Dear Editor,
Before the Tivoli Commission of Enquiry went on yet another break, there were reports in the media that the commission heard submissions in relation to information/evidence of a 'sensitive nature' that could have an impact on national security interests. One assumes and hopes that if this sensitive evidence is contained in the form of documents or files, such documents must have already been turned over to the commission and that the submission was for the commission to determine why all or some of the information contained in these documents should not be used and made public.
After the submissions were made, we were provided with the commission's decision in respect of information that would be admitted and made public. However, we were not provided with the list of evidence or information that would not be allowed or made public. We were, of course, understandably not provided with the specifics or nature of that evidence to be allowed and, similarly, should we not have been provided with a list of that information or evidence that would not be allowed and made public?
I am very suspicious that because of the manner in which the commission is being conducted as a legal contest, that this is just a legal ploy on the part of certain interested parties wanting to withhold evidence from the commission or other interested parties.
Despite the fact that the incident took place in 2010, some five years ago, there may certainly be information/intelligence the disclosure of which might indeed not be in the interest of public safety or the national interest. But the public needs to know what evidence has been excluded. This enquiry's purpose, like that of similar enquiries, is to satisfy a public concern relating to the nature and manner in which the State exercised its awesome powers. It is important for good governance and the rule of law that the State or its agents are not perceived to be withholding or hiding behind imaginary or concocted reasons for withholding evidence on the basis of national security concerns. Any such attempts should be denounced, as there would likely be a loss of public confidence in this enquiry and ones to follow. This, in turn, could lead to a breakdown in the rule of law, which would render good governance impossible.
Colonel Allan Douglas
Kingston 10
alldouglas@aol.com
Evidence hiding?
-->
Before the Tivoli Commission of Enquiry went on yet another break, there were reports in the media that the commission heard submissions in relation to information/evidence of a 'sensitive nature' that could have an impact on national security interests. One assumes and hopes that if this sensitive evidence is contained in the form of documents or files, such documents must have already been turned over to the commission and that the submission was for the commission to determine why all or some of the information contained in these documents should not be used and made public.
After the submissions were made, we were provided with the commission's decision in respect of information that would be admitted and made public. However, we were not provided with the list of evidence or information that would not be allowed or made public. We were, of course, understandably not provided with the specifics or nature of that evidence to be allowed and, similarly, should we not have been provided with a list of that information or evidence that would not be allowed and made public?
I am very suspicious that because of the manner in which the commission is being conducted as a legal contest, that this is just a legal ploy on the part of certain interested parties wanting to withhold evidence from the commission or other interested parties.
Despite the fact that the incident took place in 2010, some five years ago, there may certainly be information/intelligence the disclosure of which might indeed not be in the interest of public safety or the national interest. But the public needs to know what evidence has been excluded. This enquiry's purpose, like that of similar enquiries, is to satisfy a public concern relating to the nature and manner in which the State exercised its awesome powers. It is important for good governance and the rule of law that the State or its agents are not perceived to be withholding or hiding behind imaginary or concocted reasons for withholding evidence on the basis of national security concerns. Any such attempts should be denounced, as there would likely be a loss of public confidence in this enquiry and ones to follow. This, in turn, could lead to a breakdown in the rule of law, which would render good governance impossible.
Colonel Allan Douglas
Kingston 10
alldouglas@aol.com
Evidence hiding?
-->