The controversy surrounding the proposed appointment of Bevis Sylvester as Chairman of the BVI Health Services Authority Board is becoming less about whether he can legally serve and more about whether Government can demonstrate that it properly applied all of the requirements of the law.
That distinction matters.
The BVI Health Services Authority (Amendment) Act, 2024 changed the statutory framework governing appointments to the Board. The amendment came into force on 31 January 2025.
Under the amended section 5(7)(c), a person is ineligible for appointment if, within the five years immediately preceding the proposed appointment, they served any part of a sentence of imprisonment of at least 12 months, or are under a suspended sentence.
Mr. Sylvester’s publicly reported 2004 sentence was six months. On the face of the new provision, therefore, that sentence does not appear to trigger the five-year imprisonment disqualification.
But that is only one part of the law as quoted by Guavaberry Media in the first instance.
Not disqualified does not automatically mean fit and proper
The same 2024 amendment introduced a statutory fit-and-proper requirement.
Among the criteria is that a prospective Board member “is a person of integrity.” The legislation also requires consideration of experience, performance, understanding of Board responsibilities, accountability and strategic capacity.
Board members must also observe the Code of Conduct under the Integrity in Public Life Act.
So there are two distinct questions:
First: Is Mr. Sylvester automatically disqualified under the five-year imprisonment provision?
Based on the publicly reported six-month sentence from 2004, apparently not.
Second: Did the authorities determine, through the statutory process, that he is fit and proper and a person of integrity to serve on the BVIHSA Board?
That is a different question.
And expungement does not, by itself, tell the public what assessment was made under the BVIHSA Act.
What did Government actually consider?
That is where the transparency issue begins.
Did Cabinet consider the conviction and the circumstances surrounding it?
Did it review the relevant court records?
Did it consider the legal effect of the alleged expungement?
Did it expressly apply the new fit-and-proper test?
Did it consider the statutory requirement that a Board member be a person of integrity?
And what due diligence was undertaken before the appointment was recommended?
Those are reasonable questions, particularly because the 2024 amendment was itself intended to strengthen governance of the BVIHSA.
Then there is the Delta question
Mr. Sylvester was for many years Regional General Manager of Delta Petroleum and was a prominent representative of the company in the Territory and elsewhere. His career with Delta is well documented.
But there is another part of his employment history that deserves clarification.
It has been alleged that Mr. Sylvester was fired or otherwise forced out of Delta.
The circumstances surrounding his departure appear to be remarkably quiet publicly, and Guavaberry Media has not found a source willing to go on record to say that he was fired or explain the circumstances of his abrupt departure from Delta.
There are also unconfirmed accounts suggesting that his departure may have been connected, at least in part, to issues surrounding a Delta/BVIEC transaction, as well as matters examined during the Commission of Inquiry.
We have not independently verified those allegations, and we are not presenting them as established fact.
That is precisely why the circumstances deserve clarification.
If the allegation exists, and Government is assessing whether someone meets a statutory requirement to be a “person of integrity,” it is entirely reasonable to ask whether the circumstances of his departure from a major private-sector employer were considered as part of the due-diligence process.
If there is nothing to the allegation, then that should be easy enough to clarify.
The real Bevis question
This should therefore not be reduced to:
“He has a conviction, so he cannot serve.”
That would oversimplify the law.
Nor should it be reduced to:
“His conviction was expunged, so there is no issue.”
That also does not answer the statutory question.
The real question is:
Did Government properly apply every part of the amended BVIHSA Act before determining that Bevis Sylvester was fit and proper to become Chairman of the Board?
If the answer is yes, the public deserves to know that the process was followed.
Tell us what was considered.
Tell us what due diligence was undertaken.
Tell us how the fit-and-proper and integrity requirements were satisfied.
Because “not legally disqualified” and “demonstrably fit and proper” are not the same thing.
And when public money, public health and public trust are involved, the public should not have to fill in the blanks.
Show us the process.