EDITORIAL - Reconsider General Saunders' appointment

 In the absence of a declaration to the contrary, we assume that Major General Stewart Saunders, the retired chief of defence staff, has taken up the post of acting permanent secretary for national security.

That would make him the top civil servant in the security ministry, with responsibility for its daily operations and influence over the creation and execution of policy.

In ordinary circumstances, that would not be a matter of concern for this newspaper, given our regard for the intellect and operational skills of General Saunders. Not only does he have operational experience from his long stint in the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF), he has for several years coordinated a graduate course in security at the University of the West Indies, Mona.

In this case, though, we must express our reservation and disquiet with General Saunders' appointment. We are, in the first place, surprised that the offer was made and more so that it was accepted.

We fall back on the adage about justice not only needing to be done, but to be done with great scrupulousness and transparency.

The issue here is the proposed commission of enquiry into the May 2010 operation of the security forces in Tivoli Gardens and other communities of West Kingston to arrest then fugitive mobster, Christopher Coke. The public defender, Earl Witter, says at least 76 civilians were killed in the operation, and he believes that many of them were the victims of extrajudicial executions by the security forces.

At the time of the Tivoli operation, General Saunders was still head of the army, with ultimate responsibility for its conduct, including during the Tivoli Gardens operations. Indeed, during those tense days when there was a real threat to the security of the Jamaican State - and afterwards - General Saunders spoke, including in public, about the situation.

Further, among the proposed terms of the enquiry into the deaths and related events of that tragic situation is "the conduct of operations by the security forces", of which the JDF is numbered.

The commissioners, further, would look into "whether the rights of any persons were violated in any of the affected communities by either law-enforcement officers or anyone else".

PROCESS WOULD LACK TRANSPARENCY

These terms of reference place General Saunders squarely in the spotlight of the commissioners, whoever they may be and whether or not he had direct operational command. Tactics on the ground may not have been his, but we would be surprised if, as head of the army, he did not sign off on strategy. In any event, the buck, as they say, and we remind, stops with the man at the top.

Now, as permanent secretary for national security, General Saunders would, perforce, have a role, with colleagues in the justice ministry, and have a role in the planning and management of the commission of enquiry. He may decide to recuse himself from anything to do with the enquiry and follow through on the undertaking. But that process would hardly be transparent.

The most transparent way for justice to be executed in this circumstance - as Peter Bunting, the minister, and his Cabinet colleagues should know - is for General Saunders not be at the security ministry at all.

Form does matter.

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.