WITH the commission of enquiry into the coup attempt by adherents to the Jaamat-al-Muslimeen in 1990 in full stride, the last thing we need is the harbouring of any sitting commissioner enquiring into the events of that period in our history with tainted or misleading credentials.
This is not simply a matter of "oops!" when it comes to the integrity and credentials of persons invited to be part of commissions of enquiry in this country but an effort to get to the nub of causes that set off all of the disturbing and distressing happenings during those trying, eventful days in 1990.
It stands to reason then, anyone so invited to enquire and to make recommendations (the better to thwart such negative events from occurring in the future) must be of good character, a citizen of proven high, unimpeachable standing and one duly and safely qualified academically or by hard, irrefutable experience to so sit, enquire and recommend.
That the nation is confronted with news of a so-so qualified person insisting on his right to serve on such a sensitive set of probes in spite of it, and who has not yet been taken by the scruff of the neck and peremptorily tossed out, makes this country a hearty joke in every sense of the term.
There is absolutely no room for deception and guile and skullduggery on the part of any person appointed to sit and to ask questions of others, with the aim of getting to the bottom of causes and motivations; each session in such enquiries must generate a history of "only the highest tenets of circumspection and integrity" was employed to elicit durable and truthful information from persons before it.
That the commissioner in
question seeks to solidify his position in the instant situation only serves to taint the entire enquiry and, to more potent degrees,
adversely affects the other commissioners and the outcome. He
is certainly not to be mentioned from here on as a "fellow commissioner".
It is high time that this particular issue is firmly dealt with and the persons responsible for its longevity be told a thing or two about their responsibility for the raising of our national image locally and on the international map. How can we aspire to sustainable development if matters like this are left to fester and become daily news?