Me woulda tek weh miself

By Garth Rattray

Okay, so here we go again. The ruling political party says that it informed the Opposition of the individuals chosen to sit on the commission of enquiry (COE) to look into all aspects of the 2010 west Kingston military operation. However, the Opposition said that the list was not known to it until recently. And, amid it all, the Opposition objects to the appointment of Justice Velma Hylton as a commissioner.

Justice Hylton has an impressive résumé. She is a Queen's Counsel, a former puisne judge of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, a former director of public prosecutions (DPP) of Grenada and then The Bahamas, a former deputy DPP in Jamaica and a private attorney-at-law.

However, she was also part of the 2002 Tivoli COE. The findings of that enquiry did not go over well with the people of Tivoli Gardens. And, her opinion on the matter of shooting at criminal gunmen who are firing at the security forces and (innocent) civilians while being shielded by complicit women and children has precipitated much negativity and controversy.

Even though the security forces testified that they refrained from returning fire at gunmen shooting from behind women and children as human shields, Ms Hylton is quoted as being strident in her assertion that the security forces had all right to do so and should do so in order to save lives.

There is valid argument to justify her opinion - the saving of innocent lives - in other words, for the greater good. But one may argue that although the women and children may have appeared to voluntarily become human shields, they may have been forced, coerced or indoctrinated into making themselves human shields. Because of that possibility, taking their lives would make the security forces just as bad as the gunmen.

Then there is the very obvious argument that the security forces could have taken evasive action to remove themselves and other (innocent) citizens from harm's way. This appears to have been their chosen course of action. But, Ms Hylton maintained her stance, which led some to view it as unbalanced and unfair.

The question would, therefore, arise: Would Ms Hylton see things the same way if the same scenario were being played out in an upscale community full of important people and their precious children?

But this is all opinionated speculation and unresolved chagrin that has been smouldering for more than a decade. New decade, new situation, new deaths, new suffering, new pain, new victims, new COE, but same commissioner with a vexing and controversial past.

DISSENT AND ANGER

The ruling party stood firm in its appointment of the learned judge, but the Opposition showered her with dissent and anger. If I were the learned judge, me woulda tek weh miself for several reasons.

In this extremely sensitive and important matter, we must ask several questions. Is there a dire shortage of eminent legal minds capable of sitting on this COE? Nope. Will the country's judiciary fail if Ms Hylton is not part of this commission? Nope.

If she sits on this COE and things go as they did with the 2002 commission, will it be seen by most as achieving the objective of coming to a fair and balanced conclusion? Nope.

Judges recuse themselves for many reasons. If he/she is related to, or is friends with, the parties involved; if he/she is involved in the case; if he/she previously adjudicated, defended or prosecuted the case; or if the judge may be seen as not being unquestionably impartial in all matters involving the case.

I have a lot of respect for all members of the judiciary and I trust their findings and conclusions. However, this situation is so controversial, volatile and political that Ms Velma Hylton should steer clear of the impending imbroglio.

Garth A. Rattray is a medical doctor with a family practice. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and garthrattray@gmail.com.