NCC members seek judicial review over unlawful removal
(CNS): The recently fired chair of the National Conservation Council, Stuart Mailer, his colleague Patricia Bradley and the very first NCC chairperson, Christine Rose-Smyth, have sent a letter to Cabinet asking it to revoke what they argue was the unlawful decision to fire six NCC members. The letter is a precursor to seeking a judicial review.
The three local environmental experts said that firing the members on Wednesday was the “latest in a series of efforts by the current Cabinet to weaken the NCC’s ability to perform its statutory function of promoting conservation in the Cayman Islands”.
They are being represented by Nelsons Legal, in particular, Kate McClymont, who is proving to be one of the most successful local advocates for the environment. In the letter, the lawyers, on thier clients’ behalf, set out the checkered history of the current Cabinet’s attitude toward the NCC.
The letter pointed out that the six members were fired without notice partway through their tenure with no opportunity to make representations. “The Cabinet did not provide any reasons for its decision,” nor did Cabinet “explain whether or on what basis it considered the replacement members to have any relevant scientific or technical expertise.”
The lawyers noted that the government had done nothing to establish the credentials of the new appointees and that it should have considered their interests to establish that no conflict exists, which is quite significant in the case of one of the appointees, who has publicly declared his opposition to the concept of conservation.
“Clearly there were issues to consider, for example, the Official Hansard Report records that on 12 December 2013, Arden McLean said ‘Let me begin by laying my cards on the table, like I have done
many times publicly before, and that is that I am not a conservationist. I am no tree hugger’,” the lawyers state in the letter.
With parliament set to be prorogued on 1 March ahead of the General Election, the three former NCC members said that the timing of the decision indicates that it has replaced the six members as “a penalty for promoting conservation… in accordance with the National Conservation Act and for the purpose of weakening the NCC’s performance of its statutory mandate to promote conservation in the Cayman Islands”.
The lawyers listed a catalogue of reasons why the sudden sacking of the six members was unlawful, including the important point that Cabinet is “not permitted to use its powers of appointment as a system of patronage or to further its political aims” or to “frustrate the purpose” of the conservation act. The Public Authorities Law also states that the Cabinet has a constitutional duty to give written reasons for
removing a person from the NCC.
However, the government has not given any written reasons other than a comment by the Sustainability Minister Dwayne Seymour in a brief press release issued Thursday. Seymour said the partnership of the National Conservation Council is vital to the successful management of the Cayman Islands’ natural resources.
“The work done over the past two years by our outgoing NCC has not gone unnoticed, and I am grateful to each member for their time and efforts,” he said but added that the changes would “establish a better balance for the community” and be seen to be fair for all.
“It should be noted that the re-appointment of some members ensures continuity. The members bring a vast array of experience and expertise, as well as the vigour and passion necessary to serve the Cayman Islands in this capacity.”
However, the law states that Cabinet should not remove more than two-thirds of any board at one time. On Wednesday, it fired six out of the seven appointed members, leaving only one alongside the National Trust representative, which the Cabinet has no control over, and the government’s own technical members from the Departments of Environment and Planning.
The three plaintiffs are seeking a judicial review and asking the government to reconsider the decision to fire them and their colleagues, largely as a result of the procedural unfairness and the lack of a lawful basis for their removal, which is set out in great detail by their attorneys, alongside the lack of any lawful basis for the new appointments.
They are asking the government for a quick response, given the requirement that judicial reviews move through the courts quickly. Should the application to the courts be successful, the plaintiffs have said that they will be seeking a stay of the removal of all six members and the appointment of the proposed new members.
The next meeting of the council is set for 26 February, and if, as they argue is the case, this new council is unlawful, any decisions made by it later this month would be null and void.
See the full letter before action below:
- Fascinated 36%
- Happy 36%
- Sad 00%
- Angry 3771%
- Bored 612%
- Afraid 36%
Category: Politics
Word has it that the Donkey Man is worried about the Law Suit!
