Sunday November 7, 2010

Why We need a Commission of Inquiry now in Dominica

On Carnival Tuesday, February 25, 1963 a fire erupted at the back of the Mexican band on King George V Street in Roseau, Dominica. As a result of the fire that day 19 Dominicans were wounded; three fatally.

The three who died because of the injuries sustained that day were Eddie Martin, George James and Eric Shillingford. On 20th March 1963, Colonel Alec Lovelace, Administrator of Dominica appointed E.L. St. Bernard as the Commissioner to lead an inquiry into the events which transpired on that that tragic day.

Forty four years later, it was the Report of Inquiry in the 1963 Fire, which provided the outline for the book, Death by Fire: The Explosive Story of the 1963 Carnival Tragedy by Irving W. Andre and Gabriel J. Christian.

Absent the factual rendition in that commission of inquiryreport, its list of injured, the authors would have had a near impossible task in trying to recreate the events which took place that day.

However, where there was established a process, of persons being subpoenaed, placed under oath and cross examined, much light was shed on what was a dark episode in our island’s history.

Such adherence to rule of law sought to consolidate trust in the organs of the state and grant relief at a time of great public outcry over what was a combustible controversy.

Such a moment now confronts our nation again. We cannot do less than the colonial administrators did where they sought to examine controversy and resolve conflict. It is for that reason, that we need a commission of inquiry to examine the issue of corruption in public office now afflicting our government.

I thought it appropriate to make the above point, so that we could appreciate the importance of using the Commission of Inquiry as an instrument via which to ensure that rule of law obtains.

The commission of inquiry is part of a cherished tradition born of our history rooted in British jurisprudence. Derived from British practice, Royal Commissions have usually been appointed by the sovereign (i.e. head of State) upon the advice and with the consent of government to examine controversies and matters of great importance to the country.

The commissioner is usually an eminent retired jurist – so chosen to remove that person from the pressures which would usually constrain a serving civil servant, attorney general or police official.

The commissioner need not be a jurist, but would need to be a person with a degree of expertise in the area under examination and an understanding of pertinent law.

The commissioner is usually empowered to call upon accountants, lawyers, investigators and other resource persons who may assist him/her in the execution of the terms of reference.

The commissioner would take statements under oath from witnesses, and may also hire skilled counsel to cross examine witnesses in public, and on the record.

Discovery of pertinent documentation is usually part of the process and the final report would have an appendix of all that which was examined, in support of its final recommendation.

The recommendation may include changes in the law, government policy and – if need be – criminal prosecution of those who were found to have broken the law.

Dominica has a long history of such commissions and they have done much to cultivate a national belief in our being a law abiding society. In the carnival of 1927 when the ban mauvay revelers assaulted and wounded Police Chief William Leighton, a Commission was impaneled and persons prosecuted.

When the 1930 Carib War took place and lives were lost, a commission of inquiry investigated. We now have a record of the 1963 Carnival Fire in the same way, as mentioned above.

While no one was prosecuted, the record made did much to illuminate the event for posterity. After the Dominica Freedom Party led opposition demonstrators invaded the House of Assembly on December 16, 1971 to prevent passage of a bill by the then Labour Party government, a commission of inquiry was convened to examine the disturbances and punish the offenders.

A commission of inquiry into the Dominica Defence Force was also conducted by a Colonel C.E. Martindale on August 17, 1978. So too, after the May 29, 1979 Riot outside Government Headquarters in Roseau, a similar panel was appointed.

After the ascent of the Freedom Party to power, a commission of inquiry was embodied to investigate whether there was fraud or other wrong doing in the manner in which Pierre Charles was elected as President of the National Youth Council (NYC) in that organization’s election of 1977.

I served under Justice Mathew on that commission as a token representative of the left/Labour opposition. As a commissioner, we met at the House of Assembly and took testimony of witnesses over several days, under oath.

Similarly, when allegations that the Freedom Party led by Eugenia Charles bugged the United Workers Party headquarter a commission of inquiry was summoned.

Attorney Anthony Astaphan, on behalf of the government made a name for himself during his cross examination of witnesses in that episode. Surely, he remembers and should know the importance of such public inquiry in resolving public controversy. Will he oppose this call now? If so, why?

The issue of the NYC election of 1977 and its operations – or the alleged UWP Bugging Scandal had not risen to a level of national controversy – or seriousness - as has the recent allegations of “Bin Bobol,” Ownership of villas by Prime Minister Skerrit, or any of the related issues of corruption in public office. Nonetheless, instituting commissions of inquiry was deemed the right and proper thing to do. Why not now?

Since the election of December 18, 2009, I have remained silent with the hope that the government would act with the requisite wisdom to settle the public mind, and so squelch the nagging questions and mistrust which arose during the campaign.

Once an election is over it has been, and is, my position that every Dominican must give his loyalty to the duly elected government in doing what is necessary and lawful to build the nation.

To that end I complimented the government on the public works completed, such as the refurbished airport and night landing capability. We have sought to work with different ministries in areas of health, education and youth affairs.

Despite being maligned by the Pied Pipers of disinformation, The Dominica Academy of Arts and Sciences (DAAS), of which I am a proud member, has not ceased it pro development agenda and has consistently worked with government on different levels and remains committed to doing so.

DAAS President, Dr. Clayton Shillingford’s championing of a partnership between the Dominica State College (DSC) and the Smithsonian’s Museum is a sterling example of such commitment to national development.

