Latest update February 14th, 2025 8:22 AM
Sep 15, 2012 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
The Commission of Inquiry into the unrest in Linden earlier this year should not dignify the letter sent to it by APNU complaining about the presence of two local lawyers attached to the Commission.
It is shocking that APNU should have written to the Commission. This, once again, shows that APNU does not fully understand just what a commission of inquiry is and the appropriate forms of challenging persons associated with the Commission of Inquiry.
It must be recalled that when the commissioners were sworn in, there were reports in the print media indicating that persons within APNU were expressing the hope that a meeting would be held with the commission. If those persons who made such a call had a full and clear understanding of just what is a commission of inquiry, they would not have made such a statement.
Commissions of inquiry do not hold meetings; they have hearings. At these hearings persons with evidence about what happened are allowed to lead evidence just as in a court situation. These witnesses will be liable to be questioned and to be cross examined.
APNU ought to be aware of all of these things and therefore their most recent objections are even more surprising. The latest outburst by APNU challenges the presence of two local lawyers who have been appointed to assist the Commission. The reason given is that APNU feels that the lawyers can taint the work of the Commission with bias.
This is an outrageous suggestion. It once again shows the limited understanding that APNU has about COIs. The local lawyers who are attached to the Commission of Inquiry are not members of the Commission. They will not be part of the decision-making of the body and therefore their presence cannot infect the commission with prejudicial bias.
APNU is also wrongly asserting that the two local lawyers will be the filter through which evidence reaches the Commission. This is ridiculous.
The two lawyers are merely providing support services to the Commission. When it comes to taking evidence, no person wishing to provide evidence is compelled to have his or her statement taken by the local lawyers attached to the Commission. APNU’s lawyers can take the statements from witnesses. Would this not taint the process also with bias?
All commissions of inquiry require secretarial and other support services. And the government is duty bound in supporting the work of the commission which it appointed to conduct the investigation to provide the necessary support for the work of the commission.
Also persons making statements will have to provide that will therefore be subject to questioning and cross- examination, just like in a judicial hearing.
To say that the local lawyers filter the evidence that reaches the commission shows a misunderstanding of how evidence is introduced in a COI and how it can be tested. A statement is not evidence until it is tendered. Before it is tendered it has to be introduced and the person giving the statement is liable to be questioned and cross- examined.
Feb 14, 2025
Kaieteur Sports- With a number of new faces expected to grace the platform with their presence in a competitive setting on Sunday at Saint Stanislaus College Auditorium, longtime partner of...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- There comes a time in the life of a nation when silence is no longer an option, when the... more
Antiguan Barbudan Ambassador to the United States, Sir Ronald Sanders By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The upcoming election... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]