Finance Committee Meeting: Kenneth Bryan Demands Transparency For A $651,238 Payment By Government For A Legal Settlement Payable To A Former Civil Servant

By Alric Lindsay

During an October 8, 2026, meeting of the Cayman Islands Government’s Finance Committee, Member for George Town Central, Kenneth Bryan, pressed for greater transparency regarding a CI$651,238 legal settlement, sparking a debate on public accountability versus individual privacy.

The discussion centred on “OE105 settlement of claims,” an item requesting supplementary funding to satisfy a legal liability stemming from Grand Court proceedings between the Cayman Islands Government and a former civil servant. The proceedings determined the government was liable for the worker’s entitlement and legal costs.

Bryan voiced strong concerns about the lack of detailed information surrounding the claim, arguing that taxpayers deserved full transparency. “Why shouldn’t the public have complete transparency regarding to how this liability occurred?” Bryan questioned, stressing the need to “examine any potential failures that caused us, whether the matter could have been resolved, whether somebody should be held accountable for this error.”

Minister of Home Affairs, Hon. Nickolas T. A. DaCosta, JP, MP, shared that “nothing further can be disclosed in relation to this matter” due to it being a court order. He further clarified that “personnel matters within the Civil Service are the responsibility of the Deputy Governor and head of the Civil Service,” indicating the limitations on public disclosure. Hon. Rolston M. Anglin, JP, MP, the Minister for Finance & Economic Development and Finance Committee Chairman, added that the sensitive nature of the case, which had been covered in the press, aimed to protect the identity of the private citizen involved.

Bryan further highlighted a broader pattern, stating, “I’ve seen well over $5 million of the taxpayer’s money being paid out in claims. Nobody can be told what it’s for.” However, the Finance Committee Chairman countered this assertion, stating, “Mr. Bryan that is a factually incorrect statement. There have been claims settled that have been debated but they have not been of this nature.” The Finance Committee Chairman reiterated that the intention behind limiting disclosure was to protect the private citizen involved, given that the matter had already been covered in the press.

Despite the transparency concerns raised, the supplementary expenditure for OE105 was ultimately approved by the Finance Committee.