On 3 November, wearing the same suit and tie combination in which he took the oath of office outside the Parliament building after the 2025 General Election, Premier André Ebanks MP sat in the second-floor studio of the Government Administration Building on Elgin Avenue and, for just under half an hour, answered for the Government's CI$6.5 million purchase of the former Kiddiewinks preschool. The Governor had announced the evening before that she was satisfied there had been no breach of the Ministerial Code. The Premier gave the first account of how the site reached his Government, called one of the sellers a constituent, and put the release of the Attorney General's review in the Governor's hands. He left with every document still unreleased.

What we know

The finding. The Governor, Jane Owen, said on 2 November that she is "satisfied that there is no breach of the Ministerial Code of Conduct by Premier Ebanks", having considered "a full review" by the Attorney General, Samuel Bulgin, requested by the Premier on 28 October, and that she was "not aware of any direct allegation" of a breach. The review has not been published and the Attorney General has made no public statement. The Premier, André Ebanks MP, said on 3 November that the review "is advice to the Governor" and "privileged", that its release "is a question to be appropriately put to the Governor", and that in his "individual opinion" a "sanitised version" would be "good public information". The Governor's Office told TCJ on 3 November: "We recognise the public interest in understanding the basis of the Governor's decision and are considering what further information we can appropriately provide."

How the site reached the Government. Until 3 November every TCJ report carried the sentence that no evidence had been put to TCJ that the Premier took any part in identifying the site; he has now given the first account, and that sentence is retired in favour of his words. He described the vendor's approach as one of the routine requests his office receives from people who have "not heard yet from a minister": "The ministry team was contacted. The vendor then said, I haven't heard anything and I'd like to arrange a site visit. The site visit was then arranged, and I said to the minister and/or his chief officer, if you all are interested in that, please arrange a site visit. The appointed date, time, I have nothing to do with, because I leave it to the minister." Asked when he first knew this was the building proposed, he said: "I have not given any recollection of what particular month, if you're asking for a time and date. I don't know that." He compared the step to nudging a minister about an unpaid sponsorship or a work permit inquiry. On that account the sequence was vendor to Ministry, vendor to Premier, Premier to Minister. He did not say which minister; the Ministry of Education and Training, whose Minister is Rolston Anglin MP, told TCJ in writing on 19 October that it became aware in the last quarter of 2025 that the site was or might become available. He opened the briefing by describing it as a conversation "regarding my participation in Cabinet's deliberations around the purchase of Kiddiewinks School", and said on 2 November that "there was no reason for me to recuse myself".

The sellers. TCJ reported on 24 October that one of the two sellers, Jennifer Stein, was one of the two nominators of Mr Ebanks MP at the 2025 General Election, a record published by the Elections Office. Asked whether they were friends, the Premier said: "We have an MP-constituent relationship." He said the nomination was "a public act from the 3rd of March 2025" that "happens in plain view and remains on the Elections Office website". He cut the ribbon at the preschool's official opening on 8 August 2025. The Ministry of Planning, Lands, Agriculture, Housing and Infrastructure told TCJ on 3 November that the Department of Planning issued the building's Certificate of Occupancy on the same date.

The building. The Planning Ministry told TCJ on 3 November that the Public Works Department "conducted its inspection and reviewed the building's structural drawings on 3 June 2026, prior to Cabinet's approval of the acquisition on 29 June 2026", and "concluded that the building was designed, constructed and remains in a condition conforming to the Cayman Islands Building Code, including the applicable wind-load requirements", with components "designed to withstand loads associated with wind speeds of 150 mph". It is the first technical statement about the building on the public record, and it places a structural inspection twenty-six days before the circulation decision.

The price. The Ministry of Education and Training told TCJ on 19 October that Lands and Survey obtained three valuations: JEC Property Consultants at CI$6,895,000 on 2 February, DDL Studio at CI$4,859,000 on 4 February and BCQS International at CI$5,000,000 on 2 April. The price of CI$6.5 million was CI$395,000 below the first, CI$1.64 million above the second and CI$1.5 million above the third, as TCJ published on 24 October. The Premier said valuations "are opinions", and that the Lands and Education teams had weighed "the strategic purpose, the relief of capacity for our most populous primary school that was overflowing", Lighthouse School being "out of space", and "a turnkey solution in weeks rather than what could have been a 12 to 18 month delay". His release of 2 November said the vendors "were not willing to accept less than $6.5 million". The Minister for Education and Training, Rolston Anglin MP, said on air on 29 and 30 October that a Government build would have cost "somewhere around 9, 10, 11 million dollars" and, the next day, "just north of $6.6 million", and disclosed an internal Lands and Survey valuation of "right around $5.7 million" that does not appear in the Ministry's written answers. The Ministry told TCJ on 19 October that the "cost for new build was not yet determined" when the decision to buy was taken. Each figure is carried as its speaker gave it.

