THE WHOPPING bill of just under $45 million for the West Kingston Commission of Enquiry has triggered debate as to whether it was worth it.
Prime Minister Patterson disclosed details of the expenditure to Parliament in answer to questions raised by the Opposition spokesman on National Security Mr. Derrick Smith.
The total expenditure might have been more if the Opposition had not withdrawn from the proceedings. This obviously would have lengthened the proceedings and affected the substance of the conclusions reached by the Commission.
Of the total bill more than $32 million was paid to the attorneys involved in the exercise. One interesting revelation is that the Commissioner, Canadian Justice Julius Isaac, actually got the least. In fact, Mr. Isaac was only paid a per diem and living expenses since he continued to be paid by the Canadian Government while he was serving in Jamaica.
The question as to whether these controversial proceedings were worth the time and expenditure depends on how the Government proceeds on the recommendations of the Commission.
These include the question of increased penalties for failing to appear or to give evidence; the need for members of the police force to declare their assets under the Corruption Prevention Act; and the institution of Restorative Justice practices.
It is likely that the political flavour attached to the whole exercise will colour parliamentary debate when some of the measures come to be debated; indeed some of these matters may well be argued on the hustings as the general election draws nearer.
Generally there is not much satisfaction to be derived from the Commission's inability to determine some of the more crucial questions surrounding the death toll in the West Kingston violence. In this sense the enquiry mirrored the abject futility of the hearings into the Montego Bay Street People scandal which preceded it. And that we think is an unfortunate failure of judicial process.
