A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Friday, July 7, 2017
The Grenfell Disaster and the Limitations of Public Inquiries
( July 5, 2017, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) The
recent statement made by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the retired judge
selected to chair a public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower disaster,
that he is “doubtful” that the inquiry called by Theresa May will be as
wide-ranging as the tenants hope will be interpreted by many as an
ominous one which candidly anticipates an unsatisfactory conclusion to
any forthcoming investigation.
This is because the lessons from the past consistently demonstrate that
despite the characterisation of an inquiry as a purposive endeavour
geared towards producing a full and frank resolution to an event which
has typically pained and outraged the public, they have often been used
by the executive branch of government to stage-manage the process of
scrutiny.
Thus, what may appear to be an earnest effort geared towards ‘getting to
the heart of the matter’ often turns into an exercise of
‘whitewashing’.
The history of public inquiries is replete with the accusation of
‘whitewash’ and ‘Establishment cover up’. This has been facilitated by
the very nature of public inquiries despite the ostensible reform
offered by the Inquiries Act of 2005.
The first point to note is that the executive branch of government
presently headed by Prime Minister May controls the inquiry’s terms of
reference. For example, the Franks Inquiry into Argentina’s invasion of
the Falkland Islands in 1982 managed to completely exonerate the
government of Margaret Thatcher even though failures in diplomacy and
intelligence were widely believed to have contributed to the Argentine
military government’s decision to invade. After all, Thatcher’s foreign
secretary, Lord Carrington had resigned soon after the invasion citing
the doctrine of Individual Ministerial Responsibility.
There had clearly been failings on the part of the Secret Intelligence
Service in predicting the Argentine action, and cuts in naval spending
implemented by the Thatcher administration were later viewed as actions
which would have offered the Argentine junta encouragement in proceeding
with their enterprise.
Simon Jenkins, then working for the Times newspaper, later confronted
Lord Franks about why he had exonerated the Thatcher government.
Gravely, Franks responded by inviting Jenkins to “read my terms of
reference.”
Secondly, the notion that an inquiry offers impartiality has often been
compromised. For example, the view held by many in the republican
community of Northern Ireland that Lord John Widgery was a figure of the
British Establishment who would have been unlikely to blame the British
Army for the massacre of unarmed demonstrators on ‘Bloody Sunday’ in
1972 was borne out by the fact that the inquiry took just eleven weeks
to absolve the 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment of wrongdoing.
Widgery’s conclusion was reversed thirty-eight years later by the
findings of the inquiry headed by Lord Saville which held that the
soldiers had killed the demonstrators in unjustifiable circumstances.
The allegation of partiality rose its head in regard to the inquiry into
the death of David Kelly, which provided a platform for the first
official investigation into the circumstances surrounding the decision
of Tony Blair’s government to take Britain into the war with Iraq. The
handpicking of Lord Hutton to chair this inquiry is seen today with
virtual unanimity to have been biased in favour of diverting any blame
from the government of the day.
More closer in time, worries about the perception that appointed chairs
for the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse were too close to
certain individuals who were to be investigated led to the resignation
of the first two appointments to the position of chair. The reasons for
their withdrawal in each case were objections related to their perceived
closeness to individuals and establishments which were to be
investigated.
A third point regarding the limitations of the mechanism of the public
inquiry is that the recommendations made by the inquiry such as
pertaining to changes to the law can be ignored. This lack of
accountability and ineffectiveness of the reports that have followed
many an inquiry have arguably led to the repetition of mistakes. For
example, David Cameron’s decision to allow Britain to participate in the
overthrow of the government of Libya in 2011 resulted in the
destruction of the country and its present day designation as a ‘failed
state’. He might have been more cautious about joining the action if a
proper inquiry had occurred after Britain’s participation in the 2003
invasion of Iraq which also led to catastrophic consequences.
While the aforementioned examples of inquiries predated the passing of
the Inquiries Act of 2005, this reform has not stopped negative
criticism of the inquiries system. The issue of executive control of the
inquiry remains a thorny one given that the chairman and members of the
inquiry are appointed by a government minister. The system of using
single judges to preside over inquiries which was thought to have been
thoroughly discredited during the Hutton Inquiry is still in place. This
factor arguable serves to perpetuate an ineradicable flaw in the
system.
Indeed, Amnesty International were adamant in calling on members of the
judiciary not to serve on any inquiry held under the Act because “any
inquiry would be controlled by the executive which is empowered to block
public scrutiny of state actions.”
In 2005, Peter Cory, a Canadian judge who has served on a number of
British inquiries also claimed that inquiries conducted under the Act
would make a meaningful inquiry impossible because the relevant
government minister would have the authority to thwart the inquiry at
every step.
The Chairman of the United States House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on
Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations Subcommittee,
Chris Smith, described the proposals when it was a bill as “the public
inquiries cover-up bill”.
It is also important to note that public inquiries which have tended to
pose problems in terms of their inordinate length and cost -the Saville
Inquiry cost £195 million and took 12 years to complete- do not provide
full protection for the right to a fair hearing as required by article 6
of the European Convention on Human Rights. This was the judgement of
the Joint Human Rights Committee of the British Parliament and the Law
Society, the body which represents the ranks of the country’s
solicitors.
Of course, the victims and relatives of the victims of the Grenfell
disaster may have a case for civil negligence against the relevant local
authority and private organisations responsible for the health and
safety of the building. The criminal law may also provide an avenue for
punishing senior public and private officials on the grounds of
corporate manslaughter.
While some may feel that the chances of a cover-up are lessened due to
the fact that it is government at local level rather that at Whitehall
which made decisions that ultimately created an unsafe environment, it
is worth noting that local authorities work and set policies within a
general framework set by central government.
Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s remarks serve as a warning to those who expect
that a public inquiry will provide a no-holds-barred exercise in
transparency and accountability.
© Adeyinka Makinde (2017)
Adeyinka Makinde is a writer and law lecturer who is based in London, England.