Dear Editor,
They wanted a Commission of Inquiry – they got it. They wanted external individuals to sit on the commission – they got it. They wanted to set the terms of reference for the commission – they got it. They thought that since they had gotten all they wanted the commission would merely rubber stamp their ‘evidence’ and their ‘findings’. Instead legal procedures and professionalism took centre stage so then they wanted to be allowed to bypass those requirements and when they were not allowed to do so, they resigned from participation. Meanwhile, realizing that professionalism and legal underpinnings would trump their predetermined ‘findings’ they began to attack the commission. Does anyone doubt where this is heading?
Yours faithfully,
Annan Boodram
