EDITORIAL - How Mr George can rescue his commission

Mr Emil George's weak and ineffectual chairmanship of the commission of enquiry into the Christopher Coke extradition affair allowed the hearings, for long periods, to turn into a meandering festival of political gamesmanship, where witnesses and lawyers stonewalled and stalemated.

Fortunately, the enquiry is heading towards its end, and its leadership has grown a little bit better. That is good, but not enough.

In this regard, Mr George's stewardship of this enquiry can only be rescued by the quality of the report that he and his fellow commissioners, Mr Anthony Irons and Mr Donald Scharschmidt, produce. It has to be more meaningful than their performance over the past 70 days.

It is in that context that we think it useful to remind Mr George and his co-commissioners of some of the questions they must answer in their report. A mealy-mouthed warble won't do.

They must say:

• Whether the Government's behaviour in dealing with America's request for Coke's extradition was corrupt;

• If Prime Minister Bruce Golding, whether outright or by omission in his various statements, lied to the Jamaican public about what he knew about the Coke extradition matter and when he knew it;

• If there was inappropriate commingling between the Government and the ruling Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) in the management of the affair;

• Whether it was the Government or the JLP who hired the US firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips to lobby the United States on the Coke extradition;

• Whether Manatt had good reason to believe it was acting on behalf of the Government of Jamaica;

• Whether Mr Harold Brady, Prime Minister Bruce Golding's emissary, misled Manatt on whose authority he acted, the Government or the JLP;

• If the attorney general and justice minister, Dorothy Lightbourne, lied about the timing of her knowledge and/or involvement in the affair;

• Whether she corruptly attempted to stall the extradition;

• Whether she is competent for either or both positions;

• If the solicitor general, Mr Douglas Leys, lied about the timing of his knowledge of the Government's/JLP's engagement of Manatt;

• Whether Mr Leys lied to and misinformed Minister Lightbourne of his involvement with Manatt;

• Whether Mr Leys, Minister Lightbourne and the deputy solicitor general, Mr Lackston Robinson, contrived legal arguments to prevent the extradition of Coke;

• Whether Mr Daryl Vaz, the information minister and then JLP deputy treasurer, lied to the public about his knowledge of or involvement in the Manatt affair; and

• If Mr Karl Samuda, the JLP's then general secretary, and the party's leader and prime minister, Mr Golding, were engaged in a charade and a sham when Mr Golding asked Mr Samuda to conduct an investigation into the development of the Manatt affair.

This list of questions may, on the face of it, appear long. In reality, however, they should be easy to answer, once the commissioners get to the core of the issue.

The fundamental issue is this: Was the extradition matter handled appropriately or was it coloured by Coke's close association with the JLP and its urban power centre, Tivoli Gardens?

Second, did a raft of public officials twist, turn and prevaricate in an effort to provide a façade of propriety?

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.