UK Acts On Turks And Caicos Corruption Concerns

by Amanda Banks, Tax-News.com, London

26 August 2009

The UK government decision to intervene in the Turks and Caicos Islands on the back of reports warning of systemic corruption has been denounced by the Caribbean Community in a statement. It emerged on August 14 that the British government had assumed control of the island's affairs; removing its elected premier, cabinet and assembly, and suspending much of its constitution.

The British government’s intervention on the matter followed the commissioned report of Robin Auld, who, after an inquiry, reported that there was a ‘high probability of systemic corruption’, underscoring in particular that its Premier Michael Misick’s spending habits far exceeded his means. He resigned in March, acknowledging no wrongdoings.

It is alleged that Mr Misick facilitated the sale of crown land to private developers at preferential rates. The Turks and Caicos’ developing tourism industry attracts 300,000 affluent holidaymakers every year.

Since the UK’s imposition of control, Mesik has called on islanders to ‘resist British rule’, and his successor Galmo Williams has attacked the British government’s decision denouncing the action as an invasion and an attempt to recolonize the islands.

In a statement the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), an organization of 15 Caribbean nations and dependencies, said:

“The Caribbean Community notes with profound concern and deep disappointment the decision of the British Government to dissolve the Government and the legislature, as well as to suspend the right to trial by jury in the Turks and Caicos Islands all in reaction to the adverse findings of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the administration of the territory. “

“The imposition of direct rule by the Governor is a regrettable forced step backwards for this Associate Member of the Caribbean Community. The Caribbean Community reiterates its principled position that the democratic process cannot be strengthened by removing representative democracy from the citizens of the Turks and Caicos Islands.”

“The Community views this action as counterproductive. It maintains that, on the contrary, it would have been far more beneficial, and the results more sustainable, to involve the people of the territory through their elected representatives, in the efforts required to strengthen the good governance and public administrative processes of the Turks and Caicos Islands, which is the stated ultimate goal of the British government,” its statement concludes, expressing its “hope that the UK government’s action will be for a limited duration”.

According to the British government its intervention could last for up to two years.

Recommended