It was, I believe, on January 24th, 2011 that a certain text message was put into circulation and was posted on the Internet. It read:
‘I have just learnt that the Nevis government has found salmonella in some of the underground water wells on the island. The Government is fearing a panic and so (is) keeping it quiet. I am not sure how this should be handled politically but it behooves us all to see what we can do to minimise the risks of serious illness to our families, neighbours, friends, and fellow citizens and residents. Go on line and see what we can do to make our water safer.’ The name of the sender was not revealed. I shall refer to him as ‘B’, rather than ‘A’ in order to avoid confusion with the name Amory – see below.
On 25th January Vance Amory wrote to Premier Parry: ‘ It has been brought to my attention that there is a problem with contamination of water from a number of wells which are used to supply water to the people of Nevis for our consumption. I understand that this information is contained in a report on water quality which is in the ‘protective care’ of persons in the Ministry responsible for the production and distribution of water.’ He refers to ‘the secrecy which shrouds this very important and potentially debilitating situation…’ He requests ‘to be apprised of this report and the potential health hazard, as I have been made to understand exists…’ He says that he has written ‘to get a declaration to warn the people of Nevis of the danger to our health and what action has to be taken to reduce the health hazards’. He concludes: ‘I await your response within the next two days, as the potential of this health threat is too serious to be covered up’.
Also on January 25th, presumably as a response to B’s text message, the Chief Medical Officer for the Federation writes ‘At this time of writing there are no reports of Salmonella related illnesses in the Federation’. We learn from him that when a doctor sends a patient’s stool sample for testing, that if it reveals among other things Salmonella or Cholera the Doctor is obliged by law to notify the Ministry of Health of the result. He ends by saying: ‘The Ministry of Health gives the assurance that there is no information to suggest or indicate an issue with Salmonella’.
On January 26th, the day he receives Mr. Amory’s letter, Premier Parry replies to it. He asks Mr. Amory to provide the source of his information and the report that he is referring to.
Also on January 26th the Minister responsible for water in Nevis, Carlisle Powell, issues a statement which includes the words, ‘…I state categorically that our water remains safe to drink. There is no issue with Salmonella in our well water…’ So where are we? No one would allege that the Federation’s respected Chief Medical Officer Dr. Patrick Martin is part of a conspiracy to give the public false information about vital health matters. It follows that, as he says there is no information to suggest or indicate an issue with Salmonella, that Nevis (public) Water is safe to drink.
We are left to consider the legal consequences, if any of ‘B’s’ text message, apparently publicised on the Internet, and Mr. Amory’s letter to the Premier. The supreme law in St. Kitts Nevis is our Constitution, and the legal system is that of the English Common Law together with our Statute Law (Laws passed in our Parliament). So let us go straight to the law concerning Public Nuisance, a crime known to the Common Law for centuries. The definition approved in the latest modern case on the subject is ‘A person is guilty of a public nuisance (also known as common nuisance) who (a) does an act not warranted by law or (b) omits to discharge a legal duty, if the effect of the act or omission is to endanger the life, health, property or comfort of the public, or to obstruct the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty’s subjects’. Conveniently for this article the UK Law Commission is currently considering Public Nuisance and issued a Consultation Paper on it last year. I intend to quote from that paper:
‘…Examples of Public Nuisance are:
…bomb hoaxes and false calls to the emergency services…
The legal effect of a Public Nuisance is threefold:
(1) …
(2) If the person responsible knew, or ought to have known of the bad effects on the public, he or she is guilty of a criminal offence
(3) The Attorney General … may bring proceedings for an injunction’
To be guilty of public nuisance the defendant should reasonably have foreseen the consequences of his actions. Over the years different but similar definitions of Public Nuisance have arisen. The Law Commission comments on this:
‘In a very broad way it is clear what these definitions are aiming at: anyone doing something that obviously and severely affects the safety or comfort of the neighbourhood has the burden of justifying it.
