By Marlon Bute
The disclosure by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dwight Fitzgerlad Bramble, that the computer system at the St. Vincent and the Grenadines Consulate in New York had been wiped is deeply disturbing.
If that account is correct, it is not a minor matter of inconvenience or administrative untidiness. It raises a larger and more important question: do people entrusted with office, equipment, and information understand that those things do not belong to them personally?
That principle applies in government, and it applies equally in the private sector.
A person may be issued a laptop, desktop, mobile phone, tablet, email account, passwords, databases, files, client records, quotations, operational documents, or internal correspondence.
The fact that the employee used those tools every day does not make them his or hers. They were issued for work. They were paid for by the employer. And the information created, stored, organised, or compiled on them in the course of employment was also paid for by the employer through salary, resources, time, and institutional support.
That point should be made plainly.
Even if an employee personally gathered most of the information, it was still gathered in the course of employment, on devices issued for work, and while being paid to do that work.
In that sense, whether the employer is public or private, the information was paid for. It is therefore not the employee’s individual property to keep, copy, share outside legitimate work purposes, or remove upon demitting office.
That is not a small issue in the private sector. It can be costly, disruptive, and deeply damaging to a business. The deletion of company data, the removal of records, the misuse of client information, or damage done to devices and systems can interrupt operations, expose the business to loss, undermine continuity, and in some instances place jobs, contracts, and the stability of the enterprise itself at risk.
Such conduct is not merely unprofessional. It is unethical. And depending on the facts and the law, it may also amount to criminal conduct.
The same principle applies to public service, and with even greater force.
A consulate is not a private space. A high commission is not partisan property. The records, systems, archives, contacts, and files housed there belong to the state and to the people of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. No office holder, staff member, diplomat, or political appointee is entitled to act as though a government office is an extension of personal or party possession.
Government changes, but the state stays.
That is why orderly handover matters so much. It is not merely a courtesy. It is a duty. Without proper handover, continuity is damaged, accountability is weakened, and the ability of a new office to function effectively is compromised. Citizen services suffer. Records become vulnerable. Institutional memory is broken.
What has been disclosed publicly so far is serious. The apparent wiping of files in New York, coupled with reported resistance in London over the handover of the trust fund, suggests not only overt problems, but also the possibility of less obvious forms of obstruction by persons who are still within the system.
That possibility should not be ignored.
In any transition, there may be individuals in the public service or within state institutions who, whether out of loyalty, habit, preference, or some other motive, may impede the process in ways that are not at once visible or easily proved. Not every obstacle will announce itself openly. Some may appear in delay, non-cooperation, selective inaction, quiet withholding of information, or other subtle forms of resistance.
That reality requires a wise approach.
The state must protect its own interests, ensure continuity, and secure proper control over its records, systems, funds, and institutions. But it must do so while also seeing the rights of the individuals involved. That is the balance serious governance needs: firmness in protecting the integrity of the state, but care in how such matters is addressed.
Still, the central principle must remain beyond dispute.
A work device is not individual property because it was in your possession.
A work email is not yours because you used it.
A client list is not yours because you built relationships.
A government file is not yours because you worked on it.
And information gathered in the course of paid employment is not yours to carry away, erase, damage, or use as leverage when your time in office ends.
In both public and private life, the rule should be simple: what belongs to the institution must remain with the institution.
The opinions presented in this content belong to the author and may not necessarily reflect the perspectives or editorial stance of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected].
