Dominica Users Group WHY WE NEED A COMMISSION OF INQUIRY NOW!

Why We Need a Commission of  Inquiry Now 

By   

Gabriel J. Christian,  Esq. 

On Carnival Tuesday, February 25, 1963 a fire erupted at  the back of the 
Mexican band on King George V Street in Roseau, Dominica. As a result of the 
fire  that day 19 Dominicans were wounded; three fatally. The three who died 
because  of the injuries sustained that day were Eddie Martin, George James 
and Eric  Shillingford. On 20th March 1963, Colonel Alec Lovelace,   
Administrator of Dominica appointed E.L. St. Bernard as the Commissioner to lead  
an inquiry into the events which transpired on that that tragic day. Forty 
four  years later, it was the Report of Inquiry in the 1963 Fire, which 
provided the  outline for the book, Death by Fire: The Explosive Story of the  
1963 Carnival Tragedy by Irving W. Andre and Gabriel J. Christian.  Absent the 
factual rendition in that  report, its lists of injured, the authors would 
have had a near impossible task  in trying to recreate the events which took 
place that day. However, where there  was established a process, of persons 
being subpoenaed, placed under oath and  cross examined, much light was shed 
on what was a dark episode in our island’s  history. Such adherence to rule 
of law sought to consolidate trust in the organs  of the state and grant 
relief at a time of great public outcry over what was a  combustible 
controversy. Such a moment now confronts our nation again. We cannot  do less than 
the colonial administrators did where they sought to examine  controversy and 
resolve conflict. It is for that reason, that we need a  commission of 
inquiry to examine the issue of corruption in public office now  afflicting our 
government. 
A Brief Outline of the  Commission Inquiry and its Role in our  History 
I  thought it appropriate to make the above point, so that we could 
appreciate the  importance of using the Commission of Inquiry as an instrument via 
which to  ensure that rule of law obtains. The commission of inquiry is part 
of a  cherished tradition born of our history rooted in British 
jurisprudence. Derived  from British practice, Royal Commissions have usually been 
appointed by the  sovereign (i.e. head of State) upon the advice and with the 
consent of  government to examine controversies and matters of great 
importance to the  country. The commissioner is usually an eminent retired jurist – 
so chosen to  remove that person from the pressures which would usually 
constrain a serving  civil servant, attorney general or police official. The 
commissioner need not be  a jurist, but would need to be a person with a degree 
of expertise in the area  under examination and an understanding of 
pertinent law. The commissioner is  usually empowered to call upon accountants, 
lawyers, investigators and other  resource persons who may assist him/her in the 
execution of the terms of  reference. The commissioner would take 
statements under oath from witnesses, and  may also hire skilled counsel to cross 
examine witnesses in public, and on the  record. Discovery of pertinent 
documentation is usually part of the process and  the final report would have an 
appendix of all that which was examined, in  support of its final 
recommendation. The recommendation may include changes in  the law, government policy 
and – if need be – criminal prosecution of those who  were found to have 
broken the law. 
Dominica has a long history of such commissions and they have  done much to 
cultivate a national belief in our being a law abiding society. In  the 
carnival of 1927 when the ban  mauvay revelers assaulted and wounded Police 
Chief William Leighton, a  Commission was impaneled and persons prosecuted. 
When the 1930 Carib War took  place and lives were lost, a commission of 
inquiry investigated. We now have a  record of the 1963 Carnival Fire in the same 
way, as mentioned above. While no  one was prosecuted, the record made did 
much to illuminate the event for  posterity. After the Dominica Freedom Party 
led opposition demonstrators invaded  the House of Assembly on December 16, 
1971 to prevent passage of a bill by the  then Labour Party government, a 
commission of inquiry was convened to examine  the disturbances and punish 
the offenders. A commission of inquiry into the  Dominica Defence Force was 
also conducted by a Colonel C.E. Martindale on August  17, 1978. So too, after 
the May 29, 1979 Riot outside Government Headquarters in  Roseau, a  
similar panel was appointed. After the ascent of the Freedom Party to power, a  
commission of inquiry was embodied to investigate whether there was fraud or  
other wrong doing  in the manner in  which Pierre Charles was elected as 
President of the National Youth Council  (NYC) in that organization’s election 
of 1977. I served under Justice Mathew on  that commission as a token 
representative of the left/Labour opposition.  As a commissioner, we met at the 
House of  Assembly and took testimony of witnesses over several days, under 
oath.  Similarly, when allegations that the  Freedom Party led by Eugenia 
Charles bugged the United Workers Party headquarter  a commission of inquiry was 
summoned.  Attorney Anthony Astaphan, on behalf of the government made a 
name for  himself during his cross examination of witnesses in that episode. 
