There is a question the Government of the Virgin Islands should answer before the House of Assembly is asked to approve Bevis Sylvester as Chairman of the BVI Health Services Authority Board:
Does the law permit his appointment?
This is not a question about whether a person who has made mistakes in the past deserves a second chance.
It is not even primarily a question about politics.
It is a question about what the law says.
Cabinet has approved the appointment of Mr. Sylvester as a member and Chairman of the BVI Health Services Authority Board for a three-year term, from September 7, 2026 to September 6, 2029. His appointment as Chairman now goes to the House of Assembly for approval.
But there is a provision in the BVI Health Services Authority Act, 2004 that deserves public attention before that approval is given.
Section 5(6) requires the approving authority to ensure that Board appointees are “fit and proper.”
Then section 5(7) goes further.
It says a person “is disqualified for appointment as a member of the Board” if that person:
“has been convicted of an indictable offence or any offence involving dishonesty.”
That is not ambiguous language about whether a conviction is desirable.
It says disqualified.
And the issue becomes particularly relevant in Mr. Sylvester’s case because his conviction is not a rumour or political allegation.
According to contemporaneous reporting, Mr. Sylvester pleaded guilty and was sentenced in 2004 to six months’ imprisonment after being convicted of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception and neglect of duty in connection with a government telecommunications contract for the development of the Terrance B. Lettsome International Airport. The conviction was also discussed publicly during the Commission of Inquiry.
That brings us directly back to the wording of the HSA Act.
“Any offence involving dishonesty.”
WObtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception is, at the very least, an offence that raises an obvious question about whether section 5(7)(c) applies.
And that is why this matter should not simply be brushed aside as something that happened 22 years ago.
If Parliament intended the disqualification to expire after a certain number of years, the Act could have said so.
It doesn’t appear to.
There is another important provision.
Schedule 1 of the HSA Act provides that the Minister, with Executive Council approval, may remove a Board member if satisfied that the member “is or becomes disqualified” under section 5(7).
So the legislation itself contemplates disqualification as something that can have consequences for a person’s continued membership of the Board.
This raises some very straightforward questions.
Was Mr. Sylvester’s conviction considered when Cabinet considered his appointment?
Was legal advice obtained on whether his 2004 conviction falls within section 5(7)(c)?
If legal advice concluded that it does not, what is the legal basis for that conclusion?
And perhaps most importantly:
On what basis has the Government determined that Mr. Sylvester is eligible to be appointed to the BVIHSA Board in light of the express statutory disqualification?
These are reasonable questions.
They should not be interpreted as a demand that someone be permanently defined by a conviction.
People can change. People can rehabilitate themselves. People can make meaningful contributions to society after serving their sentences.
But when we are dealing with a statutory board, the question is not simply whether society should give someone another chance.
The question is whether the Legislature has already established a legal threshold for membership of that particular board.
And the BVIHSA Board is not some ceremonial committee.
Under the Act, the Board is responsible for the strategic direction of the Territory’s hospital and community health services, the management of hospital operations, policies affecting healthcare delivery, staff discipline and recruitment, finances, contracts, quality assurance and other matters affecting the public healthcare system.
Its members also sit on committees including the Finance Committee and Ethics Committee.
That makes the statutory requirement for Board members to be fit and proper especially important.
There is also a public-interest issue here.
If the Government has concluded that Mr. Sylvester is legally eligible, the public should not have to guess why.
Explain it.
If there is legal advice supporting the appointment, tell the public the relevant legal reasoning.
If there is an interpretation of section 5(7)(c) that means a 2004 conviction of this nature does not create a present disqualification, explain that interpretation.
And if the Government has discovered that there is a statutory obstacle, deal with it before the House is asked to approve the Chairmanship.
This is not about denying anyone redemption.
It is about respecting the law.
The Government cannot ask citizens to obey legislation while treating statutory requirements for public appointments as optional.
The House of Assembly now has an opportunity to ask the necessary questions before giving its approval.
Because when legislation says someone “is disqualified,” the first responsibility of government should be to determine exactly what those words mean — and to demonstrate publicly that the appointment complies with them.
**Every public appointment should withstand public scrutiny.
Especially when the law itself demands it.**