If it comes, this would be the second Judicial Review against decisions by Dwayne as Minister of Environment
Maybe the problem is not the law, maybe the problem is Dwayne?
So, the CPA and the Director of Planing took unlawful actions and decisions, and it is the NCC members that are removed??
How does this even make sense?
When will the CPA members and Mr. Pandohie be removed from their positions?
Oh, sorry, I shouldnt talk so loud, I might wake the Governor. And we all know Franz wont do anything to Pandohie.
TOTAL CORRUPTION! And the Governor is supporting it by doing nothing to those that broke the law
Kick Da Bums Out!
April 30 will hopefully be a start, but the power of unelected officials, i.e. the Civil Service, and it’s connected bodies, is harder to change.
They did.
1:48 stop blaming civil servants for decisions made by private sector boards. Civil Servants cannot vote on these boards.
remove all private sector boards and allow civil servants to make these decisions.
The Governor is too busy making Cayman a hostile environment for criminals.
Hopefully with a new government!
a by product of new trumpian policy’s….government here think they can do what they want and get away with it
even more reason why we need strong governor and auditor general
..the brits won’t do anything….
The AG’s job is thankless…..same reports, year after year, just tippex out the previous title, insert the new title, publish, and wait for …..crickets…
Rinse and Repeat, ad infinitum…..nothing ever changes, NOTHING…. from Dan Dugay to today….and unfortunately, beyond…..
We should be so fortunate to have a Caymanian Trump that cuts waste and corruption.
Seriously you bring up Trump in this context, sad, I mean really sad. TDS on full view.
Leave US out of it. The is all you.
The Auditor General has zero enforcement powers, zero. Shining a light on stuff and hoping and praying things may change is all she can do! But she keeps repeating things and like a dripping tap she doesn’t go away.
I wish us citizens and residents had this same passion for the struggling Caymanian families. It’s a bit mind blowing as some of you in the community are willing to fund this Judicial review out of your own pocket I ask why? Because a few egos were hurt in this process!?! You all should be ashamed. I think at this point with elections right around the corner and a Green Party(TCCP) doubtful to get in as majority of voters reject their kind of procrastination leadership, a party of high net worth business men (CINP) most of which have no real accomplishments they achieved on their on merit, for example that party’s leader was handpicked by Naul Bodden for succession planning however he did not afford the same opportunity to a fellow caymanian when Dan retired. Fast food “mogul” who inherited a turn key business from his father I don’t think these attributes constitute capabilities to run a 1billion a year budget. That being said which ever party gets in on April 30 would have certainly remove the members of all government appointees to boards like the NCC etc. I think there is extreme bias on mainly the environmental side development is going to happen in a growing country regardless of one’s individual views, sure we have to mitigate and preserve what we can. I personally think if the country chooses the band of quitters and lip service party then most of the 6 individuals have nothing to worry about as they would mostly certainly be reappointed under the TCCP.
@7:38 you don’t know much about Cayman or Caymanians
Spare the Cayman Islands and us Caymanians
The NCC Act is quite clear.
The Council is established under the provisions of Schedule 2 subsection (6) “The Cabinet may revoke the membership of an appointed person.”
There are no conditions attached to subsection (6), nor is there any requirement to give reasons for revoking an appointment
Enough of the law already. Get some more popcorn and soda.
Legal clause yes, but highly unethical and immoral. The constitutionality, rapidity and timing of the revocation of the previous board can be called into question. But when the new appointees carry out the developer class demands it is going to negatively affect everybody’s way of life here and generations to come.
Dear Ill-informed,
It turns out that we Caymanians have a couple of other laws that specify how the NCA is to be applied and interpreted. One of them is called the Constitution which has a section which this Cabinet seems to be blindingly unaware of or does not think applies to them…. probably the latter.
Lawful administrative action
19.—(1) All decisions and acts of public officials must be lawful, rational, proportionate and procedurally fair.