Surely, he  remembers and should know the importance of such public inquiry 
in resolving  public controversy. Will he oppose this call now? If so, why?   
The issue of the NYC election of 1977 and its operations  – or the alleged 
UWP Bugging Scandal had not risen to a level of national  controversy – or 
seriousness - as has the recent allegations of “Bin Bobol,”  Ownership of 
villas by Prime Minister Skerrit, or any of the related issues of  corruption 
in public office. Nonetheless, instituting commissions of inquiry was  
deemed the right and proper thing to do.  Why not now? 
Settling the Society, Trust and the Public  Mind 
Since the election of December 18, 2009, I have remained  silent with the 
hope that the government would act with the requisite wisdom to  settle the 
public mind, and so squelch the nagging questions and mistrust which  arose 
during the campaign. Once an election is over it has been, and is, my  
position that every Dominican must give his loyalty to the duly elected  
government in doing what is necessary and lawful to build the nation.  To that end I 
complimented the  government on the public works completed, such as the 
refurbished airport and  night landing capability. We have sought to work with 
different ministries in  areas of health, education and youth affairs. 
Despite being maligned by the Pied  Pipers of disinformation, The Dominica Academy 
of Arts and Sciences (DAAS), of  which I am a proud member, has not ceased 
it pro development agenda and has  consistently worked with government on 
different levels and remains committed to  doing so.  DAAS President, Dr.  
Clayton Shillingford’s championing of a  partnership between the Dominica State 
College (DSC) and the Smithsonian’s  Museum is a sterling example of such 
commitment to national development. Why  would any conscious Dominican seek 
to sever the good relations we have sought to  forge with our homeland by 
imputing improper motives to those who decry  misconduct in high and low 
places? Any misgiving aside, we must strive to  applaud the good that government 
does, while condemning deviant behavior. We  cannot build where one opposes 
government simply because one’s party is not in  power. We cannot be consumed 
by an all encompassing negativity which dulls  productive effort. Even 
where attacked, we must be wise in the rebuttal and  persuade government to do 
right by us. We know that many in government and the  ruling party are honest 
men and women who quietly support our efforts at a  transparent and lawful 
Dominican society. So we, those of us who favor balance,  shall never engage 
in any wholesale lambasting of government or a party when  they have lost 
their way. We seek to lead them away from any corruption of a  kind that has 
ruined mineral rich countries in Europe, Africa, Asia and closer to home. 
All  patriotic Dominicans have a duty to build the country and assist the  
government.  Such loyalty, however,  does not extend to acquiescence in 
wrong doing where, and if, it exist. It will  not do to paint those who query 
alleged misconduct as anti-government. Indeed, I  am pro government; good 
government, that is. Nor is this call anti-Labour Party,  as I maintain a deep 
commitment to the proud heritage of that movement which  gave land to the 
landless and hope to the hopeless. We, those of us who embarked  on the 
Dominica Diaspora in the Development Process Symposiums did much to  support 
government policy to the point, that our friends in the legitimate  political 
opposition considered us government agents. It is therefore ludicrous  to now 
disown our proven patriotism, simply because we oppose any misconduct, no  
matter from which quarter, which trespasses upon the sanctity of integrity in  
public service. We shall settle our society and hasten reconciliation where 
we  act in an open and transparent manner sufficient to infuse relations 
between the  governments and governed with trust. Right now, the trust which is 
a  prerequisite to our being united in the quest for development is 
groaning under  the weight of e-mails, documents and other evidence - some of it 
now sworn  testimony - which did not exist during the 2009 election campaign. 
