ROAD TOWN, Tortola, British Virgin Islands — With the next General Election still ahead, questions are already being raised about the line between Government employment, political campaigning and the use of public resources.
The questions have been prompted in part by the appointment of former House of Assembly Speaker Julian Willock as a Ministerial Special Adviser II to Premier Dr. Natalio Wheatley.
The Government has confirmed that Willock is among the Premier’s ministerial staff. The Government’s published Ministerial Staff Policy currently lists him as a Ministerial Special Adviser II assigned to the Premier.
Willock has also publicly indicated that he intends to seek the Virgin Islands Party’s nomination to contest the Third District at the next General Election.
That combination has generated a simple question from members of the public:
Can someone be a publicly funded political adviser to the Premier while actively preparing to become a candidate for elected office?
The answer, according to the Government’s own policy, is yes—but with conditions.
And those conditions are worth examining.
The Government’s policy actually addresses this situation
The Ministerial Staff Policy, dated April 2026, establishes a framework for people appointed as ministerial staff under section 7 of the Public Service Management Act 2024.
Unlike ordinary public officers, ministerial staff are expressly political appointees. The policy states that Special Advisers provide political, strategic and policy advice and bring insight into the political, social and electoral priorities of the Government.
The policy also makes clear that ministerial staff are different from politically neutral public officers.
That distinction is important.
The Government’s own policy therefore does not say that a Ministerial Special Adviser must remain politically neutral.
Quite the opposite.
But the policy does establish boundaries.
What happens when a Special Adviser wants to run for office?
This is where the language becomes particularly relevant.
Section 6 of the Code of Conduct for Ministerial Staff is headed:
“Standing for Electoral Office.”
It provides that, with the approval of the Minister and the Premier, a ministerial staff member may be publicly identified as a candidate or prospective candidate for the House of Assembly.
But there are conditions.
The policy says that the staff member’s electoral activities must be undertaken in his or her own time and outside office hours, or the individual can work part-time for Government with a corresponding reduction in Government salary.
And there is a hard deadline.
A ministerial staff member standing as a candidate in a General Election must resign from the ministerial staff position before Nomination Day.
Until then, the policy expressly permits the person to remain in the post during the General Election campaign, subject to the conditions governing political activity and the use of Government resources.
That is a significant distinction from the claim that someone working for Government must simply “quit immediately” upon beginning political activity.
The policy does not say that.
But there is another line—and this one matters
The Code of Conduct also states that if a ministerial staff member’s decision to stand for elected office or political alignment creates a conflict of interest or loss of confidence, that can be grounds for terminating the appointment.
That raises a legitimate public-interest question in the present circumstances.
Willock is not simply a member of ministerial staff.
According to the Government’s published role profile, a Ministerial Special Adviser provides political and strategic advice, conducts research from a party-political viewpoint, monitors political interest in the community and participates in political reviews.
The role is therefore inherently political.
But the same individual is now publicly associated with a potential candidacy for the governing party.
That does not automatically establish a conflict.
It does, however, make the Government’s conflict-of-interest safeguards particularly relevant.
What safeguards are supposed to exist?
The policy requires ministerial staff to declare their interests and disclose actual or potential conflicts.
Those disclosures are to be provided to the Minister and copied to the relevant Permanent Secretary, the Permanent Secretary in the Premier’s Office and the Premier.
The policy also says ministerial staff must not use their official position or information obtained through their duties to further private interests or the interests of others.
They must not use Government resources—including Government email accounts, offices or staff support—for party-political purposes.
The Code goes further.
Government-issued laptops, phones, office space and transportation are to be used exclusively for official duties and may not be used for political party work.
That distinction is critical.
A ministerial adviser may be political.
Government resources cannot be.
So what should the public be asking?
The question should therefore not be:
“Is Julian Willock allowed to be political while working for Government?”
The Government’s policy answers that question.
Yes—with restrictions.
The more appropriate questions are:
Has the required approval been given by both the Minister and the Premier for Willock to be publicly identified as a prospective candidate?
Has he declared his political interest and potential candidacy as required under the conflict-of-interest provisions?
What measures, if any, have been put in place to manage any actual or perceived conflict?
Is any campaigning being conducted exclusively outside his Government duties and without Government resources?
And perhaps most importantly:
At what point will Government determine that the political candidacy creates a conflict of interest or loss of confidence sufficient to terminate the appointment?
Those are legitimate questions because the Government’s own policy contemplates them.
And then there is the Constitution
A separate issue concerns section 66(1)(f) of the Virgin Islands Constitution Order 2007.
That provision concerns persons who are parties to contracts with the Government of the Virgin Islands for or on account of the public service, as well as partners, directors or managers of entities holding such contracts.
It is important not to misstate what the provision does.
It does not simply say that every person receiving Government money is automatically disqualified from seeking elected office.
The constitutional provisions contain requirements concerning Government contracts and disclosure.
And there is an important reason for looking closely at this provision.
The Commission of Inquiry itself said it needed clarification.
The 2022 Commission of Inquiry, headed by Sir Gary Hickinbottom, specifically recommended that sections 66 and 67 of the Constitution be amended to clarify the circumstances in which a person seeking election—or a sitting Member of the House of Assembly—who personally or through a business has a Government contract must declare that interest, how the declaration should be made and the consequences of failing to do so.
The Commission also recommended clarification of whether statutory bodies fall within the meaning of the “Government of the Virgin Islands” for these purposes.
The Commission’s detailed report went further, explaining that section 66(1)(f) is intended to ensure that the electorate has full details of Government contracts held by candidates.
That recommendation is particularly relevant in a Territory where public concern about conflicts of interest, Government contracts and political power has been heightened by the findings of the Commission itself.
The bigger issue is consistency
There is nothing inherently improper about a political adviser wanting to run for elected office.
Nor is there anything inherently improper about Government employing a qualified person as a political adviser.
In fact, the Government’s new policy expressly contemplates ministerial staff engaging in political activity and even standing for elected office.
But the existence of a rule does not eliminate the public’s right to ask whether it is being applied properly.
The Government has said that the Ministerial Staff Policy was developed to strengthen good governance, accountability, transparency and professionalism.
In April 2026, Cabinet approved further amendments to the policy specifically to address identified “gaps, ambiguities, and practical challenges.”
That makes transparency even more important.
If the Government has created a framework allowing a publicly funded political adviser to remain in office while preparing to contest an election, the public should be able to understand exactly how that framework works.
There should be no mystery about where the Government role ends and the campaign begins.
There should be no Government resources supporting partisan activity.
There should be no use of privileged Government information for political advantage.
And there should be no question about whether conflicts of interest are being disclosed and properly managed.
The question isn’t whether there is a rule.
There is.
The question is whether the rule is being followed—and whether the public can see that it is being followed.
The Government has placed the framework in writing.
It says political activity by ministerial staff is permitted.
It says prospective candidacy requires approval from the Minister and Premier.
It says campaign activity must be conducted in the individual’s own time.
It says Government resources cannot be used.
It says conflicts must be disclosed.
And it says that a ministerial staff member who actually stands as a candidate must resign before Nomination Day.
Those are the rules.
The public now has every right to ask whether they are being applied in this case—and whether they will be applied in exactly the same way to every other publicly funded ministerial staff member who decides to enter the political arena.
Because in a democracy, the issue is not simply whether something is legal.
It is also whether the public can have confidence that the rules are being applied fairly, transparently and without favour.