(2) Every person whose interests have been adversely affected by such a decision or act has the right to request and be given written reasons for that decision or act.
So you are saying the former (removed) members had a personal interest? This section of the consitution doe snot apply to board appointed persons who are tasked with carrying out the requriements fo the law and the Ministers policies.
Total rubbish -19(1) makes no reference to ‘personal interest’. Please provide a reference to anything in the Constitution or any Grand Court decision that even remotely supports your rubbish.
19(2) refers to persons whose interest have been adversely affected. Please explain to me how being removed from the council by Cabinet amounts to a violation of either 19(1) or 19(2)?
Schedule 2 of the Act states:
“6. The Cabinet may revoke the membership of an appointed person. ”
Where is the violation of the removed council members rights ? Or are you suggesting that persons appointed to the Board previously had a “personal interest” which would clearly be a conflict of interest between their statutory duties as an appointed member and whatever that personal interest is/was!
The law is clear, the Cabinet can revoke. They were not or should not have been appointed for any “personal” reasons.
If that is their argument, they will now have to explain how their removal is now “lawful, rational, proportionate and procedurally fair”
Waiting on your rebuttle.
Chill dude – I get it – this must be so confusing for someone who does not understand how to construe legislation. Read the judgement when it comes out – hopefully you will then understand.
Not**
yes, they are spewing rubbish, but, its actually from the Constitution that was quoted by the earlier poster. “person whose interests have been adversely affected” – Where “interests” generally means “personal interests”. So, for example, if a government entity turns down your application for a job you can ask for the reasons in writing because you had a clear interest in the decision being taken. Someone from Timbuktu (who did not apply for the job) can’t ask because they have no “interest” in the decision. Hence the garbage reference to ‘personal interest’. Which ignores the grey area of everyone in Cayman having a clear interest in the rule of law being upheld even when it is inconvenient. (Whether a court would agree with my last sentence is, well, why lawyers argue in court.)
So you’re saying that if I don’t have a direct personal interest, but just a general one, e.g., rule of law, that I can’t ask the public officials to show that their decisions were “lawful, rational, proportionate and procedurally fair”? Or are you saying that they don’t need to be unless they directly impinge on someone’s personal interest?
If you took a decision right then all you do when you get one of these requests is copy/paste your meeting minutes into the reply email and the request is answered and the challenge goes away. Easy. And cheap. And just a cost of a functioning democracy that we should all be willing to pay.
Or does the law only apply where & when some people think it should but not other times?
The Grand Court has already answered your questions in previous cases and no doubt will again in this case
Yes. But I suspect you & I (and the various lawyers involved) are going to have different opinions on what those answers were, & will be again.
You are not understanding the role of an appointed Council person.
They are there to carry out the requriements fothe Act. The Act also says the Cabinet can revoke a Council members appointment. All actions taken by the Cabinet thus far have been lawful. Please state your grounds for a Judicial Review?
Everyone screaming about JR but there are no grounds for it unless you go the route of claiming the removal was not lawful, rational, proportionate and procedurally fair and there is a person whose interests have been adversely affected by such a decision or act.
The court will not grant a JR on the basis that you do not like the new Council members.
A) None of what you said actually responded to the question posed: Are you ” saying that if I don’t have a direct personal interest, but just a general one, e.g., rule of law, that I can’t ask the public officials to show that their decisions were “lawful, rational, proportionate and procedurally fair”? Or are you saying that they don’t need to be unless they directly impinge on someone’s personal interest?”
But no surprise as, (B) You are deliberately missing the point that to mount a JR you don’t have to argue that there is a procedural unfairness until after the challenged party has shown their reasoning, which they must by law have recorded and provide.
So, as in this case, you write a letter saying ‘show me or we go to JR’ and then the two sides figure out if the there is grounds for a challenge or not, i.e., either no reasons available or the reasons given seem to show procedural unfairness. Then they can (each independently) decide what they’re going to do re the JR.
Turns out that we don’t have a constitution, as we are not a country. We do however have an Order in Council.
