Llanito World

19/12/2025

Quoted in the Guardian:

Meetings in Gibraltar are the latest twist in worldwide campaign that is enriching the US president’s family

18/12/2025

GIBEXIT TREATY REMAINS SECRET BUT AGREED

The announcement, yesterday, that the Gibexit treaty negotiation to reach agreement between the UK, Gibraltar, the EU and Spain, over Gibraltar’s relations with the EU was completed last Friday, 12th December, does nothing to inform on its content or detail.

The EU Commission so informed the European Council yesterday.

All that is known publicly about the contents of the Gibexit treaty, yet is what was announced in the political agreement back on 11th June this year.

There is a procedure that now needs to be followed before publication of the full Gibexit treaty. It will take some time, which will delay the announcement of any details for some weeks.

The reality is that all that procedure has given no voice to the people of Gibraltar, save through its elected government. Decisions will have been taken by the GSLP-Liberal Government.

POLITICAL AGREEMENT

The Gibexit treaty, according to the published political agreement, will include:

• ending physical checks on persons and foods at the border,
• dual border checks at the port and airport that preserve Schengen’s integrity whilst respecting Gibraltar’s control of immigration and law enforcement,
• a specific customs and goods regime to remove hurdles on cross-border trade,
• a model for direct flights to and from the EU, full UK military autonomy in Gibraltar, closer tax,
• environmental and labour/social security rights cooperation, and
• full protection of the sovereignty positions of the UK and Spain.

There is much meat that the Gibexit treaty will have put on those bones.

PROSPERITY BASED ON FREE MOVEMENT

We are told by a Commission spokesman, that its “… main objective is to secure the future prosperity of the whole region… by removing all physical barriers to the movement of persons and goods … while preserving the Schengen area, the EU Single Market and Customs Union.”

The “whole region”, one assumes, being Gibraltar, la Linea and the Campo de Gibraltar.

The clear sign is that Gibraltar will need to conform to some unknown degree, one assumes through agreed parameters included in the Gibexit treaty, with the EU wide agreed measures that allow for border fluidity.

ONGOING PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

Initially, we are told that there is an ongoing rigorous technical and legal review and translation of the text of the Gibexit treaty by both the EU and the UK, which will likely take several weeks.

Thereafter, before signature and conclusion of the Gibexit treaty, all EU and UK internal procedures will need to be met.

There is no sign given on how long that will take, but certainly some time more.

All that will likely stretch developments into the New Year.

EU RATIFICATION

Internal requirements will include ratification.

The published belief, some months ago, was that the Gibexit treaty is one that is exclusively EU competent, so it will need ratification only in the European Parliament and not the parliaments of all 27 EU member states.

There is nothing to show that that has changed, but discussions with the European Council would be held. Each member sate may well express a view on that which may differ. If any does, further delay may be caused.

BRITISH RATIFICATION

Initially the Gibexit treaty will go through a process by which the Gibraltar Parliament will call on the UK to ratify it.

At that point its text will become public. In fact, the UK Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons this week that the legal text would be published as soon as possible.

The UK ratification procedure is that the Gibexit treaty text will be laid in both Houses of the UK Parliament for 21 sitting days, which will allow for scrutiny by UK MPs.

Ratification is considered given if there are no objections, but there will likely be some debate.

TRANSPARENCY COMMITMENT

A spokesperson from the Chief Minister’s office, No. 6 Convent Place, said, “We remain committed to transparency: the final treaty will be made public and subject to full scrutiny of the Gibraltar, UK and EU Parliaments as part of the process of ratification.”

The people of Gibraltar will be faced, however, with a ‘fait accompli’ as decided by the GSLP-Liberal elected Government that has full control of Gibraltar’s Parliament.

It is that Government that has been engaged and already agreed the text of the Gibexit treaty.

the GSLP-Liberal Government must take full responsibility for any popular reaction to it.

17/12/2025

WESTMINSTER MPs HAVE RADAR ON MCGRAIL INQUIRY

It is of huge interest that MPs in the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee [FAC] quizzed the Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper, on the McGrail Inquiry Report [Report] yesterday.

