Unjustified caution

WE FEEL sure that every decent, law-abiding citizen in Trinidad and Tobago would want to believe that the Commission of Inquiry now investigating the Piarco Development Project is operating according to proper procedure, is abiding by its terms of reference and that no one coming before it is being denied his legal or constitutional rights. They would be expecting this, not only because of the status and integrity of the Commissioners but also because, like this newspaper, they expect that the findings of this investigation will provide the basis on which justice would be done with regard to this scandalous project through which the public purse was indecently and avariciously plundered. It would be a grievous outcome if, because of some lapse or oversight or denial on the part of the Commissioners, their findings were disqualified from serving that ultimate retributive purpose.

This inquiry follows prolonged agitation by respectable and responsible sectors of our society, including the media, leaders of the construction industry and Transparency International. Indeed, no society, on becoming aware of the massive level of corruption involved in such a mega-project, could remain complacent about it, unless, of course, such a society cared nothing about standards of honesty and morality and was quite happy to self-destruct from an internal rot of basic human values. For this reason, we expect that members of the legal profession, themselves intimately concerned with questions of justice and the upholding of standards, would be prepared, if not anxious, to provide the Inquiry with help and guidance to ensure its proper functioning. We sincerely hope that is the motive behind the advice recently given to the Commission by the Law Association urging that "great caution" be taken in following the inquisitorial procedure of Lord Justice Scott whose article, "Procedure at Public Inquiries: The Duty to be Fair," was quoted at the Commission's sitting on March 27, 2003.

It seems unfortunate, however, that the Association, in issuing its public caution, did not in the first instance determine whether there was any justification at all for it, in terms of actual breaches by the Commission. While it may be true that the inquiry conducted by Lord Justice Scott incurred much criticism, particularly for his denial of legal representation to witnesses, nothing in the procedure adopted by this law lord, as far as we can determine, could be used to apply to the conduct of the Piarco Inquiry. Indeed, it would demonstrate a sad ignorance and constitute an injustice for the Law Association even to suggest that, like Lord  Scott's inquiry, witnesses coming before the Commission are being denied the right to legal representation. This newspaper has covered sittings of the Commission since they began and we have heard no such complaints from witnesses. No request for attorneys has been denied; in fact, on occasion, Chairman Bernard has insisted that such representation be obtained and has even adjourned sessions to facilitate witnesses when their lawyers could not be present. "The end result," the Chairman observed in dealing with the criticisms levelled at the Commission, "is that the Association has taken an uninformed but, nevertheless, belligerent approach to the Inquiry, a scenario that is curious to say the least." This, we think, is regrettable; the Association, aware of the horror being revealed by the Inquiry, should be helpful rather than adversarial.