Opposition leader Ralph Gonsalves expressed deep skepticism regarding the proposed amendments to the Companies Act, particularly provisions intended to reduce penalties and provided a detailed response to the legislative agenda announced by Attorney General Louise Mitchell.
He frames his analysis by distinguishing between small local entities and wealthy external companies, suggesting the legislation may be “self-serving” for delinquent lawyers rather than beneficial to the public treasury.
Gonsalves broke down the entities affecting the registry into two distinct categories to illustrate why a blanket reduction in penalties is problematic:
Domestic and Non-Profit Companies: He acknowledges that many small, “one-man operations” fail to file annual returns because they were advised to incorporate but not informed of the ongoing filing requirements. Similarly, non-profit or religious organizations often fail to file. However, Gonsalves notes that under existing law, the Cabinet already possesses the discretion to grant waivers to these non-profits, implying that new legislation is not strictly necessary to help them.
External Companies (The “Big Money Issue”): His primary concern lies with “external companies” that are registered elsewhere but own property in St. Vincent. He recalls legislation from 2001 that required these companies to register their property interests and pay a fee. He further stated that these entities, some of whom own private jets and burn fuel worth more than the fees in question, should not be subsidized by the state through penalty reductions.
The Role of “Delinquent Lawyers” Gonsalves posits that the push for these amendments may be driven by lawyers trying to avoid liability for their own negligence.
He explains that external companies typically pay lawyers to handle their filings. When lawyers fail to do so, penalties accrue. The companies, upon realizing they owe penalties, are likely demanding that their lawyers reimburse them. Consequently, Gonsalves suggests the amendments might be a way to bail out a “small group of lawyers” who face financial liability for failing their clients. He explicitly warns against passing “self-serving legislation for some delinquent lawyers and for companies which given their size should be following the law”.
Gonsalves demands transparency regarding the “extent of this sum” owed in penalties, suggesting it runs into the “millions of dollars”, He raises specific questions for the government to answer:
Will the legislation be retroactive?
Is the government planning to simply strengthen the Cabinet’s hand to give relief or offer a blanket reduction?
He argues that the state should be collecting these penalties rather than waiving them for wealthy entities.
Gonsalves questioned the process regarding companies that have been “struck off the register” by the registrar (Mrs. Caesar Tony) for non-submission or non-payment. He wants to know if the amendments will create a process for “automatic return” for these entities.
Gonsalves he and his “alternative cabinet” will monitor this legislation closely.
| Proposed Reform | Opposition Position |
|---|---|
| Legal Professional Bill | Supported; viewed as a continuation of previous work to improve regulation and transparency in the profession. |
| Jury Fee Increase | Noted as a minor adjustment (from $10 to $20), cynically termed the “double bubble.” |
| Family Court Division | Supported as a natural administrative expansion of the High Court. |
| Companies Act Amendments | Critical Concern: Warnings issued against reducing penalties for external companies or lawyers who failed to file annual returns. |
| Land Registry Digitization | Supported as a continuation of a World Bank-financed program. |
| Halls of Justice | Supported; noted that designs and land acquisition were already in place. |