The people of St. Lucia and the St. Lucia National Trust have seemingly scored a major victory against the Government of St. Lucia in an “out of court” settlement over the Queen's Chain. Even before the Court has ruled, government has passed judgemnet against its own decision to sell the queen’s chain.
News reaching the Choiseul PowerHouse indicate the Cabinet of Ministers were in a state of complete disarray on Thursday evening as they awkwardly capitulated to the wishes of St. Lucians in the matter of the sale of the the Queens Chain to a foreigner. Sources close to the Cabinet reported that as two warring factions of government locked heads over the matter, it was a sad day for the Minister of Tourism and his sidekick, the AG.
There were even sketchy reports of other ministers questioning the quality of advice and the subsequent pronouncements made by the AG on the matter.
The Cabinet conclusion resolved to “shelve the sale” of the queen’s chain indefinitely and to proceed with the 99-year lease.
They say “half a loaf is better than no bread”; but the question is: will St. Lucians be satisfied with that half loaf and a lease for 99-years?
There is no doubt that this government is irretrievably in a state of disarray and that has brought inordinate embarrassment to the country. With the arrival of the new AG, the nation waited with baited breath for a truce from the never-ending decrement; only to fall into deeper waters; although matching Chastanet in loquacity, the AG is just as incompetent . . . and even more incompetent than his predecessor, Dr Fredericks.
St. Lucia is going through a "quinquinnium" of unending curse. The big question now is: what is next?
"A 99 year lease is tantamount to a sale. The company can take that lease to any financial institution and raise funds, using that piece of property as security. The sad thing is that SLP cannot make noise because a lease is a lease is a lease.
ReplyDeleteThe impact of a lease is the same as a sale: restricted access. The government did not surrender. The government simply told the developer that I am giving you the land to do whatever you want to do and the government is telling the people: we did not sell it. The emphasis of the debate should have been on access. And with access, the government would not have been able to lease/sell."