The Commission of Enquiry into the attempted coup in 1990

For the sake of those families who suffered losses of loved ones and of property as a result of the coup in 1990, as well as the business community which, up to today, in some cases, is still recovering from such loss, the Chamber submitted a memorandum to the Commission of Enquiry (COE) into the 1990 coup.  This was also in discharge of its responsibilities as the organisation most representative of the business sector, one of the major stakeholders in society.  The COE’s Terms of Reference are many and detailed in an effort to bring closure to the only concerted attempt in the 20th century to overthrow a government democratically elected under our Republican Constitution by unconstitutional means.

Although the objectives of the Jamaat al Muslimeen (the Jamaat) were as clear as day, in the Chamber’s opinion, the country needs to be just as clear about the motives of this group and the factors, whether historical, social, economic, political or otherwise, for future reference.  This is but one of the Commission’s many Terms of Reference (TOR).

It appears to the Chamber that the Jamaat alone, in this small twin-island state, could not have had the confidence and wherewithal to even think of staging this coup and preparing for July 27th without some kind of help or sympathy.  Where could this help have possibly come from?  What do our law enforcement agencies have to say by way of explanation of the at least 110 types of arms and ammunition which found their way into the hands of the Jamaat in order to facilitate the assault on our nation?  Was there conspiracy with members of those agencies and employees of the sea or air ports, for example?  All of these questions are also within the TOR of the Commission, and, undoubtedly, the answers to them will provide precious lessons not only for the future, but for the present, when the continuing perpetration of crime, employing illegal arms and ammunition, is all too prevalent.

It is extremely clear to the Chamber that the ‘intelligence’ available to law enforcement agencies, was a dismal failure, as the then Minister of National Security admitted, if the Chamber can recall correctly after 20 years!  While the country recently learnt that its capabilities for gathering this type of information is state-of-the art, the Strategic Information Agency was practising that art unlawfully, leading to the passage of the Interception of Communications Act, 2010.  Hopefully, we can now get it right after twenty years and use it right according to the law!

Those of us who lived through 1990 would no doubt vividly recall the lack of security in Parliament and at our then lone television station, is what allowed Yasin Abu Bakr and his followers to invade these fora and hold their occupants hostage.  In the Chamber’s view, precious little has been done about the security of Parliament and even precious less about the security for our national public media houses.  Even the security at the Police Administration Centre and the recently restored Police Headquarters opposite to it, both appear to be quite casual.  Hopefully, the evidence presented to this Commission, its findings and recommendations may put all of this to rest.

While the Chamber admits that the bombing of Police Headquarters in 1990 served to let the cat among the pigeons, from our recollection, the Defence Force reacted slowly in seeking to restore the confidence of the citizenry in the ability of the nation to defend itself, given the disarray into which the Police Service had fallen. Why was this so? Why was it that only one radio station and the voice of Denis McComie on the airways was the sole means of public communication until the then Government was able to muster up a link from Camp Ogden, so that representatives of the Government could address what was left of the nation?  Were the absences of several Parliamentarians from Parliament on the day in question, coincidence?

One of the Terms of Reference centres on whether or not existing legislation needs to be modernised with respect to national security.  The Chamber has grasped the opportunity in its Memorandum to reiterate its view that modernisation of this type of legislation is not the challenge today.  Its enforcement is, and such enforcement needs to be clearly demonstrated with zero tolerance of all types of crime.

For quite a number of years subsequent to 1990, our capital city continued to bear the scars of the event, in terms of many burnt-out structures, particularly on its east side.  In the Chamber’s opinion, the then Government’s response to the private sector in its efforts to rebuild and restore, was lukewarm to say the least.  Add to this, the denial by insurers of claims for losses suffered by businesspeople, and the cost of litigation to pursue such claims as far as the Privy Council.

In keeping with the spirit of the judgment of the Privy Council in the determination of the appeal by the State against those charged with the insurrection, the Chamber is not of the view that any other persons or organisations ought to be prosecuted for criminal acts or omissions resulting from the event, unless the Commission specifically recommends such prosecution.  The intent in behind the appointment of this Enquiry is to bring some closure to this dark period of the country’s history, and, in our view, everything ought to be done that is humanly possible to achieve that objective.

The Chamber compliments Government on its sensitivity to those who also share this view.  In particular, we commend former Prime Minister ANR Robinson, former Ministers of the NAR administration, their supporters and all those who have continually made this call for closure and the appointment of this Commission of Inquiry over the past two decades.  May its mission be accomplished, its findings published, its recommendations accepted and implemented before another decade elapses!

The nation must not be late twice.