IT’S that happy time again in North America. They call it thanksgiving, and we seem to rejoice, contemplating great sales in department stores that will have to be paid for at some time when the credit cards become due. The Americans give thanks for their arrival, in much the same way that many Jamaicans would give thanks for their departure compliments of a legally issued “green card”. Spend or starve, these are the choices of the exploiter and the exploited – may they receive their just dues.

On local soil, Jamaicans are rejoicing at the announcement of yet another commission of enquiry, and the predictable complicity between the two major political camps, who are again exposing their agreement to share the spoils of rotating victory. They do this by pretending to squabble, when we really know that this “face card” is only one way of protecting them from the real glare of public scrutiny.

In the first instance, the governing party announced that it intended to have consultations with the opposition concerning the commissioners and the terms of reference. It seems the PNP has not been consulted, based on its utterances. The prime minister says they were unable to reach them by phone. This flies in the face of Roger Clarke’s statement regarding progress — “everyone has two cellphones and can call themselves”. In addition to great communication skills, both leaders have invested millions of taxpayers’ money in round-the-clock security personnel, and yet we can’t find them over the Heroes’ weekend? That is very curious indeed.

In the second instance, we are now seeing an increased level of second-guessing and doubt surrounding the commissioners, and the next step will be to contest their suitability in the courts. Since two of the commissioners are lawyers, we can expect that they will be asked questions about their past and present dealings with any lobbyists or other persons in Washington, and also whether they have sworn allegiance to a foreign power, or have or had a resident status in another country. This should allow for at least six months delay initially, and another year for appeals. Remember the predictions that the world will end in 2012; this should just allow that threat to expire or be fulfilled before we have any report.

Thirdly, the terms of the enquiry are so wide that they have been seemingly welcomed by my colleagues in the media, who have failed to recognize that the broad scope will be a prerequisite for failure and the lack of a definitive report. For instance, in the investigation of the US side of the extradition request, the scope does not include how the power to investigate the Government of the United States will be obtained. Is their testimony required and assured? Failing their co-operation, will they be “forcibly” required to attend and give testimony? Will we have to request their extradition?

Fourthly, what do we expect as the outcome of such a report with such a broad scope? One outcome could be that the United States government would be seen to have acted in an improper/illegal way with regard to the Treaty, while on the other hand so could the Jamaican government, so what would be the action in either case? Another could be that Harold Brady impersonated a Jamaican government official. Would that constitute a felony, or even treason? It could also mean that the Jamaican government awarded Harold Brady an improper contract that was not put to tender — here comes the contractor general. It could also be that the JLP impersonated the Jamaican government, so the party should also be charged for a felony and/or treason.

Fifthly, the Commission will have to find out who paid the money to the US law firm regardless of whether the donor or the PM wishes to reveal it. In any regard, the US government already knows who that is, so as they say, “the truth will come out”. Now under the circumstances, will the donor become a party to a felony and/or treason?

Sixthly, under any of the circumstances mentioned above, will the contractor general and the director of public prosecution be enabled or empowered to take action where appropriate, based on the findings of the Commission and the sworn statements given in the proceedings? Will those sworn statements be admissible in court should any charges be laid, and to what significance will these be contestable by defence lawyers? There are a lot more legal issues involved here than I have mentioned or can even begin to understand, so perhaps some legal luminary may care to comment on these prior to accepting a brief from an aggrieved party. That may be hoping for too much as not many lawyers give public statements without compensation.

The history of Jamaica is riddled with the appointment of commissions to investigate this or that. In colonial times, the Morant Bay Rebellion was one where the British government punished the governor for his part in the mayhem. We had several commissions concerning the non-profitability of the sugar industry in Jamaica, and comparative statistics with Cuba, Barbados and others pointed to our lack of mechanisation.

Since Independence I can recall a few. There was one in relation to the state of emergency called by the Michael Manley administration which was found to be “illegal but not corrupt”, and no charges were laid. I am sure that Pearnel Charles remembers that well, and although he was pardoned, the scars cannot be easily erased. Another was the “zinc scandal” after Hurricane Gilbert, which served no purpose as far as arrests or charges being laid, and neither were the zinc sheets recovered. There is the ongoing Cuban light bulb saga, Trafigura, the “Bridge scandal”, and FINSAC, to name just a few. There remain more questions than answers.

I really have no hope for this latest one. However, as long as people with access to the media continue to fool ourselves and the public by ignoring the intention of a system designed to fail, then we become a part of the plot. I would really like to see the rules of engagement and terms of reference better defined so as to ensure that the relevant questions are answered. We cannot afford any more multimillion-dollar circus performances. This is a time for serious answers.

The importance of this matter is sufficient to warrant the close attention of the public, and the media has a major responsibility for accuracy, and proper investigative reporting. After all, the circumstances threaten the integrity of Parliament, the role of government, the separation of party and government, and the rule of law. Any failure found in the aforementioned will threaten the future of our democratic ideals and systems, and may therefore require massive changes to our Constitution and its processes.