1.6 Million Dollar Bridge Loan
Yesterday's Straight Talk discussion was Standards in Public Life Law,
Yesterday on our Straight Talk talk show, we had an important and timely discussion about the Standards in Public Life Law, the role of the Standards in Public Life Committee (SPLC), and how these frameworks are supposed to uphold transparency and integrity in our political system.
One of the key issues we discussed was the responsibility of the SPLC to maintain the Register of Interests, a crucial tool designed to ensure that Members of Parliament (MPs), senior civil servants, and board members declare their assets, liabilities, and other relevant financial interests. This is not just a formality, it is enshrined in law and backed by penalties for non-compliance.
A particularly troubling case raised during the program was the reported $1.6 million personal loan from the then Premier, Wayne Panton, to his fellow Cabinet colleague and Minister of Health at the time, Sabrina Turner. Regardless of whether this transaction was innocent or carried no ulterior motive, it raises serious concerns of perception, ethics, and legality. Simply put, it does not look good.
At that time, the Premier was actively trying to hold his government together, and a personal loan of that magnitude to a fellow Minister creates the appearance of influence or undue obligation. Even if no wrongdoing occurred, the optics are troubling, and in governance, perception matters just as much as action.
The SPLC conducted an investigation and reportedly concluded there was no breach. But how such a conclusion was reached, especially when one party declared the loan in the Register of Interests and the other did not, is baffling. This very discrepancy highlights a breach of duty.
According to the Cayman Islands Constitution Order 2009, Section 121(2–3), and the Standards in Public Life Act 2014 (as amended), public officials are required to declare all "interests, assets, income and liabilities" annually, and upon assuming office. Failure to do so is an offence.
Section 13(1–2) of the Standards in Public Life Act states that the SPLC must maintain the Register and ensure it reflects all declarations as per the Constitution.
Section 16(1)(a–b) says that anyone who fails to furnish a declaration, or knowingly provides a false one, commits an offence punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment or a CI$10,000 fine.
The official guidance issued by the SPLC also makes it clear that loans must be declared, unless they come from a regulated financial institution like a bank.
In this case, since the loan was from an individual, and not from a licensed financial entity, it should have been declared by both parties. That only one person did so raises significant concerns.
Furthermore, this situation raises even broader questions. For example, if this case is allowed to stand without consequence, does it open the door for anyone, whether an MP or even a private company, is allowed to loan millions of dollars to a sitting Member of Parliament? Does disclosure alone make it acceptable?
We also raised another critical issue on the show: whether Wayne Panton, as the lender of such a significant amount, was legally permitted to lend money without a license. The Monetary Authority Law requires a license for lending as a business, and while some say this transaction may not qualify as such, it's important to recall that back in 2015, Judge Angelyn Hernandez sentenced a man to three months’ imprisonment for lending between just $400 and $1,000 without a license. So if that was the standard in that case, it certainly warrants deeper review in this much larger matter.
The role of the SPLC is not just to maintain a register. It is to uphold the integrity of public life. That includes addressing perceived conflicts of interest and ensuring equal accountability regardless of title or political affiliation.
When such questionable actions occur at the highest levels of government, they undermine the credibility of the entire system. Caymanians have a right to transparency. We must demand it. I propose that a Freedom of Information (FOI) request be submitted to review the full details of this investigation. Only after a thorough FOI process can we determine what was done, and perhaps more importantly, what was not done.
This is about protecting the standards of our democracy. It’s about ensuring that what applies to the ordinary citizen also applies to those who hold the highest office. We owe that much to ourselves, and to the generations to come.
