Dear Editor
I AGREE that there needs to be a study on the operations of the Mayor and City Council, but I disagree with the Commission of Inquiry. It was not the way to go because it has done more harm than good. I say this based on my being able to read a copy of the report done by the CoI into the state of affairs at the council. The report itself is very convoluted, confusing and surprisingly not at the standard/quality one would expect from a CoI chaired by a former chancellor of the judiciary.

In fact, on reading the report, one can easily get the impression that perhaps the chairman did not write it. Then again, that’s just an impression, he was the chairman.
However, from what I have seen in terms of findings and recommendations, there was no theft of money. But there are some basic questions which go straight to the heart of the soundness of the report. These questions include, but are not limited to:
1. Does the Local Government Commission have the authority to set up such a commission?
2. What criteria were used to select the chairman of the commission?
3. What were the Terms of Reference?
4. How was the ToRs decided?
5. Can a chairman of a Commission of Inquiry adjudicate in a land issue?
6. Can a Commission of Inquiry overturn/overrule decisions of an elected body such as the City Council?
7. Who paid the commissioner and how much?
The answers to these questions are fundamental to my understanding various aspects of this report.

Regards
Christensen Cooper