It is the Constitution of the Cayman Islands.
However, it is also correct that, given that the Cayman Islands is a British Overseas Territory, the Constitution is an Order in Council: see Cabinet of the Cayman Islands et al v Roulstone et al (unreported 2 June 2020: CICA Civil Appeal 2020-006) at [107] per curiam Sir Jack Beatson JA (C.I. Court of Appeal).
This unelected “Cabinet” doesn’t hold controlling quorum.
Why don’t you list out the reasons someone can file a judicial review.
Glad to see the new board has generational Caymanians now in charge. Should have been done long ago.
The corruption seems to be that one side of the island doesn’t have anyone with common sense. If you all don’t live on this side of the island, you don’t seem to understand what is good for the goose should also be good for the gander. We need a 4 lane highway to get to work and get home that doesn’t take2-3 hours. The frustration is you all are worried about what? Ducks, iguanas and swampland? Take 10 pairs of each and put them in the botanical gardens and sell tickets to go and see them. We would make everybody happy. We would have a new tourist attraction. If you want more ducks feed them in the Meagre bay pond. Put in a bird blind and allow a bar and restaurant so everyone can see them. We need to understand land prices are so high that the youth of Cayman will not be able to buy or build a house because of what? We need more swampland? 40-50 years ago the road was gazzetted by Jim Bodden and Haig Bodden. Why isn’t the road done? Environmentalists have declared that the west side has developed their side but not ours for over 60 years? What made anyone believe that was going to work? We need the road built yesterday and we need cheaper land. Its simple economics supply and demand open more cheaper land prices go down. Blocking development prices go up.
We have given land because of environmental causes. Who or where are these people from? Where do they live? We need leaders with common sense. No one has forgotten when the English navy came here to settle this. We got the swamp. WE gave 50 feet from the sea, some years later 200 feet a couple more years later 2000 feet. We keep giving and no one wants to pay from losing the oceanfront.
Try this one, the next house that is eaten up by sea level rise, no more construction on the sea side??? Ocean front returns to the public as free beach never to be developed again, all in favour say Aye? Thats what you all don’t want to pay for right?
We can’t fill in the beach, but we can fill in the swampland we have proven that over and over again. We want the road built yesterday. We want cheaper land for our people. The accidents on the road, are the younger people who are frustrated. Road rage is growing! You are making the natives angry are you not reading the room? Heed the warning of an old man. Build the road.
David Miller
I stopped reading after your claim that the road will let you ‘get to work and get home that doesn’t take 2-3 hours’ – You know that’s not what the government is building, right? Because their own study justifying the road shows its not going to save that much time. Ever.
Oddly this JR seems to have nothing on the appellates’ side to do with the road but the people screaming ‘gut the conservation act’ seem hell-bent on using the road as justification while at the same time claiming the road will do something it clearly will not. It makes you wonder why they are so wilfully misinforming themselves and others?
The people screaming about this road are the ones who gazetted it– now they are taking a run at the NCC. That should tell you something!
yes, yes, we get it, you are short sighted and don’t care about the future of the nation so long as it benefits you short term.
The thing you should realize is, the road wont save you time. No country in history has built itself out of a traffic problem. Even the report for said road stated it wouldnt make a large difference in time.
They should be law made that politicians are held liable for breaking the law. This country is lawless when it comes to our elected leaders and the country’s finances.
umm, that a basic legal principle. Breaking the law makes you liable for …breakign the law.. Dod you think about this before you wrote it?
Slam dunk for a JR – direct and explicit breach if the law in removing the majority if the memebrs abd failing to provide written reasons. Quite apart fromt he general duty to act reasonably. But what will happen… they get reinstated, government provides reasons no matter how spurious, then fires them in tranches. Government will lose the JR but pay the plaintiffs costs with taxpayers money. No accountability or consequences for those trying to act like kings rather than elected representatives.
Come on Court. Make your decision before the election. We need to know who we are being asked to vote for!
