Dear Editor,
Member of Parliament Daryl Vaz rightfully complains that he was maligned and that he and his family have suffered emotional damage from an unsubstantiated police report read by none other than the commissioner, Sir David Simmons, recently at the Tivoli Gardens Commission of Enquiry enquiring into the security forces' operation to arrest Christopher Coke in May 2010.
The police report alleged that Mr Vaz, a minister of Government at the time, had committed a crime by harbouring the fugitive Coke, a subject of the enquiry, at his home. The demand by Mr Vaz for an apology from the chairman of the commission was flatly rejected and now remains of little importance.
Nonetheless, the contretemps invite some consideration at a higher level: How the rights of individuals are protected at commissions of enquiry.
It is a matter of some importance to know how a document with hearsay allegation from an unknown source should be treated at a commission of enquiry. This is especially so where (i) the allegation falls within the terms mandated for the enquiry, (ii) it affects an individual whose conduct is relevant, and (iii) evidence of the allegation can properly be used for arriving at a fair conclusion in a report by the commission.
Each commissioner is required by law to make a faithful, full, and impartial enquiry to ensure justice for the people of Tivoli and justice for the security forces, while being mindful of the interest of the wider public for fairness. Mr Vaz is more than just a member of the wider public, where the conduct at the relevant time alleged in the report is of interest for the enquiry.
When the veracity of the allegation in the report was questioned and found to be baseless and cannot be used as evidence for producing a fair report, by then the damage was done. That should have been avoided. What is one man's mistaken belief can be another man's unfortunate undeserved discomfort.
A commissioner in these proceedings is free to ferret for evidence from the material available. If there is material where an individual's name is called in circumstances relevant to the enquiry, one would expect that the person affected would be informed and given an opportunity to take part in the enquiry, if he/she so wishes, before the information is brought into the public domain.
This is not difficult, because the commissioner would have the statement in which the allegation is made and would then advise the affected person beforehand. In addition, he would see that the allegation is hearsay and conduct the proceedings to avoid what has happened.
This issue must be treated with the caution and skill that learned and experienced counsel will exercise to prevent unnecessary damage to others. No less is expected from a commissioner of Sir David's repute. What is totally unacceptable is to put out the information in public that Mr Vaz had harboured the fugitive, and have it knocked down in the same breath as baseless.
By that process, the damage is done by the fact of the information being presented for public consumption, unchallenged, even if unverified -- 'he who feels it knows it'.
The response by Sir David Simmons to Mr Vaz's rightful request for an apology, stating that Mr Vaz should be grateful for the clearing of his and his family's name, smacks of downright disrespect and arrogance, especially from a non-Jamaican.
It begs the question: Is this what Jamaicans can expect from the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), which is and will continue to be controlled by our eastern Caribbean neighbours? They continue to disrespect and revile us as a nation, while the Government seems hell-bent on giving them more and more opportunities to do so.
Come on, Jamaica, wake up and smell the rat!
Paul Young
Kingston 6
Is this what we can expect from the CCJ?
-->
Member of Parliament Daryl Vaz rightfully complains that he was maligned and that he and his family have suffered emotional damage from an unsubstantiated police report read by none other than the commissioner, Sir David Simmons, recently at the Tivoli Gardens Commission of Enquiry enquiring into the security forces' operation to arrest Christopher Coke in May 2010.
The police report alleged that Mr Vaz, a minister of Government at the time, had committed a crime by harbouring the fugitive Coke, a subject of the enquiry, at his home. The demand by Mr Vaz for an apology from the chairman of the commission was flatly rejected and now remains of little importance.
Nonetheless, the contretemps invite some consideration at a higher level: How the rights of individuals are protected at commissions of enquiry.
It is a matter of some importance to know how a document with hearsay allegation from an unknown source should be treated at a commission of enquiry. This is especially so where (i) the allegation falls within the terms mandated for the enquiry, (ii) it affects an individual whose conduct is relevant, and (iii) evidence of the allegation can properly be used for arriving at a fair conclusion in a report by the commission.
Each commissioner is required by law to make a faithful, full, and impartial enquiry to ensure justice for the people of Tivoli and justice for the security forces, while being mindful of the interest of the wider public for fairness. Mr Vaz is more than just a member of the wider public, where the conduct at the relevant time alleged in the report is of interest for the enquiry.
When the veracity of the allegation in the report was questioned and found to be baseless and cannot be used as evidence for producing a fair report, by then the damage was done. That should have been avoided. What is one man's mistaken belief can be another man's unfortunate undeserved discomfort.
A commissioner in these proceedings is free to ferret for evidence from the material available. If there is material where an individual's name is called in circumstances relevant to the enquiry, one would expect that the person affected would be informed and given an opportunity to take part in the enquiry, if he/she so wishes, before the information is brought into the public domain.
This is not difficult, because the commissioner would have the statement in which the allegation is made and would then advise the affected person beforehand. In addition, he would see that the allegation is hearsay and conduct the proceedings to avoid what has happened.
This issue must be treated with the caution and skill that learned and experienced counsel will exercise to prevent unnecessary damage to others. No less is expected from a commissioner of Sir David's repute. What is totally unacceptable is to put out the information in public that Mr Vaz had harboured the fugitive, and have it knocked down in the same breath as baseless.
By that process, the damage is done by the fact of the information being presented for public consumption, unchallenged, even if unverified -- 'he who feels it knows it'.
The response by Sir David Simmons to Mr Vaz's rightful request for an apology, stating that Mr Vaz should be grateful for the clearing of his and his family's name, smacks of downright disrespect and arrogance, especially from a non-Jamaican.
It begs the question: Is this what Jamaicans can expect from the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), which is and will continue to be controlled by our eastern Caribbean neighbours? They continue to disrespect and revile us as a nation, while the Government seems hell-bent on giving them more and more opportunities to do so.
Come on, Jamaica, wake up and smell the rat!
Paul Young
Kingston 6
Is this what we can expect from the CCJ?
-->