She was not evasive, but she was not overly informative.

Ms Cooper was questioned primarily by Liberal Democrat MP Edward Morello. He came across as well briefed and informed.

It is unlikely that we have heard the last of this in or from the FAC. It has certainly shown to the contrary.

Ms Cooper did confirm in answer to a specific question, however, that matters engaging the Report would not delay the Gibexit treaty between the UK and the EU over Gibraltar’s status with the EU.

FAC HAS FIRM INTEREST

Importantly, the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office [FCDO] were trying to pass the ball over to the Gibraltar Government, but Emily Thornberry, the Chair, sternly replied that it was a matter of interest to the FAC.

It shows that Westminster MPs are keen to follow developments over what happens with the Report, and what consequences it may have.

They seemingly will not allow a fudge that will sweep it under the carpet.

Additionally, the FAC should be aware that, to the extent the Report covers matters constitutionally within the responsibility of the Governor, the Gibraltar Government have no constitutional power on subject, so cannot withhold any such part of the Report.

It would need to be the Governor.

MATTER FOR GIBRALTAR

Sir Oliver Robbins, Permanent Under-Secretary at the FCDO who was with Ms Cooper, told the FAC that they looked forward to seeing publication of the Report, but inaccurately said that the FCDO see its publication as a matter for the Government of Gibraltar.

That drew a terse response from the Chair to the effect that it was a matter for the FAC, who will want to oversee and know.

SIR OLIVER INACCURATE

The constitutional position is not as said by Sir Oliver to the extent that the Report covers any matters of internal security.

Constitutionally those fall clearly within the ambit of the UK’s responsibility, and so that of the FCDO, through the office of the Governor.

Gibraltar’s Police Act clearly reflects that constitutional position.

For example, the Commissioner of Police is appointed by Royal Warrant.

Further, under that Act, the integrity, probity and independence of policing and policing aspects of national security are the ultimate responsibility of the Governor.

Additionally, he has powers to hold the Gibraltar Police Authority [Authority] to account on those matters, on professional standards and to call meetings with the Chair of the Authority, the Commissioner and senior officers.

There is much more in the Police Act reflecting the Governor’s constitutional position engaging the Police.

It will be of interest to see whether the Report comments on how those were engaged in matters under its concern.

REDACTION

Ms Cooper, whilst saying that Stephen Doughty has been dealing with issues of redaction to the Report, said that she understood the concerns for transparency raised by the FAC.

Stephen Doughty is the Minister of State for Europe, North America and Overseas Territories. Nothing has been heard from him on subject yet.

She expressed an expectation that the Report would be published but said she would get back to the FAC on that.

Redaction would be totally contrary to the concept of open and transparent constitutional government.

INQUIRIES ACT

Concerns were expressed by Mr Morello about the enactment in 2024 of the Inquiries Act by Fabian Picardo’s GSLP Government.

It requires the Report to be published in full save that the Government may withhold contents in the public interest.

He was concerned that those powers would be used by Mr Picardo.

PUBLIC INTEREST

Public interest is defined, but not definitively.

The specifics to be had in consideration by Mr Picardo in deciding redaction are wide.

They are to allay public concern, the reduction of risk of harm or damage, and any confidentiality conditions.

CONSTITUTION

The Inquiries Act 2024 cannot trump the Constitution.

So, to the extent that the Report covers any issue engaging the Governor’s constitutional powers, it is ineffective.

Internal security is exclusively in the power of the Governor, save as limited by reference to the Authority, which are not relevant.

Any redaction of any part of the Report falling within the Governor’s powers cannot be made under the Inquiries Act 2004, unless made by the Governor.

We wait to see how and by whom such matters will be dealt with.

INTERESTING TIMES

We live in interesting times over the McGrail Inquiry.

They are uncertain for now, whilst the Report stays hidden from public view.

We wait to see how wide its constitutional implications will be, and how much of it will be published.