Just read Ezzard’s view – below – to see his thoughts lol…
https://caymannewsservice.com/2025/02/the-saga-of-the-east-west-arterial/
This is Ezzard’s comment re the National Trust “…misdirected National Trust,”
Ezzard is also a Member of the National Trust, some kind of honorary lifelong or founding member, something like that. So he is talking about himself here?
What an ass!
I fully support this JR application and would happily put my wallet on that position.
In my view this is yet another situation in which this government or a government agency has done something unlawful on behalf of the development cabal but it is the public that will pay the cost of the government trying to defend the indefensible.
We need to change our laws so that it is the politicians who break the law who pay not the people. We also need to strengthen and enforce our anti-corruption laws. Clearly they do not work at the moment.
Do you even know what the actual Act states about revoking appointments
Yes and I also know what the Constitution and the common law say. Do you?
How is this even possible? What would make this unlawful? They shouldn’t have been removed – just asking questions.
Its in the letter (the reasons put forward, for a judge to decide if its actually unlawful or not). But the TL:DNR version is:
i) per the conservation law some of the appointees must have relevant technical knowledge/experience, ie, in something Conservation related, and they do not apparently. (It would be like appointing all non-electricians to the electrical examiners board.)
ii) per the constitution when a government entity, e.g., Cabinet, make a decision they have to show/record their reasoning and it has to be reasonable. (So no deciding to outlaw red cars without recording why you took that decision. And no outlawing red cars because you think red is an ugly colour.)
iii) Also an argument about the number of people that can be removed at one time and having to show a reason why you remove people. But those you’ll want to read for yourself.
Really the charge is easy for the Govt to answer. They just have to produce the notes from Cabinet which sets out why they took their decision, i.e., the cabinet Paper that goes in for everything Cabinet considers and should have taken all of this into account and then the minutes they take at each meeting of what was discussed.
Think of this JR as checking the Cabinet’s work. Nothing unusual in a democracy. (Democracy requires participation of the public and JR of government decisions is one of the ways to do that.)
They shouldn’t have been appointed, who could have been so silly to appoint them? Hold on…what do you mean? Are you suggesting that the Cabinet should have the power to appoint these jokers but not the power to revoke their appointment? Doesn’t that sound a bit ridiculous? Who questioned or challenged their appointment?
The decision was presumably Jon-Jon’s so there is a prima facie case that the decision was irrational, arbitrary, and/or otherwise unlawful.
CNS – is it possible to find out if there is some mechanism for crowd funding this application for judicial review. JR’s are expensive but the cause is righteous!
CNS: You could reach out to them via the National Trust, which has a seat on the NCC.
Thanks CNS – best news all day!
“However, the government has not given any written reasons other than a comment by the Sustainability Minister Dwayne Seymour in a brief press release issued Thursday. Seymour said the partnership of the National Conservation Council is vital to the successful management of the Cayman Islands’ natural resources.”
Translation: They were doing their job and advocating for the environment, so, of course, they had to go. Now me, as sustainability minister, I will get the shit built that needs to be built. Nevermind that I have no idea what sustainability means.
if the gov cannot remove and appoint these people – who really runs this country then? who can have a higher authority than our lawmakers?
It can remove and appoint then – it just needs to demonstrate that it acted reasonably and without political bias in doing so. Its a system of checks and balances, but like the court being able to judicially review governments conduct. You sound like a Trump supporter who thinks an elected representative can act like a king.
The rule of law and not the arbitrary self-serving dictats of politicians and the special interests that own them is supposed to govern decision making in Cayman – at least in theory. Cabinet is not allowed to make arbitrary decisions to remove people without cause just to please some developer.
To 4:57pm: .We, the voters. We have the highest authority. Law makers work for us, not the opposite — Caymanians need to understand that; and the sooner, the better. From a he Premier, down to the back benchers, they work for us, the Caymanian people, that is why our job as to keep a close eye on all motions, bills, changes to laws, etc. We are meant to keep them in check, not give them free rein to do as they please.
