Dear Editor,
It took the death of seventeen persons at the Camp Street Gaol on the morning of Thursday 3rd of March, 2016, to remind Guyanese, long conditioned to the seething anger and discontent at that location in the heart of the city, of the dangerously deplorable conditions at Camp Street. But the authorities themselves ought not to have needed any reminding of the confined, overcrowded conditions under which hundreds of Guyanese are kept on any single day.
We are aware of comments made in private circles about the heinous crimes of which these men are accused. However, the lives, safety and human rights of these men while in pre-trial custody are not of less significance. The law expects that if found guilty prisoners should be appropriately punished but simultaneously expects the state to discharge its obligations for their safety pre and post-trial.
In a most supreme irony, the Guyana Review, a brainchild and formerly a business of President Granger, which was published in the Stabroek News of February 25, 2010, carried a feature ‘Public Safety…Inside story: The Problems of the Prison Service’ and asked plaintively “will there ever be an end to the Guyana Prison Service’s problems?” That feature tells a story of neglect, callousness and incompetence on the part of the political and administrative authorities responsible for the gaol and their slothfulness in dealing with several reports and recommendations identified by the article:
The Prison Reform Report of a British team to then Minister of Home Affairs Ronald Gajraj in 2001 after an 18-month study, investigations and consultations;
- a report, again presented to Mr Gajraj into the escape of five prisoners from the Georgetown Prison on February 23, 2002;
- a ten-year 2001-2011 Strategic Development Plan prepared by the Guyana Prison Service, based on a series of consultancy reports, retreats, workshops and visits;
- Report by the Carter Center which included recommendations for the “establishment of a Criminal Law Review Committee to examine existing laws, practices, and procedures for the criminal justice system including imprisonment”;
- perhaps the most widely cited, the 2004 Report of the Disciplined Services Commission chaired by Justice Ian Chang and including Messrs David Granger, Mr Charles Ramson, SC and Mr Anil Nandlall.
In a swift reaction to the events of March 3rd, President Granger announced that a Commission of Inquiry would be held into the tragedy. This was followed by a report that a three-person Commission of Inquiry headed by retired Justice Patterson has been appointed by the Minister of Public Security to begin hearings tomorrow, Monday, March 7th and would submit a report with findings and recommendations no later than March 15th. Our reservations relate to the time of commencement, the duration, conflict of interest and the unclear nature of the inquiry.
- While we support the idea of a Commission of Inquiry, it is our view that the work of the commission should not begin until the police have concluded their investigations into the matter. We are concerned that the work and testimony before the commission can adversely affect the investigations which the Guyana Police Force has a duty to carry out. It puts the personnel from the prison in the awkward situation of simultaneously providing evidence to the commission and information to the police.
- The time available for the work of the commission is absurdly short. The commissioners will have to study their terms of reference and seek clarification thereon, on for example, the period to be covered by their investigations. They will have to meet among themselves to plan their work, including visit(s) to be made to the prison; arrangements for evidence to be taken from prisoners; identification of the persons to be interviewed; the records to be requested and the past reports to be studied. To carry out their work efficiently, they will need to arrange among themselves what particular roles each of them with their various backgrounds will play in examining the witnesses.
- We do not believe it is appropriate to have as a commissioner former prisons director Mr Dale Erskine whose stewardship of the prisons should itself be investigated.
- Finally, while welcoming the idea of a Commission of Inquiry at the appropriate time, there is confusing information on whether this is a presidential or a ministerial inquiry. One newspaper quotes Minister of Public Security as stating, “that the Commission shall render its report to the Minister of Public Security”, suggesting a ministerial commission. Another section of the media states that the commission “shall be governed by the Constitution, the Commission of Inquiry Act …” the vagueness of which adds to the uncertainty. We believe that the scale of this tragedy is far too great for a ministerial inquiry. It requires a more powerful and authoritative presidential Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act. Under that Act:
- The Commission’s report must be submitted to the President, as we saw with the Rodney Commission of Inquiry.
- Commissioners are required to make and subscribe an oath or affirmation to faithfully, fully, impartially, and to the best of their ability discharge the trust.
- They have the power to make rules for their own guidance, and the conduct and management of proceedings before them.
- They have the powers of a judge of the High Court to summon witnesses, and to call for the production of books, plans, and documents, and to examine witnesses and parties concerned on oath.
- Witnesses are subject to the law of perjury.
- They can summon persons to attend and give evidence, or to produce books, plans, or documents, at any sitting of any such commission.
- Persons whose conduct is the subject of the inquiry, or who are in any way implicated or concerned in the matter under inquiry are entitled, as of right, to be represented by counsel at the whole of the inquiry. Any other person who may consider it desirable that he should be so represented may, by leave of the commission, be represented in a similar manner. Surely, the families of each of the victims, as well as the survivors, have a right to legal representation at any hearings.
We therefore respectfully request that the hands of the commissioners be stayed until all these matters are addressed. We do however commend the government for the proactive manner in which it has moved to address the problems, including the unprecedented action of two senior ministers meeting and negotiating with prisoners. Had President Ramotar travelled to Linden following the death of three persons on July 18, 2012, the problem would not have gone on for as long as it did.
Yours faithfully,
Ronald Burch-Smith
Christopher Ram
Attorneys-at-law
