Dear Editor,

There have been calls for transparency, integrity, consensus, facts and truth in relation to the Manatt Commission of Enquiry.

The irony is that three of these factors already exist, while the others cannot come from the Commission, regardless of the final verdict, how long it deliberates, or whether the prime minister has named Commission members after consultation.

Transparency already exists, as everyone can see clearly who the Commission members are, how they were named and by whom. The terms of reference are also wide open and clear. It is abundantly clear who has the strongest desire to keep the issue in the public mind — one way or another.

No one has questioned the integrity (moral or ethical) of the Commission members, despite one ill-advised reference to past professional engagement of some members as qualifying them to be described as “JLP activists”. Clearly, integrity is present and therefore no part of the problem.

Consensus is clearly what some people mean when they call for transparency. Hence their demand for broad-based consultations with church, civil society, Opposition, etc, despite not questioning the integrity of the named commissioners.

But there is consensus concerning the relative value of a Commission of Enquiry in this matter at this time, and concerning who appears to have the greater desire for a Commission and who may have more to gain or lose by the process and/or the eventual outcome.

The facts also appear to have been presented, many times over – at least from the perspective of Prime Minister Bruce Golding. Some facts have also been presented from the perspective of Attorney Harold Brady and Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, among others, including the United States authorities.

It should therefore not be difficult for an eminent trio, such as has been named, to determine and coherently order the facts available to them through questioning, given sufficient time and authority. It is also obvious that certain diplomatic and/or political facts may never be accessible to the commissioners – regardless of their competence and integrity.

The problem then, for whoever comprises the Commission, is not about transparency, integrity, or getting the facts, but about getting the truth.

The fact is that this commission is no more equipped to establish truth concerning these matters than the rest of us in a society that is, perhaps, more divided religiously, politically and socially than anywhere else in the world.

The truth is that by determining and accurately arranging the facts, we have only one part of the story. We then only have answers to the questions, What? When? Where? and maybe How?

To find the truth, we need to know and understand Why? And the real answers to why are usually from and within “the heart”. And the Creator (Yahweh Elohim Yahshua ) alone knows and can see “the heart”.

It is also true that because many have already made up their minds to either believe or not believe the prime minister or Mr Brady, or the PNP or the US authorities, many will only accept as “truth” whatever conforms to what we want to believe, regardless of the Commission’s final verdict.

The only other thing necessary now is the “honesty” (and insight) to acknowledge all the above as “factual”, “accurate”, and “true”.

C Anthony

carltongor@gmail.com