|
|
Lynching minister without credible evidence would be a great injustice
The embattled Home Affairs Minister deserves the public support, not the condemnation meted out to him by the PNC, ROAR, WPA and the TUC... He was responding to criminals whose intend was to destabilise Guyana.
|
PERSPECTIVES The
terms of reference for now are quite rightly limited to Gajraj. We
must remember the vicious personal attacks against Minister Gajraj,
the vigil in front of his home, and his indictment, trial, and
judgment by some private media and politicians. However, it’s
possible that the inquiry could become broad-based to include the
February 23, 2002 jailbreak, victims of criminal violence, and
political linkages to the 2002/2003 crime wave. The
Commissions of Inquiry Act 1933, Cap. 19:03, gives the President the
power to issue a commission, appointing and authorizing one or more
commissioners to investigate any matter which would, in the
President’s opinion, be in the interest of public welfare. Each
appointed commissioner will have to take the oath of office or
affirmation, “…that he will faithfully, fully, impartially, and to
the best of his ability discharge the trust, and perform the duties
devolving upon him by virtue of such commission…” This law also
allows commissioners to make rules for regulating the proceedings. On
December 6, 1973, Her Excellency Dame Hilda Bynoe, Governor of
Grenada, acting with the consent of Cabinet, established a Commission
of Inquiry and named Sir Herbert Duffus, Aubrey Fraser, and Archbishop
Samuel Carter as Commissioners, in accordance with the Commissions of
Enquiry Ordinance, Cap. 64 of the Revised Laws of Grenada, to
investigate all circumstances preceding the arrest and charging of six
(6) persons on November 18, 1973; the alleged police brutality and the
alleged denial of prompt medical and legal assistance to the
arrestees, among others. The Commission was appointed under legal
provisions and consultations. The
Israel Government’s Cabinet meeting of September 28, 1982, agreed to
establish a Commission of Inquiry into the events at the refugee camps
in Beirut. The President of the Supreme Court appointed the Kahan
Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Law of 1968,
with no inputs from Beirut stakeholders. One of the Commission’s
findings was that Israel must accept responsibility for the massacre.
This is the case of an Israeli Government-appointed Commission
indicting itself for a massacre in Beirut; here, one could hardly call
this self-preservation on the part of Israel, making the point that
establishment of a commission in compliance with the law may be more
significant than consultations as part of a charade and not required
by law. On
the night of May 21, 1991, Rajiv Gandhi on an election campaign of the
Congress Party to address a public meeting at Tamil Nadu, was in a
human bomb explosion at Sriperumbudur, about 40 kms from Madras. The
Cabinet on immediately learning of the tragedy, under the chairmanship
of the then Prime Minister Shri Chandra Shekhar, met in the early
hours of May 22, 1991 and determined that a Commission of Inquiry be
headed by a Judge of the Supreme Court to investigate the
circumstances of the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. R K Bhargava, the
then Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, prepared a draft Notification
regarding setting up of a Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of the
Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (60 of 1952 ) and presented it for
approval to the Prime Minister. This commission was solely established
by the Cabinet. The Commission’s work was deemed impartial
throughout India. Again, it was a Commission established in accordance
with law and not through consultations with the Opposition. Prime
Minister Helen Clark of New Zealand announced in February 2004 that
her Government would establish a Commission of Inquiry in response to
recent allegations about Police investigations. The Cabinet has since
established a Commission of Inquiry. Again, the issuing of this
Commission was effected through the inquiry law. The
Hutton Inquiry in Great Britain was established through the Secretary
of State for Constitutional Affairs’ directive on July 18, 2003.
Right now, the Pentagon in the United States has its own military
personnel conducting a series of inquiries on prisoner abuses in Iraq;
Iraq has no input in their establishment. Intrinsically,
consultations are fine, but they can become a political luxury when
they present a dilemma for complying with the law. Even to
definitively conclude on a simple arbitration panel in Guyana can
consume enormous delays. And although several international
commissions lacked substantive consultations in the setting-up
process, their findings, on the whole, were guided by the principle of
impartiality. Make no mistake about the fact that consultations are
not a precondition for achieving impartiality. The law may be a better
bet. Minnesota
Protocol The
Minnesota Protocol suggests that the scope of the inquiry should be
neutrally framed; issues and events to be investigated clearly
specified; and they should be flexible, in that the terms of reference
should not be too broad or too restrictive, so as to allow for any
amendments. This neutrality and flexibility are inherent in the
President’s statement. There is the possibility of considering other
aspects of the investigation to include the February 23, 2002
jailbreak, victims of criminal violence, and political linkages to the
2002/2003 crime wave. The
Protocol indicates that a commission must have the following powers:
authority to obtain all information necessary to the inquiry;
authority to issue a public report; authority to effect on-site visits
on matters pertaining to the inquiry; and authority to admit evidence
from overseas witnesses and organizations. The 1933 law entrusts this
Presidential Commission of Inquiry with considerable authority. The
Commissioners will have the authority of a High Court Judge, including
the power to summon witnesses, arrange for all types of documentation,
and examine all witnesses and parties under oath.
|
|