Whenever tragedies of the magnitude of the May 22 Mahdia Dormitory Fire occur our earliest thoughts rush in the direction of the victims, anchoring us to the tragedy, causing us, from our respective distances to tender condolences which we hope might translate into some measure of comfort. In the aftermath of the tragedy assorted high-profile functionaries also duly made their way into the interior to collectively extend the official condolences of the Government of Guyana.
The earliest responses to the tragedy left no room in their immediate aftermath for addressing considerations of accountability. These considerations must, however, be confronted and accounted for.
Accountability, frequently raises a problem for politicians, particularly those holding high office. Here, the political cost of conceding error is usually one of the first considerations that come into play. This is no less the case in our country than it is elsewhere. A posture of blamelessness is usually the most convenient one for our politicians to strike. Scrupulous probes of any kind are usually not particularly popular among our politicians. They are usually mistrustful of probes that can ruthlessly peel away the façade that serves to protect their image. Their worst nightmare, frequently, is to find themselves in positions where they are compelled to have the chips fall where they will.
Issues of accountability, serious ones, derive from the Mahdia tragedy and the costly human price that it has exacted. This is precisely the kind of circumstance in which our politicians usually demonstrate a preference for probes to come and go quickly.
In cases like the Mahdia tragedy, allowing the chips to fall where they will can serve as vehicles through which to send important messages to the still grieving families that, to us, lost lives matter. In this instance we can best do so by not neglecting to mount an honest, transparent probe into the disaster and afterwards, soldiering on.
What makes the article published in the Stabroek News (`Relevant parties’ were told of UNICEF report on dorms – Manickchand; Tuesday June 6th) significant is that it takes a step back from the fact of the tragedy itself. Rather, it uses the Ministry of Education-commissioned UNICEF Report on State Dormitories as a reference point, and seeking through what appeared in parts to have been a sharp exchange with Minister of Education, Manickchand, to place the tragedy in the realm of accountability. The published account of the exchange may well have left the families and relatives of the deceased children – even in their still prevailing condition of mourning – somewhat surprised over what would appear to be an unvarnished revelation of the fact that the tragedy may well have been altogether avoidable.
Arguably the most significant part of the Stabroek News story is located in the revelation that had the findings of the Ministry of Education-commissioned UNICEF report on State Dormitories (which highlighted the “dire conditions and the need for fire safety just around a year from the May 22 blaze”) been pursued with a more generous measure of alacrity the Mahdia Hostel tragedy may well have been averted.
But that is not all. More perplexing is what the Stabroek News article described as the fending off of criticism of her Ministry by Minister Manickchand, in the matter of what was felt to be her Ministry’s failure “to implement recommendations on the myriad problems” at state-run Dormitories. Here, the Minister appears perfectly satisfied with the response that her Ministry “does not have the authority to conduct maintenance, infrastructure repairs and solicit supplies of goods and services for dorms,” never mind the fact that, manifestly, that issue is far more complex than that.
Here, one might ask whether, coming from the Minister, the issue of who is responsible for what becomes an altogether moot point since, after all, it was her Ministry that commissioned the report. Were its findings not more than sufficient for her, as a Cabinet Minister, to undertake a suitable lobby for timely and meaningful responses to the concerns raised in the report? This course of action, one feels, would have applied, particularly, in the instances of those safety-related issues that applied to the dorms. This, from all appearances, never happened.
More pointedly, if indeed “all relevant agencies were given a copy of the report for the recommendations to be implemented,” as the Minister related in her interview with the Stabroek News, then why is it, at least as far as we are aware, that the President himself did not appear to have required of the various functionaries associated with the report, immediate implementation of its recommendations.
On the surface at least, it certainly appears that the extent of the Minister of Education’s mindfulness of the importance of the UNICEF report extended no further than ensuring that copies reached the “relevant agencies.” While it would be useful to learn who these “relevant agencies” are, the more important issue here has to do with whether she might not have gone way beyond simply circulating it, given the significance of the Report’s findings.
“We are… committed to establishing a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the causes and circumstances of the fire which destroyed the dormitory, and to inquire into related issues,” is what the President had to say. While we begin by taking him at his word, one expects that such a probe and its outcomes will be suitably contextualized in order to take full account of occurrences out of the substantive tragedy itself, addressing other issues that have a critical bearing on where we go from here. More than that any meaningful report must include straightforward and open pronouncements on accountability.