16/12/2025

MCGRAIL INQUIRY NOT ON CORRUPTION

The GSLP Government through its media organ, the “New People”, is projecting the message that the McGrail Inquiry Report has no findings of corruption.

How it can conclude that without having read the McGrail Inquiry Report is a mystery.

It may be so, we need to wait on publication of the McGrail Inquiry Report to find it, but the Inquiry was not centred on corruption, although it did feature in submissions by Mr McGrail’s legal team.

MCGRAIL’S END AS COMMISSIONER

The Inquiry was about “… the reasons and circumstances leading to Mr Iain McGrail ceasing to be Commissioner of Police of the Royal Gibraltar Police [RGP].”

The Chair was charged with inquiring “… as he shall in his absolute discretion consider appropriate into such matters, ascertain the facts and report to the Government.”

There is no mention of corruption in those terms of reference.

GOVERNMENT AND THEN GOVERNOR’S CASE

The case of the various government parties was essentially that Mr McGrail had lost the confidence of Nick Pyle and that of others in government.

Nick Pyle was the interim governor at that time.

Yet Nick Pyle took a fundamental constitutional decision, only capable of being taken by a governor, which contributed largely to force the stepping down of an RGP Commissioner. He told Mr McGrail that he was considering using his power in law to call for Mr McGril’s resignation.

Should he not have waited for the appointment of a substantive governor?

Only a governor has the constitutional power to remove an RGP Commissioner, and then after overcoming constitutional safeguards, including receiving advice from the Gibraltar Police Authority, an advice that was affected by events at the time and was withdrawn due to it having been advised of procedural flaws and vulnerability to it being challenged.

ESSENTIAL REASONS

Nick Pyle was said not to trust Mr McGrail’s “probity and integrity” or his leadership of the RGP.

That from a person who held the acting post of governor for just a few months, although he had been deputy governor for some while. Oddly that view was formed over a number of years, despite his not being the governor throughout that time.

We wait on the Inquiry Report to find all that finally.

All improper motives and conduct on the part of the government parties were roundly denied.

LOSS OF CONFIDENCE?

The events that led to the loss of confidence were attributed to several incidents over a few years, spanning between 2017 and 2020, and criticisms of the RGP in inspections.

Yet the substantive Governor at the time did not look to intervene into the continuation of Mr McGrail as RGP Commissioner.

It only happened during Nick Pyle’s acting tenure for a limited time.

One must question, should such a fundamental act have been taken by someone in an ‘acting’ capacity?

Again, we wait on the Inquiry Report to allow a view to be taken on that.

TIMING OF RETIREMENT

Mr McGrail’s retirement also came about just after the RGP attempted to execute a search warrant on James Levy.

He is the senior partner of Hassans, the largest law firm in Gibraltar, of which GSLP Chief Minister Fabian Picardo, and other Ministers, are partners, albeit on sabbatical.

Mr McGrail’s case was that he had been put under improper pressure by the Chief Minister and the Attorney General, Michael Llamas over the way a live criminal investigation was being undertaken, which led to the search warrant.

Again, we wait on the Inquiry Report to conclude whether there is any relevance in that leading to Mr McGrial’s early retirement.

WIDE INQUIRY

The essential point is that the McGrail Inquiry covered many issues, not just the issue of corruption.

People will be distracted due to publication of the Inquiry Report over the Christmas and New Year period.

Yet people should not fall for GSLP spin. They should wait on the Report and then form a view based on its overall findings, not just the issue of any suggestions of corruption.

It may well be that the Inquiry Report exonerates the GSLP Government and other connected persons and officials, so be it were that to come about, but having heard much of the evidence, it seems unlikely that the Inquiry Report will not include important criticisms.

We wait patiently on its publication, which lo and behold, surprise, surprise, will now coincide with the Christmas and New Year holidays.

15/12/2025

POLITICAL FAME AT LAST!

I am proud that I, a mere individual who writes a blog, made it to the front page of the GSLP weekly propaganda sheet, the “New People”, under the simple headline “Robert Vasquez”.

