ROAD TOWN, Tortola, British Virgin Islands — The Governor’s Office has introduced Clare Jenkins to the public as a UK-funded adviser helping to strengthen the Royal Virgin Islands Police Force (RVIPF). Her professional background is substantial, and the work outlined in the announcement touches on several important areas of policing.
But behind the public relations presentation are questions that deserve clear answers.
Was Jenkins responsible for initiating some of the improvements being highlighted, or was she brought in to advance projects already developed by the RVIPF? Is the public being given a complete picture of the work that preceded her arrival? And, with the substantive Commissioner of Police position now being advertised, is her appointment as an adviser entirely separate from the search for the Force’s next leader?
These are legitimate questions about accountability, institutional continuity and public transparency. They should not be dismissed as mere speculation.
WHO DESERVES CREDIT FOR THE RADIO SYSTEM?
In its announcement, the Governor’s Office highlighted Jenkins’ involvement in improving the operational capabilities of the RVIPF, including the introduction of a new radio communications system.
The statement attributed the following remarks to Jenkins:
“An effective communications system is vital for officer safety, particularly in the Sister Islands, and will help officers respond more quickly when people need them.”
Nobody should dispute the importance of reliable communications equipment. Police officers working in Anegada and the other Sister Islands must have the tools to communicate effectively, coordinate their responses and protect the communities they serve.
However, Guavaberry Media has learned that the radio communications project was already substantially developed before Jenkins became involved, and that securing funding was reportedly one of the principal outstanding requirements.
GBM understands that the United Kingdom has now stepped forward to provide funding for the project.
If that understanding is accurate, the public deserves a distinction between developing a project, securing the funding to implement it and helping to bring it to completion.
Those are three different contributions.
The question is not whether Jenkins deserves credit for work she has undertaken. It is whether the public presentation accurately reflects the work already completed by the RVIPF and others before her involvement.
If local police leadership and personnel had already advanced the radio project to the point where funding was the major outstanding hurdle, it would be unfair for their contribution to disappear behind a new announcement.
The Territory needs results, but it also deserves an honest account of how those results are achieved.
Transparency requires the complete story, not simply the most convenient version of it.
A RADIO PROJECT THAT DID NOT BEGIN WITH JENKINS
The radio project’s history makes the question of attribution particularly important.
In March 2019, the Government publicly announced an improved VHF radio communications system, with an agreement involving the Governor’s Office, the Recovery and Development Agency and UK funding support. The project was intended to strengthen communications for multiple public agencies, including the RVIPF.
More recently, in February 2026, Governor Daniel Pruce reported that the modernisation of the RVIPF radio system was already well underway, with a UK-funded project manager deployed and radio deliveries expected in the coming months. .
That chronology raises an important question: what precisely is new about the radio project being presented in the latest announcement, and what role did Jenkins play in a programme that had already been publicly discussed and advanced?
An established initiative should not be presented in a way that leaves the impression that it originated with a newly introduced adviser.
The Governor’s Office should clarify the timeline and acknowledge the contributions of those who brought the project to its present stage.
ANOTHER AGENDA AT PLAY? THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE QUESTION
The timing of Jenkins’ public introduction has also prompted questions about the vacant substantive Commissioner of Police position.
Is the Governor simply highlighting the work of a UK-funded policing adviser, or could Jenkins be positioning herself for a more permanent leadership role within the RVIPF?
At this stage, GBM has no verified evidence that Jenkins has applied for the Commissioner’s post, that she has been shortlisted, or that any decision has been made to appoint her. It would therefore be premature to suggest that her advisory appointment is a concealed recruitment exercise.
Nevertheless, the question arises against a background of considerable uncertainty surrounding the Commissioner’s position.
The substantive appointment has been the subject of an extended and publicly contentious process.
In November 2025, the Governor announced that Jacqueline Vanterpool would return to her substantive role as Deputy Commissioner after serving as Acting Commissioner for more than a year. The Governor acknowledged the difficulties associated with having an acting leader for such an extended period. .
In May 2026, Governor Pruce disclosed that he had rejected the Police Service Commission’s recommendation for the next permanent Commissioner and that an entirely new recruitment process would be undertaken. The decision attracted public attention because Vanterpool had emerged as the leading local candidate in the preceding process. .