Why would any conscious Dominican seek to sever the good relations we have sought to forge with our homeland by imputing improper motives to those who decry misconduct in high and low places?

Any misgiving aside, we must strive to applaud the good that government does, while condemning deviant behavior. We cannot build where one opposes government simply because one’s party is not in power.

We cannot be consumed by an all encompassing negativity which dulls productive effort. Even where attacked, we must be wise in the rebuttal and persuade government to do right by us.

We know that many in government and the ruling party are honest men and women who quietly support our efforts at a transparent and lawful Dominican society.

So we, those of us who favor balance, shall never engage in any wholesale lambasting of government or a party when they have lost their way.

We seek to lead them away from any corruption of a kind that has ruined mineral rich countries in Europe, Africa, Asia and closer to home.

All patriotic Dominicans have a duty to build the country and assist the government. Such loyalty, however, does not extend to acquiescence in wrong doing where, and if, it exist.

It will not do to paint those who query alleged misconduct as anti-government. Indeed, I am pro government; good government, that is. Nor is this call anti-Labour Party, as I maintain a deep commitment to the proud heritage of that movement which gave land to the landless and hope to the hopeless.

We, those of us who embarked on the Dominica Diaspora in the Development Process Symposiums did much to support government policy to the point, that our friends in the legitimate political opposition considered us government agents.

It is therefore ludicrous to now disown our proven patriotism, simply because we oppose any misconduct, no matter from which quarter, which trespasses upon the sanctity of integrity in public service.

We shall settle our society and hasten reconciliation where we act in an open and transparent manner sufficient to infuse relations between the governments and governed with trust.

Right now, the trust which is a prerequisite to our being united in the quest for development is groaning under the weight of e-mails, documents and other evidence - some of it now sworn testimony - which did not exist during the 2009 election campaign.

Public trust in rule of law on Dominica is at an all time low and slipping fast; it is demoralizing and unsettles good faith attempts at national concord.

If our government, which is duty bound to serve our best interest, has nothing to hide it should advise the President to appoint a commission of inquiry now!

That President Liverpool is by far the most lettered head of state in our history should suggest that he knows well what should be done. He must thus hasten to advise those who rule, that the nation is threatened where no such accounting is done to set the ship of state right. Silence on his part will not do.

Once a commission is in place, and where the government leaders at issue are found to be without blame then they would be due an apology. I would gladly step forward and do so; and would urge others to do likewise, where we were shown to be somehow wrong all along.

However, where the basis for wrong doing is found, the law courts should be summoned to do their work. Absent our adherence to the tradition of commissions of inquiry to examine misdeeds and propose changes to preclude such misdeeds in the future, we shall not be able to arrest the decline in public trust, the slide toward social disorder and absence of a basis via which we can bring reconciliation to the Dominican family.

Such a commission will compel all those with evidence to come forth. It will ask those in the know to state their piece in public under oath.

It will allow experts to determine whether the numerous e-mails now in the public domain were doctored or are indeed legitimate. A commission can reveal how the refunds in the Bin Purchase Scandal were accomplished, and who were accomplices to any plot to fleece the treasury or convert foreign aid to personal use.

The commission’s reach will also extend to the misty woods of Pennsylvania and be able to summon the silent government procurement agent to state his piece and so clear his good name.

We have just celebrated our 32nd anniversary of independence and it was right that we did so. However, the country is uneasy; it is not at rest. If there is nothing to hide, why the hesitation in moving forward with a proper investigation?

All of us know that conscious leadership in any democracy worthy of the name would so act. In May 2009 Michael Martin, the Speaker of the British Parliament, resigned over the issue of expenses by Members of Parliament of public funds.

He had sought to block disclosure of information to the public of how certain British MPs were spending public funds. In ruling against such attempts to deny the public such information, the high court stated:

We have no doubt that the public interest is at stake. We are not here dealing with idle gossip, or public curiosity about what in truth are trivialities….The expenditure of public money through the payment of MPs’ salaries and allowances is a matter of direct and reasonable interest to taxpayers.

Can we do less in Dominica? Is our system of jurisprudence not modeled on the British common law? The decision by the British courts to hold their MPs responsible to the governed was called a victory for transparency in public office.

What we hear on the airwaves in Dominica about corruption today are not the idle allegations of political hacks dreamt up one morning by talk show hosts intent on malice.

We know Mr. Linton has his political views at variance with the government and we have disagreed much over the years, while finding common on matters of the national interest.

As for Matt Peltier, he was introduced to me by no less a person than Prime Minister Rosie Douglas, of blessed memory. These men are not inherently anti-government and both worked much to build bridges between Dominicans at home and abroad.

Where the work of investigative reporters such as Matt Peltier or Lennox Linton has resulted in payment to the national treasury of tens of thousands of dollars their efforts serve a public good. Shall we debase them or honor them as civic heroes who protected the public till?

An atmosphere of innuendo, rumor, charge and counter-charge ruins the public mood, saps the national vitality and causes many to be inattentive to the real work of development.

We must put an end to this, and resolve the manner in a mature fashion with the available tools granted us by our history as a nation groomed in the rule of law tradition.

Where there is nothing to hide, the summoning of such a commission of inquiry by those who purport to lead us in the right path should be proceeded with immediately.

As the Integrity in Public Office Commission has been shown to be a toothless tiger, unwilling to stir from its refuge; nothing less than a public commission of inquiry will now do.