It is a rag which is openly partisan to the GSLP Government. It is written by its acolytes, many say mainly by Chief Minister Fabian Picardo.

It makes me believe that the GSLP is running scared of what I write and the political effect it is having.

I will certainly not be scared off.

GSLP LOST THE ARGUMENT

What people talk about is that the Government did NOT carry “the moral argument” over the Principal Auditor’s 2018-19 Report, as propagated in the “New People”.

The opposite is true.

The Principal Auditor’s Report stands.

BIG THANK YOU

Certainly, the number of people who visit and read my blog has increased noticeably since the “New People” piece appeared.

Thank you to the “New People” for that free publicity.

GSD PROPAGANDIST

The “New People” categorises me as the “new GSD propagandist (or so it seems)”, yes, they are not even sure of that (LOL), and as having “long lost the right to be considered an independent and impartial political writer.”

Never have I advocated that I am “independent and impartial”. I have very clear political views as set out in my election manifestos.

So much so, that over the years I have stood for election with the GSD on one occasion (under the leadership of Danny Feetham) and thereafter as an INDEPENDENT Social Democrat, with an element of success.

I believe I am the independent candidate who has got most votes ever in a general election.

The “New People” ignores all the blogs that I write which are critical of the GSD under Keith Azopardi’s leadership.

DEMAGOGUES

I am not a “demagogue” as the “new People” claims. I am not a political leader. To be a “demagogue” one must be one. I do not even lead a political party.

Demagoguery is within the range of what the GSLP, and its leader, does in government and to gain power, namely, it appeals to the desires and prejudices of people, not to rational argument.

It is shown by the article in question itself.

It claims that the “The defensive attitude of the GSLP over…” the principal auditors report does not give credence to the criticism made in that Report but that is my part in the GSD’s propaganda machine just like what I write on this blog generally.

Seriously? One must not have a mind of one’s own to believe that.

It is laughable.

NOT GSD

GSD, I am not, nor do I have any motivation “to ingratiate [myself] with Keith” or to be “angling for readmission into the GSD ranks and a possible place on their slate in 2027.”

I am a centrist in politics, yes, but that does not make me GSD under the lacking leadership of Keith Azopardi, and the GSD’s general want of politics and effect from all its elected MPs.

MY POLICIES

I have policies as set out in my last election Manifesto under the logo, FACTS, Fairness, Accountability, Community Transparency Stability.

I advocated as follows.

A GIBRALTAR WAY OF LIFE.
BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY, QUALITIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND NATIONALITY
A GIBEXIT “DEAL”.
MORE DEMOCRACY WITH DEMOCRATIC REFORMS OF ELECTIONS AND PARLIAMENT.
FIGHTING CORRUPTION.
FULL DISCLOSURE AND CONTROL OF POLITICAL DONATIONS.
TRUTH OVER POWER.
OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY.
UNCOVERING AND DEALING WITH ‘ENCHUFAOS’.
SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC FINANCES WITH FULL DISCLOSURE.
EFFICIENT TAXATION.
EQUALITY OF TREATMENT.
REVISION OF RENTAL AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IMPROVEMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES.
BETTER TREATMENT IN MENTAL HEALTH AND FOR DISABLED PERSONS.
DIRECTED SOCIAL BENEFITS.
HELPING THE ELDERLY.
SUPPORTING DRUG AND SUBSTANCE DEPENDENTS.
FAIRNESS IN EMPLOYMENT.
BETTERING FACILITIES FOR THE YOUNG, CULTURE, AND SPORT.
SIMPLIFYING AND IMPROVING PUBLIC SERVICES.
MORE ACCESS TO OPEN GOVERNANCE.
FREEING THE PRIVATE SECTOR. ROOM TO GROW.
PROMOTING BETTER ENVIRONMENT.
MORE CONSIDERED URBAN PLANNING.
A REVIEW OF TRANSPORT AND PARKING.

Much is still available online.

