

There is a need for greater control, not being uncontrolled or unrestricted, as argued by the Chief Minister, is not enough as is accepted by him.

That payments are not politically motivated, as argued by the Chief Minister, is a subjective opinion. That payments are made to individuals aligned to the Opposition, as further argued, do not justify a potential wrong in the making of a payment.

Confidentiality, as suggested by the Chief Minister, may be a consideration, but not to the detriment of proper scrutiny of the use of public funds.

The Chief Minister then relies on Leading Counsel’s Opinion without disclosing the full context of those opinions.

The comparison of the amount of the ex-gratia payments as equated to public revenue is irrelevant. It is like saying an illegal payment is fine if it is small.

Indeed, the Principal Auditor, as the Chief Minister admits, is empowered to ensure legality, prevent fraud and safeguard against negligence, which is a very wide remit, which includes investigating whether policy decisions come within legal authority. The Chief Minister admits as much saying, “where those decisions fall within the LEGITIMATE managerial and financial COMPETENCE of government.”

Judicial review principles do not confine an audit as suggested by the Chief Minister. Audit principles do.

COUNSEL’S ADVICE

The Chief Minister, in support of his arguments, puts forward that “Leading Counsel’s advice is that the criticism of the Government in the report in relation to ex-gratia payments was misconceived.

Mr Fisher KC is of the view that the Report does not consider a host of relevant factors and related to an issue of policy which it is for the Government, and not for any Principal Auditor, to find.

In the light of these considerations, it is the view of Mr Fisher KC that the section in the report relating to ex-gratia payments should be withdrawn.”

Publication of that opinion and the instructions leading to it would support and confirm those and all other reliance on that opinion.

Why is it not made public if it is so supportive of the Chief Minister?

Llanito World

21/10/2025

20/10/2025

17/10/2025

16/10/2025

15/10/2025

14/10/2025

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category