Dear Editor,

The memories of May 24, 2010 will always be etched in the recesses of the minds of Jamaicans. It will not be remembered for its usual Labour Day activities but rather for the fierce gun battle which raged between the security forces of the state and a battalion of gunmen who launched a vehement assault on the nation. The state forces were resolute to unclench the fists of the gun-clutching criminals who have been wreaking havoc on the nation for almost two decades and forced them to surrender. This continues, even months after this militant affair, because the security forces are adamant to maintain victory over crime that bedevils the nation. The war has not ended, but the hoodlums are clearly on the retreat.

Not only will we remember the incursion of May 24, but also the enthralling five-hour episodes of the Dudus/Manatt Commission of Enquiry that followed. The enquiry was commissioned by Prime Minister Bruce Golding in an attempt to satisfy what appeared to be the insatiable appetites for full disclosure among sectors within the society. The magnitude of these sittings weighed so heavily on the characters of various interests that we saw the strongest contingent of our legal luminaries in any one sitting defending the interests that they represented.

These brilliant attorneys were tasked with unveiling the truth, a principle which predicates their noble career and which attorneys like Hugh Small, Frank Phipps and KD Knight with their wisdom and know-how, would have had experience in unravelling quite effortlessly at times. Mr Knight often reminded the commission the purpose of its existence, which he said was to facilitate an expedition for truth. On his final day of cross-examining Mr Golding, I began to doubt whether Mr Knight was convinced of this when he seemed to have changed lanes, and instead of seeking to uncover the facts to find truth, he appeared to have given up on the prospects of there being any revelation besides those which were already known before the commission began. His evidently desperate broadside against the prime minister speaks for itself.

When the proceedings were adjourned, many expressed disappointment. Some asked, “What was it good for?” Others said it was a “waste of time and money” as nothing new besides the discovery of secret Memoranda of Understanding which are believed to have betrayed Jamaicans. They argued that their rights were subjected to the terms of these Memoranda of Understanding while the rights of American citizens were not subjected to the same agreements. This issue became, at one point, the focus of the enquiry.

Amidst all this, in my quiet time I wonder to myself whether there was indeed more to know or was this just another political display aimed at embarrassing and castigating an opponent for purely political measure. If there was indeed more to the tale, have these eminent attorneys working towards a common goal failed in their pursuit of truth, or is there really nothing further? I wonder.

Randolph Ledgister

randolphledgister@gamil.com