– Original files were previously reported as being non-existent
– First time evidence a major development for political onlookers
FIRST time evidence, previously reported to the Commission’s lead counsel, Glen Hanoman, as non-existent, was presented yesterday during day one of hearings of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) into the death of Dr. Walter Rodney.
The secret files are “original” documents that contain detailed accounts of surveillance activities of Rodney.The hearings, held at the Supreme Court’s Law Library, High Street, were declared open by Chairman of the COI, Sir Richard Cheltenham, who noted that ‘hearsay’ along with opinions will be taken into evidence during the course of the hearings.
The “surveillance files” of the “special branch” of the Guyana Police Force (GPF) were presented as evidence by Head of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Leslie James as part of his testimony.
James, a former head of the Special Branch, presented only three of 10 files to the three-member probe team yesterday. The other files have apparently gone missing.
The ‘first time evidence’ and the relaxed rules, compared to routine court procedures, governing the admissibility of evidence for the hearings were among the major developments yesterday that attracted the attention of prominent figures in the two main political parties present for day one of the hearings.
PROCEDURAL CONCERNS
A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) members Basil Williams and Joseph Harmon expressed concerns over the COI’s procedures as it relates to the admissibility of evidence for the hearings.
Harmon said, “As it relates to the evidence, the new evidence that will be presented for the first time, we will be dealing with what the crime chief (Head of the Criminal Investigation Department, Leslie James) says.
“The files are old ones and the admissibility of documents is a concern. The Chairman has said that the rules, with regard to admissibility of evidence, will be relaxed and flexible, but we cannot have rules that are flexible to the extent that reputations and credibility of persons, who are not witnesses themselves, are tarnished.”
Williams echoed similar sentiments and noted that the “unconditional pardon” for persons who would want to testify, but fear the possibility of prosecution, is both a good and bad thing.
He stated that he is worried about the fate of other persons whose names might be called.
Williams said, “We haven’t heard anything about if a person who testifies and who, therefore, ipso facto be pardoned – what if he fingers a third party. He gets protection but what about the protection of a man who is fingered.
“…We must protect our interest as a party, participating in the conduct of the inquiry to represent the interest of the Peoples National Congress Reform,” Williams said during a break in the session, and immediately prior to Leslie James taking the stand.
“We believe that, as it relates to the new evidence that will be presented, a lot of reputations will be on the line. The only protection that people have is the rules that govern the admissibility of evidence and if the Chairman is saying the Commission will not hold hard and fast to those rules of evidence (then) we have a problem,” Williams said.
According to him, the rules normally require the author of the document to be present “but we don’t know who they are”.
“They want the police to say we have custody of these records and here are the records, but we don’t know who authored the records,” Williams posited.
ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES
However, Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, debunked these statements by Williams and made it clear that the principles that guide the functioning of Commissions of Inquiries are well established.
The AG, addressing the comments on the unconditional pardon granted by President Donald Ramotar by APNU’s Williams, stressed that he has “grossly” misrepresented the TOR.
Nandlall said, “It (the unconditional pardon) is not confined merely to witnesses who appear before the Commission.
“Mr. Williams’ comments are a most careless reading of that aspect of the TOR, given that it establishes clearly that all persons shall be granted a pardon irrespective of what that person may have done in respect to or in connection with the death of Dr. Rodney.”
Nandlall pointed out that the Chairman of the COI, in his opening remarks, cited several authorities in law fortifying that principle.
According to him, the manner in which Commissions of Inquiries function is an “axiomatic” reality.
The AG said, “I am bewildered by the anxiety expressed by both of my learned friends (Basil Williams and Joe Harmon). If I am to go by their utterances, they profess to be watching the interest of the PNC. The PNC has always claimed and continue to claim innocence and un-involvement in Dr. Rodney’s killing. Therefore, if that is the truth, my learned friends should have no worry.
“As I understand it, they do not have a mandate at large, they claim to represent the interest of one party, the PNC, and if their client is innocent I am flummoxed by their concerns.
“Mr. Basil Williams, the seasoned lawyer that he is, is expected to be familiar with the Commission of Inquires Act, as well as general law, in relation to Commission of Inquires and both of those sources speak unambiguously to the fact that the rules of evidence applicable to Commission of Inquires are far more relaxed and less rigid than the rules of evidence applicable to the court of law.”
Nandlall explained that the Commission, having regard to its Terms of Reference and composition, is intended to be “radically different” from the previous attempts to bring closure to this matter.
“The TOR is wide and embracing. The Commissioners are international lawyers of highly credential standing and very experienced in this type of work. Therefore, this Commission ought to be able to unearth much more evidence than its predecessors,” Nandlall declared.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The AG added that the framework for the work of the COI is a legally established one.
“Importantly, this is a Commission on Inquiry issued under the hand of President Donald Ramotar. The Commission of Inquiries Act, which creates this type of Commission, vests the Commission with extraordinarily wide ranging powers and makes it the master of its own procedures,” Nandlall explained.
“This facility enables the Commission to create its own procedures and craft its own rules in relation to admissibility and admission of information of an evidential nature and value,” he added.
“The Chairman of the Commission in his opening address, as well as the counsel to the Commission, in his opening remarks, made it very clear that this Commission will not constrain itself to the strict rules of evidence, which apply to a court of law,” Nandlall said, adding that the Commission of Inquires Act invests the Commission with that “procedural flexibility”, so that a lot of evidence which will not technically be admitted in a court of law will be admitted by and before this Commission.
Nandlall also noted that much information, which for unknown reasons were never made available to the previous inquiries, although in existence, are now going to be made available.
By Vanessa Narine