If Lloyd D'Aguilar is right ...
Carolyn Cooper, Contributor
Lloyd D'Aguilar has become a much-ridiculed character since he was banished from the West Kingston commission of enquiry. In cartoons, editorials and newspaper columns, on talk shows and social media, he's portrayed as an egomaniac, hungry for attention. All because he stood up for principle!
Admittedly, he not only stood up. He spoke out rather loudly for a very good cause: condemning the "kangaroo court" that's not likely to hand down justice, in his opinion. D'Aguilar should have tried a lot harder to restrain himself when he saw how the enquiry was set up. But it was never going to be easy.
Before the enquiry even started, D'Aguilar applied for "standing". This is a legal term meaning recognition of someone's right to participate in a case because of a clear connection to the matter at hand. As convener of the Tivoli Committee, D'Aguilar seemed eligible for standing.
But he was informed that the decision would not be made until the start of the enquiry. This was a problem. The Tivoli Committee would not have time to prepare witnesses and assure them that their interests would be protected. But there was nothing D'Aguilar could do about this arbitrary ruling.
The Tivoli Committee was, in fact, given standing. But there seems to have been some misunderstanding about exactly who was permitted to speak on behalf of the committee. Miguel Lorne, the attorney employed by the Tivoli Committee, was missing in action at the very start of the enquiry.
I PUT IT TO YOU
In the absence of the committee's attorney, D'Aguilar exercised what he thought was his right to speak. That was the beginning of the end. In his opening remarks, D'Aguilar raised several pertinent issues. In email correspondence with me, he outlined them: "(1) how to deal with language; (2) rules of evidence; (3) visiting Tivoli; (4) compensation".
Even the blind can now see that D'Aguilar was absolutely right to raise the issue of language. The legal profession is a secret society. And lawyers speak in code. I put it to you that the language of the law is deliberately designed to be confusing. That is why we have to pay lawyers to translate the code words into everyday language.
In addition, the official 'everyday' language of Jamaica is English. But the mother tongue of the majority of Jamaicans is not English. Call it what you like - dialect, Patwa, Creole, Jamaican, 'chat bad' - it is a distinct language. Most of the words of this language come from English. But the pronunciation, word order and grammar are not English.
So here we have a commission of enquiry that is interrogating witnesses in a language the people don't understand. And that is justice? Confusing 'rubble' with 'rebel' is just one of numerous examples of the breakdown of communication between witnesses and interrogators.
When the enquiry resumes, professional translators must be employed to ensure that witnesses completely understand the questions they are asked; and interrogators completely understand the answers they get. Failure to acknowledge Jamaican as an official language of the enquiry is a grave injustice. Speakers of the language are dismissed as social rubble. And they will rebel.
'A POLITICAL HACK?'
I think it's really wicked that Lloyd D'Aguilar has been dismissed from the enquiry. He has done so much work to ensure that the enquiry take place at all. When a lot of us shamefully forgot about the massacre of civilians, D'Aguilar and the Tivoli Committee kept the issue alive.
Sir David Simmons, chairman of the commission, cannot possibly understand why D'Aguilar was so disturbed by what he perceived as harassment of witnesses by insensitive attorneys for the security forces. All Simmons can see is an upstart - who is not even a lawyer - daring to challenge his authority.
It was certainly not polite of D'Aguilar to call Simmons "an enemy of the people of Tivoli Gardens" and "a political hack". Simmons, naturally, took offence. In his own words: "This strikes at the heart of my statutory duty." But it is also Simmons' duty to take into account the possibility that D'Aguilar could 'purge' himself, as the JDF attorneys wanted him to do. With castor oil, perhaps? D'Aguilar should be given a chance to prove that his bowels of compassion are not shut up.
WAS DUDUS IN TIVOLI?
The question I'd like the enquiry to ask is this: Who really believed that Dudus was in Tivoli at the start of the incursion? That might seem like a foolish question. Of course, Dudus was in Tivoli. Why else would the security forces go there to look for him? But why would Dudus have sat in Tivoli waiting to be captured? And where was he caught? On the Mandela Highway, in a car with the Rev Al Miller, far from Tivoli!
Was the incursion nothing but a B movie, designed to show the US government that we were really trying our best to find Dudus? There are lots of extras in movies. Sometimes, according to the script, these extras get killed. Did the people who said they would die for Dudus expect play-play guns? The tragedy of the Tivoli incursion is that many people lost their lives. Fi real. They weren't acting. That's a very high price to pay to find one man who, perhaps, wasn't even there.