Public trust  in rule of law on Dominica is at an all time low and  slipping 
fast; it is demoralizing and unsettles good faith attempts at national  
concord.  If our government, which  is duty bound to serve our best interest, 
has nothing to hide it should advise  the President to appoint a commission 
of inquiry now! That President Liverpool  is by far the most lettered head of 
state in our history should suggest that he  knows well what should be 
done. He must thus hasten to advise those who rule,  that the nation is 
threatened where no such accounting is done to set the ship  of state right. Silence 
on his part will not do. 
Once a commission is in place, and where the government  leaders at issue 
are found to be without blame then they would be due an  apology. I would 
gladly step forward and do so; and would urge others to do  likewise, where we 
were shown to be somehow wrong all along. However, where the  basis for 
wrong doing is found, the law courts should be summoned to do their  work. 
Absent our adherence to the tradition of commissions of inquiry to examine  mis
deeds and propose changes to preclude such misdeeds in the future, we shall  
not be able to arrest the decline in public trust, the slide toward social  
disorder and absence of a basis via which we can bring reconciliation to the  
Dominican family. Such a commission will compel all those with evidence to 
come  forth. It will ask those in the know to state their piece in public 
under oath.  It will allow experts to determine whether the numerous e-mails 
now in the  public domain were doctored or are indeed legitimate. A 
commission can reveal  how the refunds in the Bin Purchase Scandal were accomplished, 
and who were  accomplices to any plot to fleece the treasury or convert 
foreign aid to  personal use. The commission’s reach will also extend to the 
misty woods of  Pennsylvania  and be able to summon the silent government 
procurement agent to state his piece  and so clear his good name. 
Appoint a Commission of  Inquiry Now 
We have just celebrated our 32nd anniversary of  independence and it was 
right that we did so. However, the country is uneasy; it  is not at rest. If 
there is nothing to hide, why the hesitation in moving  forward with a proper 
investigation? All of us know that conscious leadership in  any democracy 
worthy of the name would so act.  In May 2009 Michael Martin, the Speaker  of 
the British Parliament, resigned over the issue of expenses by Members of  
Parliament of public funds. He had sought to block disclosure of information 
to  the public of how certain British MPs were spending public funds. In 
ruling  against such attempts to deny the public such information, the high 
court  stated: 
We have no doubt that the public interest is at stake. We are not here  
dealing with idle gossip, or public curiosity about what in truth are  
trivialities….The expenditure of public money through the payment of MPs’  salaries 
and allowances is a matter of direct and reasonable interest to  taxpayers. 
Can we do less in Dominica? Is our system of  jurisprudence not modeled on 
the British common law?  The decision by the British courts to  hold their 
MPs responsible to the governed was called a victory for transparency  in 
public office.  What we hear on  the airwaves in Dominica about corruption 
today are  not the idle allegations of political hacks dreamt up one morning by 
talk show  hosts intent on malice. We know Mr. Linton has his political 
views at variance  with the government and we have disagreed much over the 
years, while finding  common on matters of the national interest. As for Matt 
Peltier, he was  introduced to me by no less a person than Prime Minister Rosie 
Douglas, of  blessed memory.  These men are not  inherently anti-government 
and both worked much to build bridges between  Dominicans at home and 
abroad. Where the work of investigative reporters such as  Matt Peltier or Lennox 
Linton has resulted in payment to the national treasury  of tens of 
thousands of dollars their efforts serve a public good. Shall we  debase them or 
honor them as civic heroes who protected the public till?   
An atmosphere of innuendo, rumor, charge and  counter-charge ruins the 
public mood, saps the national vitality and causes many  to be inattentive to 
the real work of development. We must put an end to this,  and resolve the 
manner in a mature fashion with the available tools granted us  by our history 
as a nation groomed in the rule of law tradition. Where there is  nothing to 
hide, the summoning of such a commission of inquiry by those who  purport 
to lead us in the right path should be proceeded with immediately.  As the 
Integrity in Public Office  Commission has been shown to be a toothless tiger, 
unwilling to stir from its  refuge; nothing less than a public commission 
of inquiry will now do.