‘The definition, in speaking of “an act not warranted by law” suggests that a single act is sufficient. This is shown by the case of Ong, where the defendant conspired to switch off the floodlights at a Premiership football match so as to cause the match to be abandoned…
‘’An isolated act may amount to a Public Nuisance if it is done under such circumstances that the public right to condemn it should be vindicated…
‘Any nuisance is ‘public’ which materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty’s subjects’.
I read in the Cambridge Law Journal: ‘The person who commits a public nuisance incurs liability to life imprisonment’. I do not know if that is so in the Federation. What that indicates is that it is anticipated that some public nuisances could be very serious. I do not know who sent the text message and as I understand it posted it on the Internet and nothing in this article can be taken to suggest that I am pointing the finger at any particular person. But I do think, given my understanding of the law as set out here, that ‘B’ could be in deep trouble if evidence emerges to link him or her with the message and its posting, and he or she is unable to justify it.
Re-read the text message set out in this article’s first paragraph. The accusation is that the Government has found Salmonella in several underground wells and is keeping this information to itself.
There are a number of kinds of Salmonella, one of which causes typhoid, a dangerous disease, another much more common, causes gastro intestinal problems with occasional fatalities. The pathogens (germs) are carried in the faeces of humans, animals and birds.
Outbreaks of Salmonella poisoning in the US are sometimes traced back to eggs or chickens from huge chicken farms where there are tens or hundreds of thousands of birds. Pathogens from the faeces of the yard fowl of Nevis or even the larger chicken farms on the island are simply not going to get into several underground wells. Dr. Martin explained that under normal circumstances underground water is safe because of the filtering effect of soil and the presence of conditions that limit or prevent the survival of the pathogens. Infected stool in a broken sewer system that leaks into a well is a sometime cause. But we have no Salmonella issues, therefore no infected stool, let alone several broken sewer systems adjacent to several wells!
Why does the text writer query how the matter should be handled politically? It is too serious to be a matter for the gain of political advantage. A telephone call to and a meeting with the Chief Medical Officer bearing a copy of the ‘report’ would be the proper way to proceed. Publicising it over the Internet, as I understand was done, potentially damages the interests of the Nevis people, since tourists are less likely to come to an island subject to unsafe water supplies than otherwise. Besides, no one likes to be told that his safe water supply, to which he has a general right, may no longer be safe. It could engender a national panic.
As to Mr. Amory and his letter to the Premier. It was a letter to the highest elected official in the land and as such is an alternative to an interview with the Chief Medical Officer. This could be a way to go about it provided Mr. Amory has received good evidence of that which he speaks and has checked it, is satisfied as to its authenticity and writes in reasonable terms, and is prepared to share his information. However, from what he says he has not seen the report which he claims shows that there is a problem with contamination of the water from a number of wells. Perhaps wasting the Premier’s time is analogous to wasting police time. This as a possibility is dependent upon his justification for writing the letter. If he has justification he cannot be wasting the Premier’s time.
If there was a report as Mr. Amory claims in the ‘protective care’ of persons in the Ministry responsible for production and distribution of water, and that report showed Salmonella in the (under)ground water, one presumes that those persons would have ensured that the chlorine level was at all times sufficient to destroy any pathogens, and render our water safe. That is their ongoing responsibility.
Mr. Amory is putting himself up for election with the reasonable expectation of becoming Premier should his party win. We, the voters, need to know from him what evidence he had for the allegations he makes about this very serious matter and what he knows of the mysterious Mr. or Miss ‘B’ whose text message on the subject surfaced at almost the same time as his letter, and bears a striking similarity to it. It seems at least probable that Mr. Amory and Mr. or Miss ‘B’ conferred. Any investigator would want to ask him about that.
As a final thought, is there anyone we know who is in the habit of using the curious phrase ‘It behooves us all ‘?
Dr. Martin explained on the radio that there were only two ways in which a problem could be shown to exist:
1. People were presenting sick
2. Tests showed that there was a problem.
He stated that people were not presenting sick and the ongoing series of tests which are done by the Ministry gave no indication of a problem.
Syndicated columnist
