Why the Tivoli enquiry is important
Having made the right decision to have a Commission of Enquiry into the Tivoli Gardens ‘incursion’, Cabinet must now ensure that the enquiry is credible so that the outcomes can reduce the chances of the State and political actors repeating this most horrendous episode in our history.
At a minimum, Cabinet must ensure that the terms of reference, choice of commissioners, and operational procedures are capable of inspiring national confidence and removing much of the widespread scepticism that we may be embarking on another expensive points-scoring political exercise.
To be credible, the process and result must make a difference to accountability and good governance.
According to a brief statement last Monday from the Office of the Prime Minster (OPM), Cabinet “took the view that a Commission of Enquiry should be held” as recommended in the Interim Report from Public Defender Earl Witter on his “investigations into the conduct of the security forces” in the West Kingston/Tivoli Gardens ‘incursion’ and the related killing of businessman Keith Clarke at his upper St Andrew home.
Mr Witter said his investigations suggested that “excessive or undue resort to lethal force” was used by the security forces during the operation. And he was not able to determine how many people actually died in the forces’ operation, although he listed 77 deaths, including one soldier. The figure could be higher.
In these circumstances, a judicial enquiry is absolutely essential to determine whether, and how many of the at least 76 civilian deaths during the operation to capture the then fugitive Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke were the victims of extrajudicial killings by the security forces. Mr Witter suggests that many were.
The Jamaican people need to know if that is true, how this happened, who were accountable, and what measures and procedures need to be put in place to prevent a recurrence. And the victims need to get some redress for what happened.
In the alternative we need to know whether the security forces acted proportionate to their reported threat to the State from massed gunmen in the Tivoli stronghold determined to prevent the capture of Coke, who was wanted in the United States on drug- and gun-running charges. What were the political antecedents to the creation of such a violent criminal enterprise?
The urgency of an independent, well-run enquiry ratcheted up Thursday with a front page Gleaner story reporting that Bruce Golding, then the country’s embattled prime minister, was so disturbed about reports of atrocities by security personnel operating in the area that he requested the United States to provide him with independent information and assessment of what was going on in the heart of his constituency.
As reported, a United States Embassy e-mail, accessed through the US Freedom of Information Act by American investigative journalist Mattathias Schwartz, showed that Mr Golding was made aware of mounting allegations of murder and rape against security personnel.
In correspondence dated May 25, 2010 — the second day of the incursion — then United States Embassy chargé d’affaires Isiah Parnell stated that he was summoned to Golding’s office before the prime minister rushed off to a Cabinet meeting without communicating with him.
“He (Golding) asked the foreign affairs minister (Dr Kenneth Baugh) to express his concerns about reports they were getting about massive misuse of force by the JDF within Tivoli,” wrote Parnell. “FM (the foreign affairs minister) said that they heard that non-combatants were being summarily shot and women raped.”
Added Parnell: “He said they could not trust the reports by the JDF that these illegal activities were not taking place and asked if we had any information on the matter.”
Is it true that there was a breakdown of trust between the prime minister and the JDF as this diplomatic e-mail suggests? What would explain that? An enquiry should bring clarity, not just to this aspect of the matter but the wider role of US agencies in the operations.
Bridging the tribal divide
The case for a commission of enquiry is self-evident: The most loss of life at the hands of the State since the Morant Bay Rebellion cannot just go away unless we intend to abandon the never-ending struggle to make respect for human life a reality for our people and not a mere expression of constitutional convenience.
But precisely because the events are rooted in the country’s best known political garrison, we have heard voices of dissent and doubt about the usefulness of the enquiry from former representatives of the area and prime ministers of Jamaica, as well as the current JLP leader Andrew Holness, who believes that a coroner’s inquest and some form of financial compensation would be better.
These political objections are also understandable in the context of previous enquiries into killings of civilians by security forces in Tivoli Gardens. But, as a people, we cannot remain prisoners of a past that has not served us well.
So we know we do not want a commission like the recent one presided over by Emil George into the related Manatt affair which produced a report that left the Jamaican people no wiser about who to hold accountable for the massive failures in governance that racked the nation, although Mr Golding paid the ultimate political price through his subsequent resignation as prime minister.
But even that unfortunate commission, despite its theatrical nature, exposed a lot of untruths, political machinations and a failure of some senior leaders to separate their party political interests from their responsibility as state officials. These lessons, hopefully, will not be unlearned.
That report came after 44 days of riveting hearings — broadcast live on television — and which cost taxpayers some $80 million in legal fees and other expenses. And we also know that the FINSAC Commission which ended public hearings in November 2011 has cost taxpayers more than $100 million so far, but no report has been produced.
These numbers tell us that enquiring into the Tivoli ‘siege’ will cost a tidy sum. But that cannot be a reason for not doing it; it is a reason for managing costs closely in these parlous times and, more important, a reason for ensuring that taxpayers get value for money.
As she contemplates setting up the enquiry, Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller would do well to now heed her own advice when, as leader of the opposition, she wanted to be consulted in establishing the Manatt probe. She should engage not only the Opposition, but civil society organisations on the matter.
Mr Holness should stop shilly-shallying, embrace the enquiry and live up to his word that he is a different kind of leader who wants to end garrison politics. Bi-partisan consensus on this enquiry would go a long way to bridging the tribal divide in our politics and give us a real chance to achieve the level of economic and human development that we have only dreamed of since Independence 50 years ago.
kcr@cwjamaica.com