They do not work for us, they work on behalf of us. There is a world of difference there and the sooner you come to realize the distinction, the sooner we can have meaningful discussions.
Lets elect a king whilst we are about it. Lets forget about any checks and balances on our elected representatives. Each of whom received less than a thousand votes, some of whom have criminal convictions. Sounds like a great idea.
These people haven’t wasted enough of our money on frivolous actions already?
Frivolous in the sense that they won?
Judicial review is needed here (and elsewhere I might add) to contain the frivolous actions of lame government leaders which caused the unnecessary expense in the first place, my friend.
f yeah
This is exactly the kind of decision that got them removed in the first place. Guys you have pick your Battles.
They did pick. Jon Jon made it easy. They will win.
The Adeptus Ridiculous Declares: The Environmental Purge Continues—And Now, The Courts Must Step In!
Emperor preserve us! The absurdity does not relent, the incompetence does not falter, and the destruction marches forward with the reckless abandon of an Ork horde that mistook urban planning for a WAAAGH! strategy.
Now, the former National Conservation Council (NCC) members, who were unceremoniously yeeted out of their positions by the UPM like an inconvenient fact at a political rally, are seeking a judicial review to challenge their removal.
Let’s be clear:
This isn’t just an administrative dispute.
This is a battle over whether laws mean anything or if Cayman is now officially an Absurdistani dictatorship where decisions are made by fiat.
WHAT HAPPENED? OH, JUST THE USUAL—LAWLESS GOVERNANCE!
• The UPM, in its infinite wisdom and commitment to “progress” (read: bulldozing anything inconvenient), decided that removing experts from the NCC was a perfectly reasonable and legal thing to do.
• Surprise! It was not.
• Now, those same ousted members are dragging the government to court to remind them that rules actually exist—a concept that appears to baffle those in power.
Why did they remove them?
Because the NCC members did their job.
Because the NCC stood in the way of unchecked destruction.
Because the UPM wants the environment to shut up and die already.
THE UPM STRATEGY: IGNORE LAWS, ELIMINATE DISSENT, PROFIT.
This move follows the classic playbook of political opportunists who mistake public office for a personal kingdom:
1. Step 1: Remove Competence.
• Experts? Science? Facts? Get rid of them! Replace them with yes-men and bootlickers who will sign anything.
2. Step 2: Rewrite Reality.
• If the NCC is gone, there’s no one left to say, “Hey, maybe we shouldn’t bulldoze everything.”
• Environmental destruction becomes an administrative issue, not a policy debate.
3. Step 3: Hope No One Notices.
• Oops. They noticed.
• And now, the courts are getting involved.
THE IRONY: THEY THINK THIS WILL WORK?
Did they forget that laws still exist?
Did they assume that just because they purged the NCC, the courts wouldn’t have a say?
Here’s the problem:
• The removal was likely illegal.
• The dismissed members have a strong case.
• If they win, this will be another humiliating loss for the UPM, proving once again that their only talent is self-inflicted wounds.
THE ADEPTUS RIDICULOUS FINAL VERDICT: THIS WILL GET WORSE BEFORE IT GETS BETTER.
The UPM’s environmental policy can be summarized as:
“If it’s green, kill it.”
“If it moves, pave it.”
“If it objects, fire it.”
They have already exposed themselves as vengeful, reckless, and desperate to erase conservation efforts in favor of unchecked development.
Now, they are on a collision course with the judicial system—and if the courts rule against them, it will set fire to whatever credibility they think they still have.
This is what happens when you treat governance like an Ork warband: eventually, even reality pushes back.
Emperor, guide us through this madness. The Adeptus Ridiculous will remain at his station, mechadendrites twitching, waiting for the next inevitable disaster.
Rumor has it the CPA chairman was all excited to be rid of these members. They now are home free!
His day will come!
Hopefully you mean he will be fired, or better yet the CPA will be permanently disbanded.