SHORT AND SIMPLE

I shall keep this blog short and simple so as not to have it fall within the criticism that the New People make of my blogs. It claims that they “are complex, convoluted, and often impenetrable”.

It is a statement that is defied by the statistics that I get, which show that I am followed and read by thousands, up to 7,500.

I believe in the ability of people. The GSLP obviously do not.

I look forward to next weeks edition of the “New People”.

12/12/2025

POLITICAL VACUUM

Is Gibraltar heading for a political and governmental vacuum?

The signs are there that it is.

On the GSLP front, we have Fabian Picardo saying that he will not lead the party in the next general election, with Nigel Feetham staking his claim to the leadership, whilst Gemma Arias Vasquez goes about her business as a Minister, whilst being tipped as a GSLP leadership candidate also.

On the GSD front, we have Keith Azopardi, the GSD’s often electorally defeated leader. He leads without any visible politics that will change anything in Gibraltar.

It is a vacuum that may be accelerated with the publication of the McGrail Inquiry Report.

GSLP LEADERSHIP

In the GSLP, we have two potential candidates for leadership.

One is Gemma Arias Vasquez, who throughout has been a GSLP Minister.

The other is Nigel Feetham, who started his political career in the GSD executive, despite which he says that he has “the widest electoral appeal”.

Both Gemma and Nigel are in the law firm of Hassans, led by James Levy KC, just as Fabian Picardo KC is.

FEETHAM CLAIMS

Nigel Feetham claims that he can keep the GSLP’s core voters and recoup votes that the GSLP has lost to the GSD.

He has taken the step of announcing that he will seek the GSLP leadership, “... because [he] wants to deliver a vision for the people of Gibraltar and therefore [he] believe[s] that in order to be able to take that vision forward to the next level, [he] can only do so if [he] occup[ies] the position of Chief Minister, which then puts [him] in a position where [he] will have also responsibility for the public finances of Gibraltar… right now … [he has] no responsibility for how we spend the money… [He] would … very much tighten the reins.”

He claims, “I believe I have broader electoral appeal” despite admitting that Mr Picardo favours Ms Arias Vasquez, who is often asked to fill in for Mr Picardo.

ANALYSIS OF FEETHAM CLAIMS

He says he has a vision for Gibraltar.

Well, he forms part of the GSLP Government of Gibraltar, why then is he not fighting for that vision within that Government? His statement shows that he is taking a back seat. Is that what we want as a Chief Minister?

Why does he not make public anything or any policies aimed at achieving his unknown and mysterious vision?

Is he admitting that Ministers have no power within the Government, but that all power is yielded by the Chief Minister? It certainly seems so.

Why then has the public purse paid him a minister’s salary for all the years he has been a minister?

Is he admitting that there is no ministerial collective responsibility? It certainly reads like that. If so, why are we electing more MPs than just a Chief Minister?

Is he admitting that it is only the Chief Minister, and not the Ministers in cabinet, who decide on how public money is spent? It certainly reads like that. If so, why are we choosing more than just a Chief Minister?

Nigel Feetham’s entire argument summarises the reasons why someone with his mindset should not be elected to be a possible candidate for Chief Minister by choice within his party.

He concedes the reality of a presidential style of government rather than a democratic parliamentary style, with checks and balances.

GEMMA’S ACTIONS

Aside from being promoted by Fabian Picardo Gemma is still quiet on the leadership front.

She continues doing her job as Minister for Health, Care and Business.

Just a month ago, within that capacity, she spoke to guests at the Gibraltar-London Business Reception held at the Oxo Tower in London.

She addressed them on Gibraltar’s growing opportunities internationally and the growing international confidence ahead of the much-awaited Gibexit treaty engaging Gibraltar between the UK and the EU.

Time will tell whether she will seek election as leader of the GSLP with an eye on becoming Chief Minister of Gibraltar.

AZOPARDI’S GSD

Well, what can be said?

Keith Azopardi, as GSD leader. is just waiting for ‘buggin’s turn’ as Chief Minister.

