POST COMMISSION OF INQUIRY – By PAUL T. LAWRENCE The commission of inquiry has started in earnest here in Nevis last week with all of the players in the game having been invested. It is left to be seen what the outcome of this extensive and expensive undertaking would uncover. Commissions of inquiries have been instituted throughout the world whether those countries were democracies, socialists, fascist, or autocracies. Such inquiries have existed for a very long time, since time immemorial and will continue to be a part of the operation of present governments. One of the main and visibly effective purposes of commissions of inquiries is that they act as checks not only on the executive branches of governments, but also on the activities of the various branches of the civil services and on any other divisions that are answerable to a minister of government. In other words, in situations where the functions of governments are delegated to inferior officers. If those functions are not discharged in a fair and satisfactory procedural manner, the deprived members of society have the right to request the powers that be to institute a commission of inquiry to find out what went wrong and to provide satisfactory actions to compensate the aggrieved groups of individuals. The matters that attract the institution of commissions of inquiries are usually complaints against administrations and especially against maladministration. At the end of inquiries, the commissioner usually writes a report, and to all intents and purposes, the commissioner does not advise any legal remedies. So the question is “who usually calls for the institution of inquiries since they do not attract legal remedies”? What do the perpetrators want when they institute such inquiries? It is left to the ordinary man riding on the mini-buses from Gingerland and Newcastle to Charlestown, to work out for themselves. The fertile sources for the institution of commission of Inquiries fall in the areas of (1) the aggrieved citizen’s constitutional rights, (2) the ultra vires principle, for example when a minister of government purports to issue mandatory instructions to personnels of a totally different ministry to perform a specific task without the knowledge of or the permission of the responsible minister, (3) the presence of maladministration (4) where a government recklessly spends vast sums of money on projects that were not provided for in the annual budget. From a universal point of view, it is agreed that an island government like Nevis, that has the administration of so many diverse services and bureaucratic controls, would cause several grievances and complaints. It would be a paradox if one island government in power would institute a commission of inquiry against one of its ministers who has done something seriously wrong or violently repugnant to the annoyance and loss to the aggrieved citizens. If that government did that, it would be the architect of its own downfall. What usually happens is that the newly elected government would carry out a witch hunt on the operations of the defeated government with a view to destroying its credibility. One would hardly find commissions of inquiry of similar magnitude and duration being conducted in the relatively larger, richer, and more developed nations of the world as we seem to have here in some of the poorer nations of the Caribbean. The problem that we have here in Nevis and in other sectors of the Caribbean is that when copy-cat commissions of inquiry are instituted they are usually called about two and a half to three years after the new victorious governments have seized power and about two years before the next general election. The allegedly apparent reason for the institution of the inquiry here in Nevis is therefore the intention to inflict lasting damages on the opposition that would render them perilously incapable of regaining political power. There are possibly two main reasons that tend to dissuade larger and richer countries from trying to redress public complaints by way of the institution of commissions of inquiry. The first one is the prohibitively high cost of such undertakings. The second one relates to the functions of the in-built mechanisms in their governments. Some governments have special investigative committees built into their parliamentary structures to deal with complaints. Various Congressional committees deal with problems relating to the USA, and similarly various committees operate in the UK. No such committees operate in Nevis except for self styled individuals who seem to have the solutions for every conceivable problem that faces the country. The Nevis government seems to ignore the magnitude of the cost even though it may or may not have the money in the treasury to pay the for the commission of inquiry. It has failed to disclose the island’s bank statement. As a result, we are all in a quandary and a total loss as regards to our financial position. It has been alleged that a financial organisation has promised to lend the Nevis Island Government an undisclosed sum of money which could possibly be used for the payment of the commission’s bill. If this is the case, it means that Nevis will be sinking deeper and deeper into possibly long term debts from which we could not easily extricate ourselves. There are several other and more cost effective methods of finding possible solutions that are caused by: – mal, fraudulent, and reckless administrations. Among those services that are easily accessible here in Nevis are: (1) The application of administrative laws in the civil courts of the High Court of justice, and (2) The application of the criminal law in the Criminal Division of the High Court of Justice. The services that are discharged in the above mentioned courts cost a tiny fraction of the costs of the services that are demanded