It was disclosed yesterday by the Secretary of the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the Mahdia dormitory fire that claimed 20 lives that it has been decided that there is no need for more witnesses to be called.
This would mean that there is no intention by the CoI to summon the Minister of Education Priya Manickchand to answer questions pertaining to the dormitory, particularly the findings of a report commissioned by her under the aegis of UNICEF. This is nothing short of a travesty and a harbinger that this CoI will produce nothing but a whitewash to spare the government from the critical examination it should be subjected to. It is hardly surprising when one considers that the inquiry into the 2020 general elections produced a report without any comment on the role of the GECOM Chair, Justice of Appeal (ret’d) Claudette Singh in the fiasco. It would appear that the Commissions of Inquiry Act contains invisible provisions for immunizing key personnel and areas from investigation. That is and would be the death knell of any credible inquiry.
Security grills prevented some of the victims from escaping the horrific dormitory fire on May 21 and at the time Minister Manickchand was in possession of a year-old report which assessed all of the dorms and highlighted the problems that they faced including poor fire safety. That report sat with Minister Manickchand for a year with no evidence that it had been actioned. That would prima facie be a vital area of inquiry for the Commissioners or perhaps they had been oblivious to reportage in the press on this matter.
Prior to the convening of the CoI, the Minister of Education punctiliously declined to say what she had done with the report, seeking shelter in the decision by the President to establish a CoI. Who would have guessed that the CoI would not even ask her to attend the hearings with the report in question? Will anyone ever now discuss the report or should it be taken for granted that any report done in the future by any agency – foreign or local – should be simply discarded or considered wasted money?
An examination of the minister on the report would have established two important pieces of the puzzle. Did she and her ministry take it seriously? If so what did the cabinet, including President Ali and the rest of the government do with it. Did the Minister, for instance, reach out to the Minister of Finance for information on what funding could be immediately found to revamp the dormitories?
Given that President Ali as the person presiding over cabinet may also have been aware of the report it is all the more sinister that this CoI has decided not to seek out more witnesses. It is even more galling, as during one of its hearings, counsel for the Commission, Keoma Griffith had the audacity to put to the former Regional Education Officer (REdO) of Potaro-Siparuni, Anesta Douglas that by not acting on a report from the fire service, she could be blamed for the deaths of the children.
“Did you understand from this report that urgent action was needed? Did you understand it had to do with lives and it was your failure to act that resulted in the lives of 20 children?”, Mr Griffith questioned. One could respectfully suggest that this would have been a question better suited to the Minister who is fully in charge of her ministry and has access to Cabinet, the Finance Minister and the President.
Ms Douglas had not been able to act on the report as she reported to the inquiry that she had been suddenly issued with a transfer order by the ministry and the report had been left for her successor. This development raises ongoing questions about the vitality of municipal councils, regional democratic council and their relationship with, in this case, the Ministry of Education.
If it was unaware of the report which Ms Manickchand has been in possession of, the CoI could quite naturally still invite her as a witness. Alternatively, the minister herself could approach the Commission to testify and clear herself of any suggestion that she did not act promptly in relation to the report.
When she was asked again by Stabroek News about the report on June 7th, the Minister was entirely evasive.
Considering the importance of the report, Minister Manickchand was asked whether she had sought to discuss it at Cabinet since ministers would have to collectively brainstorm on financing and what the respective ministries would have to do. The minister repeated what she had earlier said: “It was shared with the relevant parties that have responsibilities for the dorms”.
She added: “We will get all of that once the Commission of inquiry is completed. If we are going to try it here we might as well not bother with the Presidential announcement that we will have a commission of inquiry. Except, that when you have a little sound bite here and somebody runs with it”.
Told that it was the overall report response and dissemination of the findings that were being enquired about by Stabroek News, the Minister stressed, “It was shared with the relevant authorities and at a later stage that will be examined.”
Asked for clarity on if she meant that the names of the respective persons that the report was shared with would be provided, Minister Manickchand answered in the affirmative. “Yes,” she said.
The public can only now hope that somewhere between Ms Manickchand and the CoI these names will be produced though the signs are not hopeful.