He does not realise that politics and elections are not about that. They are about looking to portray a message and image that will gain voters.

The GSD under Mr Azopardi has no message or image.

It has no fundamental politics or policies.

It may well be that ‘buggin’s turn’ may well come about, but is that what Gibraltar really wants in government?

Mr Azopardi alone is not to blame. All his elected GSD MPs are more to blame. They each, individually and collectively, allow him to walk in that void that has no message or image.

The GSD under Mr Azopardi’s leadership does Gibraltar’s democracy a disservice.

Its time for the GSD’s top membership to act.

The GSD has a political opportunity at the next election, but if it fails to be initiative-taking and act, it will simply lose again.

Surely, it must have learnt that Gibraltar’s current electoral and parliamentary systems do not work democratically.

Why then does it not propose change on both fronts? Perhaps because what Mr Azopardi looks for is presidential power.

VACUUM?

The reality is that as in science, political vacuums are always filled.

However, if it is a vacuum that is filled, then the incumbent filling it (or the holder of the post of Chief Minister, as is invariably the case) will likely not have what it takes to deal with the issues that Gibraltar will face.

It may well be that a Gibexit deal will be finalised during Mr Picardo’s tenure as Chief Minister, but that alone will bring up issues at a governmental level in future that will need to be dealt with astutely and wisely.

A government under a weak Chief Minister will not manage.

11/12/2025

GSLP WORRY SHOWN BY MCGRAIL PUBLICATION DELAY

If ever evidence were needed that we are governed by one man, the Chief Minister, and that man not being replaced by any ‘acting’ Chief Minister, it is now clear.

The further delay in the proposed publication of the McGrail Inquiry Report [Report] by the Government shows it.

The delay applies equally to the GSD Opposition being given a copy of the Report.

The delays point to heavy criticisms.

PICARDO MUST REACT

The reason given for the further delay is that it is not thought that GSLP Chief Minister Fabian Picardo will be fit and able to react to its content during the week of the 15th December.

The content must be of serious concern, therefore, with the Chief Minister having read and so assessed its impact.

TIMETABLE

Initially the Report was due for publication on the 5th December, but that date was delayed to the start of the week of the 15th due to Mr Picardo undergoing eye surgery.

The further delay now is explained as the need for Mr Picardo to be given an opportunity to “be fit and able to respond … to initial public comments issued by others following publication …”.

The concern over its content and criticisms is shown to be large by that admission, despite that Mr Picardo and his GSLP Government had a full opportunity to make submissions to the Inquiry.

A further delay is announced now, due to the same health concerns, without a new date for publication being given.

NERVES?

It all points to nervousness on the part of Mr Picardo and the GSLP over the contents of the Report and potential effects of those contents at a sensitive time when a Gibexit deal with the EU over Gibraltar is near announcement.

Such a ‘deal’ is best ‘sold’ to the people with a GSLP Government in office, and Mr Picardo as Chief Minister, with Sir Joe Bossano by his side.

DISTRACTION

What is clear is that publication, unless delayed into the New Year, will now, conveniently, coincide with the public distraction of the Christmas, New Years and Three Kings Christian celebrations.

Mr Picardo has seen and read the Report, so he knows of any criticism made of all and anyone, including him and his GSLP Government and any public officers.

So, he is gaining time.

NO WHITEWASH

What does all that tell us?

Well, that the Report is no ‘whitewash’, but rather has criticisms of a nature that require them to be dealt with not just at Government level, not just at ‘acting’ Chief Minister level, but rather by Mr Picardo himself, as Chief Minister.

It would be wrong to speculate as to the nature of any criticism or as to the identity of anyone who will be criticised beyond that it likely includes Mr Picardo, but that being so, criticism may extend to others, including the Attorney General, and even the then Governor at the time the events leading to the Inquiry were unfolding.

The Governor in question was Acting Governor Nick Pyle, the then Deputy Governor.

ACTING GOVERNOR

Mr Picardo admitted in Parliament back in May 2023 that Mr Pyle had been engaged by the public service in Gibraltar through the Chief Secretary to deliver civil service training and reform.