by a commission of inquiry. Following from this as a cost cutting exercise, we would be using the services of our present court’s personnel who are already being employed and paid for carrying out such duties whenever they arise. It is interesting to note that if any of the allegations that the new N.R.P. Administration falls into the Criminal Category, and it was decided that economic use would be made of by our already established Courts and personnel, then the complaint must be sent to the D.P.P. for his determination. If he thinks that there are some merits in the case, he would refer the matter to some examining magistrates. The magistrates will try to establish those cases where the prosecution will obviously fail to ensure a conviction. In such cases the accused may be spared the strain and expense of a trial on indictment. If not, the accused is discharged. During the committal proceedings, the examining magistrates have to find out whether the evidence put before them raises a prima facie case that the accused had committed an indictable offence. If so, they will send (commit) the accused to the Criminal Division of the High Court in Nevis to be tried for that offence. One can see that the examining magistrates in Nevis are capable and qualified to undertake committal proceedings much more thoroughly and quickly than a Commission of Inquiry. This alternative procedure would cost the taxpayers of Nevis precious little. If a member of the CCM party is indicted and sent for trial at the High Court, the matter is still in the capable hands of our judge, jury, and Counsels on both sides. The only difficulty for the New NRP Administration is to adduce sufficient, persuasive, and relevant admissible evidence to prove its case. One must bear in mind that the standard of proof in a criminal trial is very high and it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. The New NRP Administration must have balanced the risks involved in opting for the Commission of Inquiry instead of a Criminal trial through our High Court System. The favourable alternative for them was the one that advances non-legal remedies because they bear no burden of proof to get satisfactory remedies. All that they had to do was to make the allegations and make agreements about th
e payment for the services. Now that the New NRP government has decided on a Commission of Inquiry, they have lost their opportunity (if there was one at all) of being instrumental in being the authority responsible for putting a member of the CCM party in prison. This, however, would only be possible if they had been successful in prosecuting the accused member of the CCM party of committing a fraudulent act. The humiliating and down side to all this is that the New NRP has created a quasi judicial precedent in establishing a Commission Of Inquiry in Nevis. For the future, this could possibly be the forceful engine that would drive a new Nevisian government of a different political complexion to institute another Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of the affairs of the Nevis Island Government after the The New NRP government loses the next election. If this happens Nevisians would be stupid and ignorant enough to be drawn into a series of Commission of Inquiries whenever a new government takes over. And worse of all, if successive Nevisian governments have to borrow millions of dollars to pay for successive Commission of Inquiries we would be sunk into an abyss of inextricable debts. We will follow the long list of financially senseless Caribbean Nations who have persistently borrowed money beyond their means of repayment only to rely on the mere hope that after a long time someone from the rich world makes an intercession for us to have our debts written off. Because of repayment difficulties, some nations have put it this way in their own idiosyncratic language:-“We owe people money; – we do not have it–so are they going to tek up Sonnaco and sell um to get dem money?”Another statement went like this: – “Yes we owe dem money; we aint got it to pay dem–so we aint going to pay. End of story.”Ordinary sensible Nevisians do not have to follow the bad habits that others have followed. We prefer to proceed with our affairs along strict commercially acceptable procedures in order to gain the respect of the world. The New NRP organisation has therefore driven a thicker wedge between the people of Nevis and has therefore made it a bit more difficult for unity to prevail in face of difficulties that lie ahead. Their choice of The Commission of Inquiry as the route for the solution of inter party problems has caused a lot of harm and ill-feeling amongst Nevisians. This will take a long time to repair, if at all because most Nevisians have already taken intransigent positions over the matter. The die has already been cast for this perilous division of the Nevisian people and I sincerely hope that at this last minute some common conciliatory sense will prevail and some positive steps be taken to reverse the adversarial and gladiatorial positions between the New NRP and CCM Parties. If Nevis is to move forward, both parties will need each other and if we miss this last opportunity, the island would be up for grabs by the survival of the fittest. A final suggestion that could possibly help to calm the ever growing political and adversarial system in Nevis is the appointment of an Ombudsman. The word is Scandinavian in origin and it simply means a commissioner who has special duties of investigating and reporting to parliament on citizens” complaints. This topic, presumably has been discussed in the House in St. Kitts before and there has been movements for introducing one in St. Kitts. Since we have our own parliament here we will need to have our own in Nevis as a preliminary to the final solution for an independent Nevis.
