Commentator Christopher Ram has called on the commissioners who are to probe the MV Barima disaster to explain the delay in beginning their work and to publish a timetable.
In a letter he released yesterday, Ram called upon the Commission to without further delay, “address the families, survivors and the public; explain the delay since 30 July; publish a timetable for the commencement of its work and first public sitting; and state when its Rules of Procedure will be published and how affected persons may seek recognition, representation and participation in the Inquiry”.
The Commission of Inquiry comprises Justice Godfrey Phillip Smith as chairman, Captain Hamada Fouda of Jamaica, Nyree Dawn Alfonso of Trinidad and Tobago, Polish forensic naval architect and marine engineer Dr. Andrzej Jasionowski, and Rear Admiral (Ret’d) Hayden Pritchard of Trinidad and Tobago. The five-member panel was appointed by President Irfaan Ali under the Commissions of Inquiry Act on July 30. Nearly a month later nothing has begun although the government has targeted early September for the start of the inquiry.
Ram in his letter said that he readily accepted that a serious Commission requires time to organise itself, obtain advice, settle its procedures and prepare for hearings. But necessary preparation does not require public silence, he added.
He pointed out that questions were raised at the outset about the process of appointment, the absence of consultation, the composition of the Commission and its Terms of Reference. He said that recent experience with another Commission following a national tragedy has also added to public cynicism about whether Commissions of Inquiry provide the accountability their appointment appears to promise.
“Your silence risks feeding that cynicism. More importantly, it adds to the uncertainty, pain and frustration of families and survivors who are entitled to look to you for answers. In the present vacuum, grieving families and survivors may be approached individually concerning financial assistance, compensation or settlement before they have had an organised opportunity to understand and protect their rights. Immediate assistance is welcome and may be desperately needed. But assistance is not compensation, and financial need should not become the occasion for obtaining premature settlements or the surrender of legal rights. Any attempt to do so should be discouraged”, he stated.
Ram also addressed matters that he said required early consideration.
Before evidence begins, Ram, an attorney and chartered accountant, said that the Commission should publish Rules of Procedure dealing with public hearings, representation, disclosure, examination of witnesses, participation by families and survivors, the treatment of persons facing criminal charges and the procedure where adverse findings may be envisaged.
“Officers in charge of the vessel on that fateful night have been charged with murder. The pending criminal proceedings require careful handling. The accused retain the presumption of innocence, the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to a fair trial. At the same time, the Commission must be able to hear evidence from others which may bear upon their conduct. The fairness principles commonly associated with Lord Salmon — notice of allegations, disclosure of the substance of the case and a proper opportunity to respond — should inform the Commission’s procedures.
“Nor should the criminal charges against members of the crew narrow the Inquiry. The public is entitled to know not merely what happened on 18 July, but how it came to happen. That requires examination of the Barima’s maintenance, inspection and certification; passenger and cargo controls; the manifest and the extraordinary discrepancy between the recorded and apparent number of persons aboard; and the responsibilities of the Transport and Harbours Department and other public authorities”, he asserted.
Ram added that the Commission must also examine the wider management of the ferry service.
“Other vessels had been acquired but had not been commissioned. Why not? Were they intended to replace or supplement the Barima? What decisions, delays or failures kept them out of service, and did that contribute to the continued use of the Barima? Were warnings ignored, known deficiencies tolerated or opportunities to prevent the tragedy missed?
“The Inquiry must also examine what happened afterwards: rescue, recovery, identification and family liaison; the decisions concerning the raising of the vessel; and preservation of the evidence it may contain. Its proper field is what happened before, during and after the disaster.
“No relevant person should be beyond its reach. Ministers, senior public servants, regulators, inspectors, engineers, passengers and others who possess relevant evidence should be called where necessary”, he contended.
Ram added that the families and survivors cannot be spectators at an inquiry into their own tragedy.
“There are confirmed deaths, missing persons and survivors. There may have been passengers who never appeared on the manifest, and further remains may be discovered when the vessel is eventually raised. The Commission should provide a means by which those affected can participate and, where appropriate, be represented collectively on matters of common concern while preserving their individual legal rights”, he declared.
Discussion