Political interference in public investigations: Antigua's runway corruption scandal, 1986-87.

What is it about?

Public investigations are inquiries established by governments or departments to investigate allegations or instances of crisis or corruption. They have a reputation for being the gold-standard in objective fact-finding missions, uniquely able to get to the bottom of a controversy because of "trial-like" powers including the right to subpoena evidence. But in some cases, this is a false perception. In the small and polarised states of the Caribbean, politicians have been able to manipulate public investigations in ways that render them "toothless tigers". This is because the Westminster System in these states gives Prime Ministers the unchecked power to determine the scope and methods given to investigators. Moreover, in many Caribbean states governments have been able to exploit a highly partisan media to inform how the public learns about and responds to public investigations. In such circumstances, public investigations can actually be used to shield corrupt governments from scrutiny, allowing corruption to go unpunished. This happened in Antigua in 1987 when Prime Minister Bird used his discretion and media influence to undermine the Nedd Investigation into the so-called Runway Scandal of 1986.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

This paper examines a public investigation into a serious act of political corruption. It shows how a powerful Prime Minister used his authority and his influence in the national media to undermine the investigator's work and protect his fellow minister (who was also his son) from accountability. This happened in Antigua and Barbuda in the 1980s, but many of the key factors at play in this case study are found in many countries around the world today. These include: excessive Prime Ministerial discretion; a lack of checks and balances on government authority; a highly politicised media; and polarisation among the public. The lessons to be learned from the case study in this paper could hardly be more relevant. As of July 2023 the US is grappling with questions of judicial legitimacy and how Presidents can be held accountable, while in the UK investigative committees and inquiries into the Johnson administration and the Covid Pandemic are drawing significant attention and scrutiny. This paper provides lessons from the past which can help make these processes more robust and their fact-finding abilities more reliable.