Retired Deputy Governor Franz Manderson CBE has questioned why qualified Caymanians cannot compete to become governors, arguing that decades spent developing local leadership should eventually translate into the opportunity to seek one of the most important constitutional offices in the British Overseas Territories.

“Not to be appointed, but to compete,” Manderson said.

His intervention came during the opening session of Day 2 of The Caymanian Journal Forum hosted at Stingray Media Studios in Georgetown, where he appeared alongside Andrew Rosindell MP, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories and the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the Commonwealth.

The session, Cayman: Who Are We Accountable To?, was moderated by Crystal Gomez Wilson, whose questioning took the discussion from the division of responsibility between Elgin Avenue and Whitehall to Westminster representation, independence and, ultimately, whether a Caymanian could one day become a governor.

At the heart of the discussion was a constitutional tension familiar to Cayman: the islands have their own elected government and considerable control over domestic affairs, but remain a British Overseas Territory under UK sovereignty.

Manderson put the distinction plainly. Cayman’s government, he said, is “first and foremost accountable to the electorate and the people that they serve”, creating democratic responsibility and accountability at home. But there is also constitutional accountability to the UK.

“We are not sovereign,” he said.

Manderson said that reality placed a responsibility on Cayman to govern itself in a way that would give Britain no reason to exercise its retained authority.

Not an entitlement, but a right to compete

The question of who may become governor emerged towards the end of the session, when Gomez Wilson asked what it would take for Cayman to have its own local governor.

Rosindell first set out why the appointment differs from those in independent Commonwealth realms. The King formally appoints governors in the overseas territories, while sovereign countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand determine whom to nominate as their governors-general.

In the overseas territories, Rosindell said, the system is different, with appointments determined through the British government.

He nevertheless praised Cayman’s model of having a Caymanian deputy governor and said local elected governments should have meaningful influence over who serves as governor.

Manderson then pushed the argument further.

Having worked under five governors and discussed the issue with fellow deputy governors across the overseas territories, he said there was a strong view that local deputy governors should eventually have the opportunity to compete for governorships. Manderson questioned why officials who had been trained for senior constitutional responsibilities and given extensive experience working alongside governors should remain outside the competition.

“Why could they not compete to become governor, not necessarily of their own territory, but perhaps of another territory?” he said. “I think that conversation will need to be had at some point.”

Manderson was not proposing an automatic Caymanian appointment, nor suggesting that the elected government should choose one of its own to occupy Government House.

His proposition was about eligibility: whether experienced officials from Cayman and other overseas territories should have the opportunity to compete for governorships on merit.

Manderson points to acting-governor experience

Manderson drew on his own experience to support that argument.

He served as acting governor for about five months between permanent officeholders.

“Nobody noticed,” he said.

Manderson expanded on the point, saying there had been a Caymanian acting governor and a Caymanian premier working together without disruption.

“There were no fireworks, there was nothing happening that shouldn’t have happened. It all worked very smoothly,” he said.

For Manderson, that experience raised a practical question. If deputy governors are trained, given experience working alongside successive governors and trusted to perform the governor’s functions when required, why should they not eventually be allowed to compete for permanent appointments?

Manderson also pointed to Deputy Governor Gloria McField-Nixon, who is serving as acting governor this week while Governor Jane Owen is away, as further evidence of the capability developed within Cayman’s public service. He described McField-Nixon, who succeeded him as Deputy Governor, as a “highly capable woman”.

For Manderson, McField-Nixon’s appointment reinforced the practical question at the centre of his argument: if Caymanian deputy governors can be entrusted to exercise the functions of governor when required, why should qualified officials from Cayman and other overseas territories not have the opportunity to compete for permanent governorships?

Rosindell backs Cayman input but stresses independence

Andrew Rosindell MP supported a greater local role in selecting governors but drew a firm distinction between having influence over an appointment and controlling it.

“I’m all in favour of the elected government of each overseas territory having a major input and a say about who their governor is,” he said.

But he argued that the office must retain enough independence to act when circumstances demand it.

Speaking hypothetically about the risks of allowing a local political leader to control the appointment, Rosindell said:

“The last thing you want is for the premier to appoint his best mate as governor.”

His point was that a governor cannot simply become an extension of an elected administration. Britain remains ultimately sovereign and, he said, must take responsibility for the consequences when corruption, bad governance or serious disputes arise in an overseas territory.

“So you need a balance,” he said. “Ultimately, you do need a governor that will act when things are not going right.”

Manderson’s argument and Rosindell’s concern therefore addressed different parts of the appointment question: who should be eligible to compete for the office and how its independence should be protected.

A ‘democratic deficit’ at Westminster

The governor question formed part of a wider debate about a constitutional relationship in which Britain retains significant authority over people who elect no representatives to the Parliament at Westminster.

Moderator Gomez Wilson put that issue directly to Rosindell, asking to whom Westminster was politically accountable when it made decisions affecting Cayman, given that Caymanians do not elect an MP to the UK Parliament.

