Tweet
Getting the facts wrong
Published: Sunday | July 10, 2011
After costing the country millions of scarce dollars, the Manatt-Coke commission of enquiry handed in its report. The prime minister has said we must now accept the report and move on. Some of us have taken to reading the report before moving. Sadly, the report started off with some basic inaccuracies that lead one to wonder how much, if any, of the report should be taken seriously. These inaccuracies included non-controversial matters.
They could have been cured by paying attention to details and a demonstrated commitment to getting everything right. Too much was at stake in this commission, including, according to some people, the reputation of the commissioners and key leaders of our country.
Carelessness should, therefore, be eschewed. From as early as page three, the commissioners and their secretariat simply got the facts wrong.
In their report, they had Mrs Valerie Neita Robertson's surname (representing the People's National Party) down as Robinson. We could have forgiven them this single error as a typographical one done in the haste of producing the report, but there were other things.
On television, we saw a handsome young man appearing with Mr Frank Phipps as his deputy. His name is Mr Marlon Roberts. Somehow the commissioners were able in their report to change his gender from male to female by declaring him in their report as Ms Marion Roberts.
No mention of the colonel
Worse, the report failed to acknowledge among the legal representatives the lawyer for three key witnesses who appeared before them. We knew that Lt Col Linton Gordon represented Rear Admiral Hardley Lewin, Major General Stewart Saunders and Lt Col Patrick Cole. No one should forget Colonel Gordon, given the poignant interventions he made on behalf of not only his clients, but all of Jamaica.
How could the commissioners have forgotten the man who hinted at the "real busybody" in the "web of deception"? How could the commission have forgotten the man who spoke of the Shower Posse, One Order and other gangs holding the country to ransom? How could the commissioners have forgotten the lawyer who declared he was probably the only one there not on any side? Certainly, I hope not because he exposed the danger to Rear Admiral Lewin's wife.
For me, the commissioners getting the facts wrong was not just about form. Fundamentally, it is about substance. If they cannot get non-controversial things right, how can their report be trusted on the controversial issues? While witnesses may declare that they "can't recall", that is not a luxury available to the commissioners. They had stenographers taking verbatim notes, audio recordings, as well as television recordings at their disposal. What else did they forget? What else did they get wrong?
Mind-boggling statement
On page 42 of their report, the commissioners made a most astonishing statement, which continues to boggle the minds of many. They said: "It must be remembered that the PM did not send Mr Brady and Dr Robinson to MPP." Really, Messrs Commissioners, PM Golding never sent those gentlemen to see Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (MPP)? Is this really true? From the evidence available to the commissioners, Dr Robinson said he was sent by the prime minister to see MPP. This, he said, was in his capacity as minister of government to give credence to Mr Brady.
Information Minister Daryl Vaz admitted to the commission that on the instructions of Mr Golding, he provided money for the trip of Mr Brady and Dr Robinson to visit MPP. Mr Golding admitted to sending Dr Robinson to see MPP, but in his capacity as deputy general secretary of the Jamaica Labour Party. The evidence was that both men returned from the trip to MPP and briefed the prime minister at Vale Royal. Robinson and Brady were commended by the prime minister. Is it that these independent commissioners are telling us that they cannot recall such evidence?
The commissioners are entitled to their own opinions, no matter how much such may be at dissonance with the majority opinion. What they are not entitled to is their own facts. Here again they have got the facts wrong. While Mr Brady did not give testimony before the commission, his lawyer's letter to the PM, dated September 15, 2010, was available to the commissioners. This is what it said, in part: "He was instructed by you to use his international contacts to try to resolve the political issues raised by the extradition request for Christopher Coke, which you asserted was flawed evidentially but which you anticipated would result in adverse political pressure were the Government to be forced to refuse the request on that ground.
"Our client used his international political contacts, who unanimously referred him to the firm of MPP, who agreed to take on the matter of the treaty issues but pointed out to our client that this could only be done as a government representative and under a paid retainer. Our client reported in full to you, at a meeting at which Minister Daryl Vaz was present, and you instructed him to agree to MPP's terms but to ensure, as best as possible, that the Government did not appear to be involved. At that meeting, you delegated all the financial implications to be handled by Minister Vaz. ... Thereafter, all expenses relating to the conduct of the MPP matters were dealt with by Minister Vaz ... ."
Also available to the commissioners were comments by the PM made to Power 106 reporter Damion Mitchell on September 14, 2010. "When he went, whoever he spoke with at Manatt said, 'Look, we're prepared to assist in this matter, but it would have to be on a professional retainer basis', and, as I said, as I've acknowledged before, when that was reported to me by Brady, that's when I should have pulled up the stumps. That's when I should've said, 'Absolutely no.' Regrettably, I said, 'All right, go ahead, but be very clear in your mind that this is the party that is doing it, not the Government'."
"All right, go ahead ... ." That was the PM's instruction. With the commissioners getting the facts so wrong on these and other issues, their report is not worth the paper it was written on. Maybe they should donate their earnings therefrom to the families of those who suffered death arising from the "inappropriate" handling of the Dudus extradition matter.
Lambert Brown is president of the University and Allied Workers' Union. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and Labpoyh@yahoo.com.
