On Thursday in great secrecy and haste, President Ali orchestrated the swearing in of the five members of the Commission of Inquiry into the catastrophic sinking of the MV Barima with approximately 100 deaths.
The proceedings featured the virtual swearing in of the chair of the Commission, Belizean Senior Counsel Godfrey P. Smith. This method of solemnizing appointments will forever now be seen as the benchmark and the rubbishing of excuses that had been tendered in relation, for example, to the unconscionable delay in the swearing in of the Opposition Leader.
In having the commissioners take the oath before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman, President Ali has severely handicapped the commission and set it up for failure or at least to have its findings rejected in the communities where it most matters.
The most serious undermining of the Commission’s work was the President’s failure to consult widely on the enlisting of Commissioners or at least with the Leader of the Opposition who has an important constitutional role. Mr Ali’s failure to consult has marked this Commission as a creature of the Presidency and at his service. The President has provided no explanation for why at a moment of grave national crisis and the trauma to hundreds of families he saw no value in departing from his and the PPP/C’s proclivity to dictate terms. Moreover, in the current climate his handpicking of commissioners will be seen as a bid to insulate him, his ministers and the ruling party from any serious indictment from the findings of the Commission, a perception that will detract from the Commission’s work.
President Ali also failed to announce at the swearing in of the commissioners that he had ordered the removal, even if temporarily, of Ministers Edghill and Indar along with senior personnel at both the Transport and Harbours Department (T&HD) and the Maritime Administration Department (MARAD) to enable the work of the inquiry to proceed unimpeded. It must be apparent to the President and his advisors that for the ministers to remain in situ creates conditions for them to take continuous action to protect themselves from any jeopardy potentially emanating from evidence before the commission and also to be an impediment to full and frank testimony from personnel from the T&HD and MARAD.
It is also has to be pondered whether those taking up the appointments of commissioners in circumstances like these even bother to examine the milieu in which they will be operating. Did Commissioner Smith, the Chairman of the body, consider the hyperpartisanship that infects every major issue in Guyana and what that could mean for the success or failure of his mission? He is no stranger to Guyana having already served on the Commission of Inquiry into the March 2nd 2020 general elections when he would have already discerned this feature. Did he after being approached by the President or on behalf of the President question whether given the scale of the disaster and the public contestation about ministerial accountability his hiring would have broad acceptance? Shouldn’t he have sought an assurance that there was consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and the communities most impacted by the tragedy on his appointment? Perhaps the arranging of these commissions of inquiry does not invite such questions.
However, uncomfortable questions have to be asked and addressed. It has already been reported in these columns that the elections inquiry that Commissioner Smith participated in omitted commentary and recommendations in key areas such as the shocking conduct by the Chair of the Commission, Justice of Appeal (retired) Claudette Singh during the hours that feverish attempts were being made to hijack the 2020 elections. After her testimony on December 8, 2022 before the Commission, Ms Singh faced the following comment/question from Commissioner Smith.
“To say you couldn’t be bothered seems odd because you are the Chair and you are in the middle of a very serious situation. I simply want to know, at that point did you call other Commissioners and say look, I am feeling stressed, let’s meet together and weather the storm, I am not taking this on, on my own. Did that occur to you or you just preferred to shut yourself away?”
Yet, the final report of the inquiry made no adverse comment about Ms Singh’s performance as chair. That lacuna was perceived to be in line with the desire of the PPP/C government to excuse Ms Singh since she later appeared to have taken actions in the recount period to enable the correct declaration of results.
In the current circumstances, the protection by the government of Ministers Edghill and Indar would immediately raise questions about whether they would be called before the commission and even if they were to appear that the failures that occurred under them and any personal delinquency would not be adequately represented in the final report. That is unfortunately the conclusion to be drawn from the outcome of the report on the elections inquiry.
Despite repeated requests by Kiskadee Watch to the Office of the President, no response was received to the question as to whether Commissioner, Captain Hamada Fouda of Jamaica had familial connections in Guyana that would create an insuperable conflict of interest for him. Again, Captain Fouda had to have become aware of this controversy but neither he nor the government has uttered a word or explanation. It remains a pertinent issue and if not addressed can further undermine the Commission.
Then there is the contention that there was an association between Guyana’s Minister of Labour and Manpower Planning, Keoma Griffith with the legal services offered in Trinidad and Tobago by Commissioner Nyree Dawn Alfonso. Such an association creates the spectre of potential influence on matters before the commission. Minister Griffith has maintained silence on this matter.
The Commission is therefore embarking on this inquiry into the worst maritime disaster in the country’s history with baggage that can weigh it down and diminish its standing and authority from the outset.
Discussion