“Witter on the warpath… public defender to launch investigation into role played by prime minister, police commissioner, chief of staff of JDF and others into 2010 Tivoli Gardens massacre” was what I was hoping that today’s Sunday Gleaner headline (September 18)really said.
Instead the Public Defender is supposedly on the warpath about an anonymous officer of HEART telling the Sunday Gleaner that some employers prefer to employ brownings. In the article the Public Defender hinted that he has the power to compel HEART to give the names of those employers. I hope he does get the names so it can be determined whether this matter is really just a sensational Gleaner headline trying to outsell the competition or a problem that requires not only the intervention of the Public Defender but the rest of civil society in order to stamp out an ugly racist practice.
But what about the Public Defender using the same powers to compel the prime minister to tell about his role in last year’s security forces massacre of innocent civilians in Tivoli Gardens and its environs. The prime minister would have had discussions with the police commissioner about the so-called attack on the state; the prime minster would have persuaded his cabinet to declare a state of emergency; the prime minister would have had discussions with the chief of staff of the Jamaica Defence Force about its deployment into west Kingston; the prime minister as head of the National Defence Board would surely have met with the Board to consider the parameters of the operations. Once the operations began one would have expected the prime minister to ask for reports from the heads of the security forces (whether directly or through his minister of national security) in terms of what was happening on the ground. Surely the prime minister would have had a special interest in the matter in terms of being the political representative for the area. Indeed, it is my understanding that from the very beginning residents got messages through to the prime minister about the massacres taking place. Did the prime minister do anything about these direct reports to him? If he did nothing was this criminal negligence or complicity with murder?
In response to Mr. Edward Seaga claiming that the prime minister was at some point trying, unsuccessfully, to get the army to leave the area, Colonel Rocky Meade made it plain that the army would never disobey an order from the prime minister. The implications of this is clear: the prime minister, who is also the minister of defence, not sanctioned the deployment of the army, but gave no orders as Mr. Seaga suggested for it to pull back. This suggests that he has taken full responsibility for their conduct (as he should) and the public record supports that. He has at no time expressed any concern about their conduct or about the sufferings of the people he politically represents in parliament. Indeed, the prime went so far as to tell the people of Tivoli that what happened could not have been avoided!
Questions to Public Defender, Ear Witter
Do you, Mr. Witter believe this, that bloodshed was unavoidable? Don’t you think it is your duty according to the powers vested in you under the Public Defenders’ Act to investigate the truth of this allegation? Rear Admiral Hardley Lewin has testified that there was intelligence gathering on the activities of Coke. Shouldn’t you Mr. Witter appraise yourself of this intelligence in order to assess why Mr. Coke could not have been arrested in a more efficient way? Or was Tivoli Gardens to be the sacrificial lamb to appease higher powers and save Mr. Golding’s career?
And what about the police commissioner? How could the police commissioner have congratulated the security forces on a professional job in the middle of accusations that residents were being summarily executed by the men he commanded? I’m sure that in the statements collected by your office, residents would have told you that security force personnel taunted them with the claim that they were sent to kill dem off. Was that the professional instruction given by their commanders?
The chief of staff of the Jamaica Defence Force has similar questions to answer. Were instructions given to JDF snipers to shoot innocent civilians as they scampered about to save their lives -- sometimes for just trying to get to the hospital? On what basis for did US surveillance planes fly into Jamaica from Guantanamo Bay to be part of the operations? Were they there to assist JDF helicopters in dropping incendiary devices on civilians? Certainly the prime minister and head of the JDF must be compelled to answer these questions.
As you know very well Mr. Witter, the Tivoli Committee of which I am a member wrote to you asking that you use your powers (similar to that possessed by the Contractor General) to launch an investigation into the role played by those who had command responsibility for the operations. Such an investigation would not be in conflict with a Commission of Enquiry but a very needed complement.
Unfortunately, you have not only refused to meet with us but insist that your preferred course of action is through a Commission of Enquiry. Allow me to state publicly what we told you privately. Apart from the question of whether the government has the desire for another commission of enquiry so soon after the last fiasco (same goes for civil society especially now that general elections are being hyped), a commission of enquiry ultimately makes recommendations which the government is not bound to accept. The terms of reference and the appointment of commissioners is ultimately the sole prerogative of the government as was demonstrated in the last commission of enquiry. If history is to be our guide, another commission of enquiry is bound to end up as a white wash as others have been, and ultimately 73 or 200 people would have been killed without anyone being held accountable.
As it currently stands your office is the only one that has the potential independence and mandate to carry out the kind of investigation that would make a difference in determining whether those who had command responsibility for last year’s carnage should face criminal charges – or what is defined by the International Criminal Court (ICC) as crimes against humanity.
And as for the ICC, it should be clear to everyone by now that the real reason why neither PNP nor JLP government saw fit to ratify the Rome Statute setting up the ICC, is precisely so that in situations such as what happened last year, those who have command responsibility for crimes against the people can be further shielded from legal scrutiny at the international level.
It would be truly sad that that your office turns out to be just another cog to facilitate impunity for state crimes against the people.
How ironic it is that white British progressives saw the necessity to agitate for Governor John Eyre to be put on trial for his role in the 1865 massacre, but in 2011 independent Jamaica, people are more exercised about sensational browning stories than the murder of black Jamaicans by a black Jamaican government, even if lead by a browning.
Lloyd D’Aguilar
No comments:
Post a Comment