Rosindell called the situation a “democratic deficit”.

Cayman has no elected voice in the British Parliament, he said, despite the UK making decisions in areas including foreign affairs, defence and constitutional matters that can directly affect the territory.

“What I find wrong is that there can never be a Caymanian voice in the Parliament that makes these decisions,” he said.

Rosindell said he would support exploring elected representation for the territories only with a “cast iron 100% guarantee” that it would not diminish their existing powers of self-government.

He pointed to Greenland and the Faroe Islands within the Danish Kingdom as a model worth examining, arguing that representation at the centre need not require incorporation into the metropolitan state or the surrender of local self-government.

For Cayman, he said, representation should provide an additional voice over decisions made in Britain rather than take powers away from the islands.

‘Overseas territories are not foreign’

Rosindell also questioned the way the British government administratively handles its overseas territories, arguing that responsibility for them should no longer sit within the Foreign Office.

“Overseas territories are not foreign, they’re British,” he said.

He argued that the relationship was fundamentally constitutional and that responsibility should instead sit within a department such as the Cabinet Office.

Rosindell said the current approach contributed to the territories being treated as an afterthought rather than as part of what he described as the wider British family.

He also argued against unnecessary Westminster interference in Cayman, describing the islands as one of the most successful and well-governed overseas territories he knew, citing their stability, self-government and economic prosperity.

“I don't want MPs in Westminster start telling you you can't do this or you can do that because you do things very well without that interference,” he said.

Civil partnerships show where ultimate authority can reside

For Manderson, the question of where accountability ultimately rests was not theoretical.

Asked by Gomez Wilson whether his 44 years inside Cayman’s system of government had revealed ambiguity over who was accountable to whom, Manderson pointed to the dispute over same-sex unions.

He cited the episode not to take a position for or against civil partnerships, but to illustrate how Cayman’s constitutional arrangements operate when the position taken locally and that of the UK diverge.

The elected legislature did not pass the Domestic Partnership Bill in 2020. The Civil Partnership Law was subsequently enacted by then-Governor Martyn Roper under section 81 of the Constitution, following consultation with the premier, prior approval from the UK secretary of state and constitutional instructions.

Manderson said the episode “really highlighted the fact that we are not sovereign”.

It had also prompted him to examine the constitutional structure more closely.

“It was something that really made me stop and pause and have a look at the construct and question, well, is that the right model for us as the people of the Cayman Islands?” he said.

His example went to the central question of the session. Cayman’s elected institutions exercise extensive authority, but that authority is not absolute.

When Britain’s retained constitutional powers are engaged, decisions can ultimately be made outside the ordinary Caymanian legislative process.

Where responsibility ends and interference begins

Rosindell approached that relationship from both sides.

He argued against unnecessary British interference in Cayman’s domestic affairs but maintained that remaining under the Crown brought responsibilities as well as protections.

Britain, he said, had a duty to protect and support its overseas territories.

He was critical of the UK’s response following Hurricane Ivan, saying Cayman had shown loyalty to Britain and the Crown but Britain had not been there for the territory as it should have been when the islands were devastated.

That presented another side of the accountability question. If Britain retains ultimate powers because it remains responsible for the territories, that responsibility also carries obligations when a territory requires British support.

Rosindell stressed that Cayman retained the right of self-determination and could choose independence.

“Cayman could easily be an independent nation, very easily,” he said, pointing to its infrastructure, wealth and democratic institutions.

But he said his experience of Cayman suggested there was no broad desire to take that course.

Instead, he described the present arrangement as giving Cayman “the best of both worlds”: extensive self-government alongside the support and protections that should come with remaining part of the wider British family.

The challenge exposed by the panel was where responsibility ends and interference begins - and what each side is entitled to expect from the other.

‘I’m accountable to God’

Gomez Wilson eventually brought the discussion from institutional responsibility to personal accountability, asking Manderson whom he ultimately answered to as a citizen rather than as a retired government official.

“I’m accountable to God,” Manderson said.

He added that he had to conduct himself in a way that did not allow others to control his well-being.

Manderson also linked accountability to Cayman’s identity, saying the islands should be proud of being a Christian society and should “continue to preserve and work hard to keep that Caymanian way, that Caymanian kind.”

The exchange introduced a different conception of accountability from the constitutional one that had dominated the session: not simply which government or institution possesses legal authority, but the values against which individuals and public officials judge their own conduct.

The wider question for Cayman

Manderson’s proposal was not that Cayman’s elected government should appoint the governor, or that a Caymanian should automatically get the job.

His argument was about the opportunity to compete.

Having worked under five governors, served as acting governor himself and watched deputy governors across the overseas territories gain experience at the highest levels of government, Manderson said the question should now be considered.

“Should the overseas territories deputy governors be allowed to compete at some point to become a governor of a territory?” he asked.

For Cayman, that question goes directly back to the issue that framed the session: how a territory that governs much of its own affairs should define its relationship with a country that retains ultimate sovereignty - and where accountability should ultimately reside.