Like most Jamaicans who have expressed an opinion on Public Defender Earl Witter’s Report on the Tivoli siege in 2010, I welcome the news that the Government intends to implement the recommendation for a Commission of Enquiry. I have yet to read the report beyond the findings and recommendations but it seems to me that a commission of enquiry or a truth commission of enquiry had been called for by many Jamaicans since 2010, including faith-based advocates.

There have been few dissenting voices, and those mainly because of economic constraints. Some contend that in the end this would not result in any meaningful outcome. But even before submitting his report, Witter would have known that such a recommendation would enjoy strong support.

Exactly two years ago, an action group named ‘Truth and Justice’, organised by the Jamaica Council of Churches reported that it had commissioned a qualitative study involving 20 experts and eight focus groups across the island conducted over a four-month period. This was presented at a public forum on ‘Democracy, Governance and the Prospects for Truth-Telling Mechanisms in Jamaica’ at the University of the West Indies, Mona campus.

I would expect that those findings would also be incorporated in the justification section of the public defender’s report. It certainly would strengthen the recommendations. That qualitative study revealed that 65 per cent of the participants supported the call for a truth commission. It suggested that more than 40 per cent of the respondents sampled regarded a truth commission as a mechanism that would have a positive effect by strengthening democracy, increasing accountability in leadership and setting the record straight about certain questionable occurrences within Jamaica’s development.

Although it remains unclear whether the respondents in that study understood the implications for precisely this type of commission, they evidently appreciated its importance and relevance. Hence the ground had long been set.

Some scepticism remains about commissions of enquiry, especially given the heavy cost generated by the Finsac and Coke/Manatt commissions. The scepticism is not without basis. The public understandably wants in each case for someone to be held accountable for whatever the breakdown under investigation. However, democracy can still be served even when this is not the precise outcome.

I certainly feel that the country learnt a lot from the Coke/Manatt Commission about how the State operates. In the case of Tivoli, there are too many unanswered questions. Taxpayers certainly have a right to a better understanding of the decisions that are taken on our behalf. I believe that most law-abiding Jamaicans want to know if the Tivoli siege unleashed unprecedented and unwarranted brutality at the hands of agents of the State, as alleged. There is also need for an unvarnished account of how and why Keith Clarke was killed in his own house on that awful night in question. That is the least we should expect from any commission of enquiry. There will be no closure until this is done.

I think it would help for us to be more careful in establishing the administrative mechanism. Is it possible to get UN assistance in moving forward? The writing of this chapter in our history ought not to be based on half-truths and/or plain misinformation. Yes, we are a poor country, but some costs are inescapable, even when they hurt. An approach at minimising the cost was suggested by a newspaper reader who said that contributions to the work of the commission should be voluntary, including lawyers and commissioners, “in the interest of justice for Jamaicans and love for their country and not for self-serving monetary gains, fame, or to gain political mileage.” Maybe some of that is possible if we are all serious.

The Coke/Manatt Commission attracted worldwide attention that was not all good, but it certainly contributed to the thinking that Jamaica still exercises a brand of democracy and responsible media freedom.

Media freedom

My more than one month sojourn in the United States, which ended last weekend, led me to be more in sympathy with Neil Postman’s conclusion that, in a nutshell, modern culture reduces everything, which, prior to the age of television, was held sacred and important to the realm of entertainment. Well, maybe not everything in my own view, but certainly in some important ways this is hardly refutable.

This is especially evident, given the demand today for instant reports on television and on social media channels where stories with ingredients of sex, crime and violence hold much sway. In this scenario, the heavy exposure of every accused or person suspected of a crime to trial by media passes for press freedom. While there may be some benefits, especially from a media perspective, I shudder to think of the follow-up existence of those subjected to such treatment if and when they are pronounced innocent. It may well be that the size of the country allows for that type of intrusion, but all too frequently that is not the situation.

The most recent case in point involves a former school bus driver charged with kidnapping and holding three young women captive in the basement of his Cleveland, Ohio house. That story has all the ingredients desired for television drama and cable television audiences have been fed continuous reports. Problem is, initial accounts implicated his two brothers who were later deemed innocent. Those two brothers have since had to be lying low in their community because of death threats and attacks on their homes.

Partly in an attempt to undo their wrong, the media have been extensively televising interviews with these brothers, now featured in more presentable attire for television. But the harm already done may be irreparable. In this climate, misinformation thrives such as a report this week that a well-known African-American entertainer has provided the $8-million bail for the accused kidnapper/rapist whom he allegedly feels is being unfairly treated. This is obviously a fake story, but it is anyone’s guess the damage that may be already done to the business interests of this unsuspecting entertainer.

OJ Simpson returns to court

Always a good entertaining subject is OJ Simpson, the former football hall-of-famer who was imprisoned about four years ago for up to 33 years for what most people regard as a minor offence. Last week, Simpson returned to court seeking to convince the judge that his lawyer in that case had a conflict of interest and so is asking for a new trial. Simpson, presumably, no longer holds that much television interest so his case may not get prime time and no one beyond his previous lawyer is likely to suffer a fallout.

The media here will know that the Tivoli hearings are likely to attract sold-out audiences and strong advertising support, not dissimilar to what obtains in the US. Our brand of press freedom makes this possible. However, in the process, we do expect balanced and credible journalism.

CLARKE… there is need for an unvarnished account of how and why he was killed in his own house