A probe into the Minister’s death is necessary

Dec 30, 2009 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

In any country of the world, the death of a Minister of the government would immediately invite a full scale investigation since the status of the person concerned would have dictated that any possibility, however remote, of foul play or negligence, be ruled out.
When Princess Diana died, there was not just a post mortem into her death. There was detailed investigation which probed all aspects of her death, including the state of alertness of those who were driving her as well as the high speed chase of her vehicle by the paparazzi.
A Minister of the government in Guyana died unexpectedly following a motor vehicle accident during which she allegedly sustained injuries. At her funeral, the leader of the opposition expressed surprise that he had died following what seemed to be non- life threatening injuries.
In fact, throughout her hospitalization, there was no indication, at least not to the public, that the Minister’s injuries were life threatening.
It therefore came as a surprise when it was announced that the minister has succumbed. This led the leader of the opposition to call for a probe into her death, something that one would have expected as a natural recourse since this is what one would expect should a leading figure in a government die.
The best way to verify whether there was negligence would be to have a probe of her death. The leader of the opposition did not claim that there was negligence. He simply said that he was surprised at the sudden turn of condition of the Minister and thus felt that a probe would answer a lot of questions. The call for a probe was thus a very reasonable demand to make.
No sooner had this demand been made, than this newspaper quoted a doctor of the hospital at which the Minister was hospitalised as saying that a probe was not warranted since there was no evidence of negligence. The same newspaper quoted a Ministry of Health statement as indicating that the post mortem conducted on the minister did not find any evidence of negligence.
As far as this column is aware, a post mortem does not pronounce on the nature of treatment. It determines the cause of death. It is only through a probe that it can be determined whether there was satisfactory care and whether there was negligence.
The President, to his credit, has reversed the situation and has called for a probe since he too expressed surprised that the minister’s health moved from fractures to death. This is a welcome response to the demands of the Leader of the Opposition who must have been taken by surprise when he learnt that the President was supporting the call for a probe. No doubt some of her Cabinet colleagues would have also been demanding a probe.
There should be no delays in putting together the probe team. It is important that this team investigate all aspects of the Minister’s death, including the accident since convention dictates that this is how it should be done. The vehicle in which the minister was traveling crashed into an ambulance and the minister was reportedly flung out of the back windscreen.
She was then taken to the hospital where she received treatment but succumbed days later thus triggering the calls for a probe.
The probe team should be as independent as possible and since personnel from the hospital have already made statements concerning the minister’s death, it would be ideal if no person from the hospital forms part of the probe team. What is needed is for this particular aspect of the investigation to be carried out by competent professionals. The probe team should be put in place immediately and should begin its work so that by the end of January, the results of that probe should be known.
It must be said that so far there has been no evidence of wrong doing on the part of those who treated the Minister. There has also been no suggestion of negligence. But the best way to verify these things is to have an independent probe.
It is commendable that the President has called for such a probe.
For regardless of what the verdict of the probe team, this is how matters of this nature must be handled.
There ought to have been a commission of inquiry into the death of the former Minister of Agriculture Satyadeow Sawh. This was a grave omission by the administration, regardless of whatever information it had concerning his death and the certainty as to who were behind his death.
The same omission will not be repeated this time around and this is good for all concerned especially the grieving family who will find some closure from knowing that the best was done for their loved one.

---

---