The post has since been advertised again. The recruitment notice published in September 2026 set out expectations for a Commissioner capable of delivering transformational change, improving operational effectiveness and strengthening public confidence. .
The public is therefore entitled to ask who will ultimately lead the Force, what criteria will determine the successful candidate and when the Territory can expect a permanent appointment.
Against this background, introducing a senior UK policing professional who is already working alongside the Acting Commissioner and senior leadership team is bound to generate questions.
WHAT ABOUT THE ACTING COMMISSIONER’S ABSENCES?
If the Acting Commissioner is away as often as concerns suggest, who is really running the Force — and what exactly is the arrangement for him and Clare Jenkins?
Another matter GBM believes demands greater scrutiny is the reported frequency of the Acting Commissioner’s absences and the arrangements in place when he is away from duty.
GBM understands that during many of these absences, Assistant Commissioner of Police Jacqueline Vanterpool continues to step in as Acting Commissioner. This raises an important question, particularly given the apparent lack of favour the Governor seems to have shown towards her suitability for the substantive position.
If Vanterpool is repeatedly being called upon to maintain continuity of command during the Acting Commissioner’s absences, the public deserves to understand the reasoning behind the current leadership arrangement and the criteria being applied to the appointment.
But there is another dimension.
GBM also understands that Clare Jenkins has been away during some of the same periods as the Acting Commissioner. If these overlapping absences are confirmed, they raise further questions about the practical purpose, availability and effectiveness of the current leadership and advisory arrangements within the Royal Virgin Islands Police Force.
What, precisely, are the respective roles and responsibilities of the Acting Commissioner and Jenkins? How frequently are they both away at the same time? Who assumes responsibility for operational leadership and decision-making during those periods? And what arrangements are in place to ensure that the Force receives the leadership and support it requires?
These are not trivial questions. The Acting Commissioner’s position carries significant responsibility, while any advisory or specialist arrangement brought into the Territory should be capable of demonstrating clear value to the institution and the people it serves.
GBM is not suggesting that an absence, in itself, establishes wrongdoing. Nor are we claiming to have independently verified every reported absence or its circumstances. However, the frequency, duration and potential overlap of these absences are legitimate matters of public interest that warrant clarification.
If the Acting Commissioner is away from the job for extended or frequent periods, and the person brought in to support the Force is also absent during some of those same periods, what is the actual arrangement — and who is ensuring that the Force is adequately led?
The Governor and the relevant authorities should provide a clear account of the arrangements governing continuity of command, the respective responsibilities of the individuals involved, and the steps taken to ensure that leadership within the RVIPF remains consistent and accountable.
The people of the Virgin Islands are entitled to more than assurances that arrangements are in place. They deserve to understand what those arrangements are, how they work in practice, and whether they are serving the best interests of the Territory.
This is about accountability, transparency and the effective leadership of an institution entrusted with public safety.
THE BOTTOM LINE: THE PUBLIC DESERVES THE FULL STORY
The introduction of Clare Jenkins may well represent a useful addition to the resources available to the RVIPF. Her experience could prove valuable, and the projects identified by the Governor’s Office deserve serious attention.
But a professional biography and a list of initiatives do not answer every question about the circumstances surrounding an appointment.
The radio system has a documented history stretching back years. The Commissioner recruitment process has experienced significant delays and a fresh start. And questions have been raised about continuity of leadership while the Territory awaits a permanent appointment.
Taken together, these circumstances make transparency more important, not less.
Is the Governor’s Office providing a complete account of the work already undertaken, the purpose of Jenkins’ advisory role and the future leadership of the RVIPF?
GBM is not asserting that a hidden agenda exists. We are asking whether the facts available to the public are sufficient to rule out reasonable questions about the timing, attribution and purpose of these developments.
The Governor should welcome the opportunity to clarify the record.
Because when it comes to policing, public safety and the leadership of the Royal Virgin Islands Police Force, the people of this Territory deserve more than carefully presented announcements.
They deserve the facts, the full timeline and answers that stand up to scrutiny.