In an extraordinary development, the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the catastrophic sinking of the MV Barima, on October 29th issued a rebuke to the Counsel of the selfsame Commission over remarks attributed to them in a Department of Public Information (DPI) report on the question of seaworthiness certificates for government ferries.
In a clarification signed by Chairman Godfrey P. Smith SC on behalf of the Commission, the Commissioners stressed that they had made no determination on the MV Barima’s seaworthiness or its requirements for safety-related certification.
“It is improper for Counsel to the Commission to publicly opine on issues the determination of which remains live before the Commission and resides exclusively within its Terms of Reference to determine,” the statement said.
The clarification followed an October 22 DPI report which attributed to Counsel the position that government-owned and operated ferries, including the MV Barima, did not require seaworthiness certificates.
While the commission’s statement did not name the attorneys, the DPI report attributed the comments to Arudranauth Gossai and Teni Housty, who serve as Counsel to the commission.
DPI reported that the attorneys said this position arose under the Transport and Harbours Act and its regulations and had applied since independence.
The Commissioners said they became aware of the publication on October 27. It had prompted emails and submissions asking whether the comments represented the Commission’s position and whether it had determined that the MV Barima was exempt from seaworthiness and other safety certification.
“The statements attributed to Counsel to the Commission are in no way indicative of the views or position of the Commission or any of its members,” the clarification stated.
The Commissioners said the questions remained open and would be determined after further evidence was heard and the relevant documents carefully reviewed.
There has been no known public response from Messrs Gossai and Housty to the rebuke but the matter should not end there. This inquiry has already encountered choppy waters. It is evident that families of the dead, families of the missing and survivors have little confidence in what has been embarked upon. They have cited the lacklustre government response in the crucial hours after the tragedy on July 18th which likely contributed to the high death toll, the haphazard relief efforts in the months that followed and the failure thus far to salvage the MV Barima which had been preceded by an arbitrary plan to create an underwater memorial instead.
The attempt by DPI, a notorious handmaiden of the government, was to sway the narrative of responsibility for seaworthiness of public ferries. If it had embarked on this folly on its own then there was no damage. If, however, it was orchestrated with the assistance of Counsel to the Commission then that it is unforgivable and a further grievous blow to the standing and impartiality of this Commission of Inquiry given the role that Counsel is expected to play in the proceedings.
When hearings resume on November 10, if it has not happened as yet, the implicated Counsel should be called upon to issue a public statement before the Commission explaining their remarks in the DPI report including whether they had been accurately reported. The Commissioners should then determine whether there were plausible grounds for the actions of the Counsel and if not a decision should be made for them to be replaced. Too much is at stake in this inquiry pertaining to the loss of 100 lives and the deep-seated grief that has swept northwest communities to permit any overt attempt to try to deflect from the responsibility of the state.
A crisis point will arrive when a decision has to be taken on whether the two ministers who were responsible for the transport sector are to be summoned before the Commission. If they are summoned as is expected based on the testimony thus far before the Commission and the authority they wielded unfettered for six years then they will be led in their testimony by the Commission’s Counsel. The impugned DPI report calls into question whether the public can have confidence in Counsel in the discharge of their duties.
This is not unfamiliar territory in commissions of inquiry here. Following the 2023 Mahdia dormitory fire that claimed 20 lives, questions were raised about the approach of Counsel to the Commission and the line of questioning to witnesses who could hardly have been held responsible for egregious failures connected to fire safety.
What was even more appalling was that the Minister of Education was never summoned as a witness although there were immaculate reasons why she should have been. As an aside, Counsel to the Mahdia Commission of Inquiry was later elevated to a high government position. Are we possibly headed in the same direction here? The Commission of Inquiry has to carefully consider the onerous task before it and the absolute need to ensure that nothing is done to undermine its public standing.
In a commentary on July 14, 2017 on the proliferation of commissions of inquiry during that period, the current Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC among other things had raised questions about what he described as “sinecure” appointments to these inquiries.
He said in part: “The other worrying factor is that these COI’s provide lucrative employment opportunities for political sinecure appointments of cronies, almost all of whom are well past their retirement age, thereby denying our young and educated people job creation opportunities. This contracting-out of work, which are the responsibilities of persons who are already being paid to do them, to cronies, without any transparent and competitive method of recruitment, is a new form of corruption which must be stamped out immediately”. One wonders if he is now assured that this malady has been cured.
Discussion