In recent weeks, a debate has flared across partisan lines in Saint Lucia following contrasting interpretations by two civil servants turned political candidates. Elisha Norbert, the United Workers Party (UWP) candidate for Micoud North, and Danny Butcher, newly announced Saint Lucia Labour Party (SLP) candidate for Vieux Fort South, have offered opposing views on the legality of their political involvement while serving in the public sector.
Norbert maintains that he is not legally required to resign from his teaching post in the Ministry of Education, arguing that the Staff Orders contradict his constitutional rights to freedom of expression and association. He further contends that the Constitution does not explicitly bar civil servants from political participation. Beyond these claims, Norbert offers a “technical” reading of the legislation, asserting that since he is not yet a “candidate” as defined by law, he is not obligated to resign.
Butcher, by contrast, has resigned, citing full compliance with the Public Service Staff Orders, which require resignation upon acceptance of candidacy for elective office.
While the debate has largely followed partisan lines, it also reveals a missed opportunity for political commentators, civil servants and officials to critically examine the Staff Orders themselves. Rather than accepting the status quo, there is room for a democratic test of these regulations as well as a deeper discussion of how the Orders, the law, and the Constitution are interpreted and applied.
Before diving into that analysis, it’s important to understand the rationale behind the Staff Orders.
The Purpose of the Staff Orders
The Staff Orders, like the Public Service Commissions (PSC), were designed to shield public servants in newly independent states from political interference. As Francis Alexis notes of the PSC, it is “an autonomous body which regulates its own affairs and is intended to safeguard public officials from abuse from the political directorate, in relation to their hiring, disciplining, and firing.”
The PSC aims to protect civil servants from discrimination in appointments, promotions, transfers and disciplinary actions; to ensure fair treatment based on merit; and to prevent patronage, nepotism, and favouritism. Mills offers further insight into these protections.
However, the Prime Minister’s power to appoint PSC members – after mere “consultation” with the Leader of the Opposition, as outlined in Section 85 of the Constitution – has led many to question the Commission’s true independence. In the Caribbean’s political culture, appointees are often perceived as beholden to those who selected them.
As the saying goes, the one who pays the piper calls the tune.
This perception of bias and partiality, exacerbated by the region’s small size and close political networks, suggests that the law often bends to political will.
Saint Lucia’s Public Service Staff Orders
The Public Service Staff Orders serve as another layer of insulation, this time aimed at protecting the public from politically active civil servants. Their goal is to preserve impartiality in public service while balancing civil servants’ constitutional rights to expression, assembly and association.
Section 1.7 of Saint Lucia’s Staff Orders prohibits certain political activities unless the officer resigns, as outlined in Chapter IV. These include:
- Publishing books or articles of a political or administrative nature, especially if related to one’s work, without prior consent from the Secretary to the Cabinet.
- Organising or speaking at public meetings that critique government actions.
- Actively participating in any political organisation.
- Engaging in public or political controversies, including criticism of government policies or ministries.
- Writing to the press, publishing articles, distributing pamphlets, or appearing on radio/TV to discuss political matters.
- Publicly canvassing or expressing support for any political party or candidate.
Why Norbert’s Position Is Legally Unsound, and Butcher’s Is Not
Norbert’s current stance breaches the Staff Orders and could result in disciplinary action, including dismissal. His distinction between “endorsed candidate” and “candidate” is legally irrelevant. He argues that resignation is only required once the writ for general elections is issued by the Governor General, when candidacy is formally recognised.
However, the law does not hinge on candidacy in determining when a public servant must resign. Norbert has already violated the Orders by engaging in activities listed under points (3), (4), and (6), regardless of his interpretation of “candidate”.
His claim that his constitutional rights have been infringed also falls short. Fundamental rights in Saint Lucia are not absolute. Sections 10(2)(c) and 11(2)(c) of the Constitution allow for restrictions on expression, association, and assembly, particularly when laws governing public officers are deemed necessary for the proper performance of their duties. The Staff Orders fall within this scope.
Unless a court rules that these laws are not reasonably required, which it has done in the past and could again, they remain enforceable. If Norbert believes the law is unjust, the appropriate response is not defiance but legal challenge, potentially with an interim injunction to retain his post.
This debate is not about what the law should be, but what it currently is. Under existing rules, Norbert’s position is untenable unless overturned by a competent court, such as the High Court.
Whether the Teaching Service Commission should pursue disciplinary action is a separate matter, fraught with political implications and precedent.
Butcher, by contrast, has acted in accordance with the Staff Orders, which clearly require resignation upon political engagement.
The Law as It Should Be: Repealing the Staff Orders
Where Norbert and other commentators are correct is in pointing out that countries such as Antigua and Barbuda, Britain, St Kitts, Barbados, Montserrat and St Vincent and the Grenadines have moved beyond the rigidity of public service Staff Orders. Courts and political officials in these jurisdictions have recognised that such regulations can be arbitrary, unreasonable, undemocratic, and in conflict with constitutional rights and freedoms.
While the original intent of these limitations was to ensure the proper performance of public servants, courts have found that blanket prohibitions, applied without regard to job function or rank, are unconstitutional. By treating all civil servants alike, regardless of their proximity to policymaking, the Orders disproportionately restrict freedoms.
The recurring theme in these rulings is that key provisions of the Orders violate constitutional protections: freedom of conscience, expression, assembly, association, and access to justice. For example, prohibiting public servants from sharing political opinions or information directly infringes on freedom of expression, which guarantees the right to critique institutions and share ideas. Even though the Orders do not explicitly ban party membership, they may still violate freedom of association and assembly by limiting meaningful participation in political life.
What’s needed is a tiered approach. The closer a public servant is to decision-making authority or policy influence, the greater the need for impartiality and reduced partisan involvement. This would ensure, for instance, that a Permanent Secretary does not use privileged information to campaign or undermine opponents. At the same time, it would allow lower-level civil servants, like Norbert and Butcher, to engage in politics without compromising the integrity of the public service.
Such reform would help build the critical mass needed for political development. By allowing civil servants at certain levels to participate in the political process, as is done in the UK, we tap into a reservoir of talent and experience that can enrich party platforms and public discourse.
Yet this raises a conundrum. Political parties require ongoing development, which depends in part on retaining high-level talent within the public service. If these individuals are barred from political engagement due to their rank, parties may struggle to evolve and attract capable leadership.
This is the law as it should be.
Rahym R. Augustin-Joseph, 24, is pursuing a Bachelor of Laws at UWI Cave Hill, after earning first-class honours in political science and law. The current Commonwealth Caribbean Rhodes Scholar and a former UWI valedictorian, he is dedicated to using law and politics to transform Saint Lucia and the wider Caribbean.