Published: Sunday | July 10, 2011
After costing the country millions of scarce dollars, the Manatt-Coke commission of enquiry handed in its report. The prime minister has said we must now accept the report and move on. Some of us have taken to reading the report before moving. Sadly, the report started off with some basic inaccuracies that lead one to wonder how much, if any, of the report should be taken seriously. These inaccuracies included non-controversial matters.
They could have been cured by paying attention to details and a demonstrated commitment to getting everything right. Too much was at stake in this commission, including, according to some people, the reputation of the commissioners and key leaders of our country.
Carelessness should, therefore, be eschewed. From as early as page three, the commissioners and their secretariat simply got the facts wrong.
In their report, they had Mrs Valerie Neita Robertson's surname (representing the People's National Party) down as Robinson. We could have forgiven them this single error as a typographical one done in the haste of producing the report, but there were other things.
On television, we saw a handsome young man appearing with Mr Frank Phipps as his deputy. His name is Mr Marlon Roberts. Somehow the commissioners were able in their report to change his gender from male to female by declaring him in their report as Ms Marion Roberts.
No mention of the colonel
Worse, the report failed to acknowledge among the legal representatives the lawyer for three key witnesses who appeared before them. We knew that Lt Col Linton Gordon represented Rear Admiral Hardley Lewin, Major General Stewart Saunders and Lt Col Patrick Cole. No one should forget Colonel Gordon, given the poignant interventions he made on behalf of not only his clients, but all of Jamaica.
How could the commissioners have forgotten the man who hinted at the "real busybody" in the "web of deception"? How could the commission have forgotten the man who spoke of the Shower Posse, One Order and other gangs holding the country to ransom? How could the commissioners have forgotten the lawyer who declared he was probably the only one there not on any side? Certainly, I hope not because he exposed the danger to Rear Admiral Lewin's wife.
For me, the commissioners getting the facts wrong was not just about form. Fundamentally, it is about substance. If they cannot get non-controversial things right, how can their report be trusted on the controversial issues? While witnesses may declare that they "can't recall", that is not a luxury available to the commissioners. They had stenographers taking verbatim notes, audio recordings, as well as television recordings at their disposal. What else did they forget? What else did they get wrong?
Mind-boggling statement
On page 42 of their report, the commissioners made a most astonishing statement, which continues to boggle the minds of many. They said: "It must be remembered that the PM did not send Mr Brady and Dr Robinson to MPP." Really, Messrs Commissioners, PM Golding never sent those gentlemen to see Manatt, Phelps & Phillips (MPP)? Is this really true? From the evidence available to the commissioners, Dr Robinson said he was sent by the prime minister to see MPP. This, he said, was in his capacity as minister of government to give credence to Mr Brady.
Information Minister Daryl Vaz admitted to the commission that on the instructions of Mr Golding, he provided money for the trip of Mr Brady and Dr Robinson to visit MPP. Mr Golding admitted to sending Dr Robinson to see MPP, but in his capacity as deputy general secretary of the Jamaica Labour Party. The evidence was that both men returned from the trip to MPP and briefed the prime minister at Vale Royal. Robinson and Brady were commended by the prime minister. Is it that these independent commissioners are telling us that they cannot recall such evidence?
The commissioners are entitled to their own opinions, no matter how much such may be at dissonance with the majority opinion. What they are not entitled to is their own facts. Here again they have got the facts wrong. While Mr Brady did not give testimony before the commission, his lawyer's letter to the PM, dated September 15, 2010, was available to the commissioners. This is what it said, in part: "He was instructed by you to use his international contacts to try to resolve the political issues raised by the extradition request for Christopher Coke, which you asserted was flawed evidentially but which you anticipated would result in adverse political pressure were the Government to be forced to refuse the request on that ground.
"Our client used his international political contacts, who unanimously referred him to the firm of MPP, who agreed to take on the matter of the treaty issues but pointed out to our client that this could only be done as a government representative and under a paid retainer. Our client reported in full to you, at a meeting at which Minister Daryl Vaz was present, and you instructed him to agree to MPP's terms but to ensure, as best as possible, that the Government did not appear to be involved. At that meeting, you delegated all the financial implications to be handled by Minister Vaz. ... Thereafter, all expenses relating to the conduct of the MPP matters were dealt with by Minister Vaz ... ."
Also available to the commissioners were comments by the PM made to Power 106 reporter Damion Mitchell on September 14, 2010. "When he went, whoever he spoke with at Manatt said, 'Look, we're prepared to assist in this matter, but it would have to be on a professional retainer basis', and, as I said, as I've acknowledged before, when that was reported to me by Brady, that's when I should have pulled up the stumps. That's when I should've said, 'Absolutely no.' Regrettably, I said, 'All right, go ahead, but be very clear in your mind that this is the party that is doing it, not the Government'."
"All right, go ahead ... ." That was the PM's instruction. With the commissioners getting the facts so wrong on these and other issues, their report is not worth the paper it was written on. Maybe they should donate their earnings therefrom to the families of those who suffered death arising from the "inappropriate" handling of the Dudus extradition matter.
Lambert Brown is president of the University and Allied Workers' Union. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and Labpoyh@yahoo.com.
....
Comment