Dear Editor
THE report of the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the operations of the Georgetown Mayor and City Council is in the public domain and copies are circulating like wild fire. A close-up look at this report revealed many biases. Mr. Editor, please permit me to respond to one such bias: the recommendation section of the report presented recommendations against two senior officers of the council (Sherry Gerick and Rasheed Kellman ) who were not called to the commission to answer any particular charges. This I find very disturbing and constitute injustice and an error in laws.

This simply means that the fundamental rights of these officers have been breached. According to the rule of natural justice, every citizen regardless of age, religion or political persuasion has the right to a fair hearing (audi aeteram porten). No person should be judged without the opportunity being presented to him to be heard. The right to a fair hearing dictates that an individual should not be penalised by any decision affecting his rights and legitimate expectations, unless they have prior notice of the case and fair opportunity to answer the questions and queries relating to the matter. Therefore, the recommendations against these two officers are recipes for litigation against the Local Government Commission (LGC).

Further, inherent in the CoI’s recommendations is the element of bias. Carol Sooba should not be on the LGC; she should excuse herself from the commission totally. No person should be a judge in a matter, in which he/she has an interest. The recommendations against the senior officers of the council are fraught with biases and prejudices. It is clear that it was not well thought out and lacks judicial substance. A person who adjudicates on a matter such as the CoI has the responsibility to act in a legitimate manner when making decisions that will affect the lives, rights and interests. It’s evident that this CoI report is an instrument premised on bias and vendettas. The decision made by the Local Government Commission based on the CoI’s recommendations would either build up or utterly destroy that commission’s life, future and character.

The recommendations of the CoI report reveal both imputed and actual biases. The recommendation against Miss Sherry Gerick is actual bias, since she was not given the opportunity to be heard; the report did not mention a specific malpractice against this officer. Then why is her name in the recommendation section of the report? Was this an accident, or was it a deliberate act to smear the good name of an innocent person, or plot of victimisation or maybe influence of Soobarism.

This leads me to the point that the recommendations are compromised by imputed biases, since a known PPP/C Commissioner, Carol Sooba, has a vested interest in the outcome of this matter. I must conclude that the persons who have crafted the recommendations were either ill-advised or ignorant of the laws of natural justice. It is clear that these lofty recommendations cannot stand up to legal scrutiny and could be rendered void ab intiro.

Regards
Mortimer Thomside