The admission was in reply to questions from the GSD Leader of the Opposition, Keith Azopardi.

At that time, Mr Azopardi questioned in Parliament whether that engagement by Government was proper in light that Mr Pyle was a core participant in the McGrail Inquiry.

Mr Picardo retorted that the question was “disgraceful” and that it impugned the integrity of Mr Pyle, the Chief Secretary, and everyone else involved.

The status today of Mr Pyle within the public service is unknown, as are any of his actions in that capacity.

We wait on publication of the Report to see whether there will be any comments about Mr Pyle’s actions at the relevant times.

GSD DISCLOSURE DELAY

The GSD has not been given a copy of the Report.

The GSLP Government has said that the GSD would be provided with a copy of the Report as is the practice in the UK, namely, with less than 24 hours’ notice.

In fact, Mr Picardo has said that “… the Government in Gibraltar is prepared to allow him [GSD Leader of the Opposition, Keith Azopardi] longer to study the report than he would have if he were in the mother of all parliaments in the United Kingdom.”

It may be so, but it shows nervousness on the part of the GSLP and its Chief Minister over the contents of the Report.

If the Report were not to be critical, publication would have happened already.

10/12/2025

MCGRAIL: POTENTIAL FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CONFLICTS

The publication of the McGrail Inquiry Report approaches fast.

It is due next week, after a 15-day delay due to the Chief Minister’s health.

What its publication will clarify, hopefully, is the constitutional impact of any findings of the Report, specifically over the functions of the office of Governor, the Government and the Attorney General respectively.

CONSTITUTIONALLY DISCRETE

Each are separate and distinct constitutional organs or officers with different obligations and responsibilities.

Yet all the then incumbents were represented in the Inquiry by the same lawyers: Peter Caruana & Co, with Sir Peter Caruana KC, Chris Allen and Philip Dumas appearing as Counsel.

The possibility of any conflict between each of the the office of Governor, the Government and the Attorney General, such as to prevent joint legal representation, must have been considered carefully and discarded.

The reality of that position may well come to the fore on publication of the Inquiry Report.

RESPONSIBILITIES

Constitutionally the office of Governor oversees three matters, two of which, external affairs and matters engaging appointments of public officers, will likely not be engaged.

The office of Governor is, however, responsible for internal security, which is relevant. In exercise of that constitutional responsibility, the holder of the office of Governor is solely accountable.

Internal security includes the Royal Gibraltar Police [RGP] subject to the advice of the Gibraltar Police Authority [GPA]).

The GPA amongst other duties must “ensure high standards of integrity probity and independence of policing in Gibraltar.”

Those are obligations that undoubtedly bind the office of the Governor also in the exercise of constitutional powers engaging the RGP.

What is likely to be pertinent in the Inquiry Report is issues of internal security, which the incumbent in the office of Governor will need to manage.

The Attorney General, a constitutional public officer, has the power under the Constitution to institute, begin and drop any criminal proceedings. In doing so, he acts without being beholden to anyone, save any court having due jurisdiction.

We shall see if any such matters come to the fore in the Inquiry Report and will need to be considered, and how they are dealt with.

If there is any conflict between any of the organs of the office of Governor, Government and Attorney General resulting from any findings of the Inquiry, issues may arise, resulting from the past joint legal representations.

It will be interesting to see how constitutional issues (if any) will be resolved as and when they come to the fore.

CONFLICTS

Certainly, if there is any cause to suspect the commission of any offence from any Inquiry findings, those will need to be investigated, independently by the RGP.

Further, any decision to prosecute will need to be taken independently by the Attorney General.

Perception must play a part on the question of independence.

Independence, on matters arising from Inquiry findings, may well be affected by the history in that the then Governor, Government and Attorney General all had the same representation in the Inquiry, despite each having and having had very distinct and different constitutional responsibilities and obligations.

It will be especially so if the behaviour of any one or more of those three parties is questioned or criticised.