The test the Premier says was applied. His release of 2 November rested on the Code's definition of "connected persons": Ms Stein "was not a connected person, there was no conflict of interest to declare, and therefore there was no reason for me to recuse myself". At the briefing he said the framework "contemplates, by law and in the Code, both actual and perceived conflicts", and that "my understanding of the framework at the time, which has now been confirmed by the Attorney General, is that for a perceived conflict to exist there had to be a substantial, close connection between the person in public office, myself, and the person who may be perceived as a connected person". The Attorney General, he said, "ratified my thinking" that Ms Stein "does not have a close enough connection to have been perceived as a conflict solely on the basis that she was a nominator". Paragraph 5.2 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct provides that "Ministers are responsible for ensuring that no possible or perceived conflicts exist or appear to exist between their personal interests and their public duty" and that "appearances and propriety can be as important as an actual conflict of interest"; paragraph 8.1, on connected persons, is the provision his explanation relies on. "Substantial, close connection" is the Premier's description of the test and not the language of 5.2.

What Parliament said the Act was for

The Standards in Public Life Act, which the Governor says the Attorney General considered alongside the Code, had its second reading on 30 January 2014. Moving it, the then Premier, Alden McLaughlin, said it "mandates how a person in public life must deal with any possible or perceived conflict of interest", including "recusing himself or herself from the portion of the meeting that discuss any matter that is likely to be perceived as a conflict". The Attorney General, Samuel Bulgin, who holds the office today, told members: "Some people think that all you really need to do is to make a declaration and stay and participate in the meetings. And that is notwithstanding the fact that in some of them it makes it clear that you recuse yourself after making a declaration and have it recorded." Those duties arise only where a possible or perceived conflict exists, which is the question the Premier says the Attorney General answered in his favour.

In Westminster, the findings were published the day they arrived

In January 2022 Boris Johnson, then Prime Minister, was under pressure from his own party over gatherings held in Downing Street while lockdown rules were in force, and had apologised to the Commons for attending one. When Sir David Davis MP, a prominent Conservative backbencher and former Brexit Secretary, famously rose at Prime Minister's Questions on 19 January 2022 and told him, "In the name of God, go", the findings on those gatherings had not yet been delivered. When they were, on 31 January and again in full on 25 May 2022, each report was put in the public domain the day the Prime Minister received it, and he answered for it in Parliament the same afternoon. The outcome in Cayman may be no different from the finding the Governor has announced; the difference is that the British public had the document on the day their Prime Minister did, and the Caymanian people have been given the decision without it.

What we don't know

Six questions are open on the record as of 3 November, and each has a known holder of the answer.

First, in which month the Premier learned that this building was the one proposed, and whether he spoke to the Minister or to his chief officer. He says he cannot recall the month; the Office of the Premier holds the answer.

Second, whether the Ministry's first contact with the vendors came before or after the Premier's follow-up; "the ministry team was contacted" is the Premier's account of the vendor's account, and the Ministry holds the dates.

Third, whether the Premier took part in the circulation decision of 29 June and the confirmation of 1 July. His statement that there was no reason to recuse and his description of "my participation in Cabinet's deliberations" imply that he did, which is TCJ's reading; no one has said so in terms. The Cabinet Office holds the record.

Fourth, whether the Attorney General's review considered paragraph 5.2 of the Code and the Cabinet record of 29 June and 1 July, and how it framed the perceived-conflict test. The Governor holds the review; her office is "considering what further information we can appropriately provide". Section 17(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act exempts a record privileged from production in legal proceedings, so release is a matter of choice.

Fifth, what figure for a Government build, if any, was before Cabinet on 29 June. The Premier's release says value for money was judged against "comparable government construction projects"; the Cabinet paper would show which. The Premier says Cabinet papers "by our Constitution, are confidential" and that he has told the Governor "some sort of version of this should be given". The Constitution Order 2009 contains no provision to that effect: section 49(9) requires Cabinet members to take the oaths of allegiance and of due execution of office set out in its Schedule, neither of which refers to secrecy, and its only express confidentiality clause, section 58(6), concerns the National Security Council. The oath Ministers cited to TCJ on 29 October, not to "reveal such matters as shall be debated in the Cabinet and committed to my secrecy", is not among the Constitution's forms. Section 19 of the Freedom of Information Act exempts records of Cabinet opinions, advice and deliberations, but not "material of a purely factual nature or reports, studies, tests or surveys of a scientific or technical nature".

Sixth, what the internal Lands and Survey valuation and the Public Works assessment say in full; the first has been described only by the Minister on air, the second only in the Planning Ministry's summary, and the two departments hold both. Neither is a record of Cabinet deliberation, and a technical report is outside the section 19 exemption on its own terms.

The caucus and the House

Asked whether members of his caucus had discussed asking him to step down, the Premier said that at a special caucus on Friday and a regular one on 3 November "in neither of those conversations did any plot or questions of challenge of leadership ever arise. In my presence." The Official Opposition, which asked the Governor on 28 October for an investigation while stating that it made "no allegation", has not responded publicly to the finding; under section 51(1) of the Constitution the Premier's appointment can be revoked only on a no-confidence motion carried by two-thirds of the 19 elected members, and TCJ understands the House is not due to sit until the week of 16 November.

How this was reported

The Premier's remarks are from TCJ's recording of the briefing of 3 November. The Governor's statement is from her office's release of 2 November and its reply from its email of 3 November; the Planning Ministry's answers from its email of 3 November. The valuations and the Education Ministry's answers are as published by TCJ on 24 October. Mr Anglin MP's remarks are from broadcasts of 29 and 30 October. The Code is quoted from gov.ky, the 2014 debate from the Official Hansard Report on parliament.ky, and the Constitution and the Freedom of Information Act.