RJR News

On “That’s a Rap!” we often go back into the past, where relevant, to showcase the fact that there is hardly anything new in Jamaica’s very challenging political and social story.

Such was the case on June 13, when, in the wake of a renewal of calls for the establishment of a Truth & Reconciliation Commission, we turned the clock back to the year 1997.

At the annual National Leadership Prayer Breakfast staged on January 16 that year the featured preacher, Reverend Sam Vassel, called for such a body to be set up, using post-Apartheid South Africa as a model:

“Maybe what we need to do here in Jamaica is to establish some sort of truth commission so that the politicians can come out and say ‘yes; I did bring in the guns, I knew about this’… There has to be in Jamaica a situation where those who did it can come and say ‘I did it’ and we can say ‘I forgive you and am ready to follow you now.”

Contextually, that call to confession and accountability came at the start of one year (1997), the nation having just seen the back of a bloody year in Jamaica in which 925 murders were committed. Bruce Golding had resigned from the Jamaica Labour Party in 1995 and formed the National Democratic Movement, touted as a “new and different” party, committed to setting a new course for the Jamaican society; one in which its political leaders would eschew all links with political violence and the culture of garrison politics.

Thirteen years later, on “That’s a Rap!” we reminisced on those heady days in the wake of the May 2010 security forces operation in Tivoli Gardens and the related national apology by Prime Minister Bruce Golding for the duplicitous manner in which he handled the Christopher Coke extradition issue.

I raised the question therefore: What are the chances of a truth and reconciliation initiative being pursued in Jamaica? And if we did, would there be any real benefit to be gained?

The panelists – Reverend Roderick Hewitt, Martin Henry and Ian Wilkinson - were not unanimous in their response to the idea.  Reverend Hewitt argued that it would take “much more than moral exhortation to get change”. 

“It is only when you hold our leaders through eternal vigilance… you must never surrender that right… Forgiveness also involves repentance; you must show the fruits of repentance”. Therefore, he said, the country must hold their leaders accountable. “If we allow this talk of forgiveness to continue without holding people accountable then the next time will be worse… and that’s why civil society must not pull back and fold arms.”

Martin Henry, Academic Manager at the University of Technology, was even blunter in his rejection of the idea: “I am not in favour of a truth & reconciliation commission; I am in favour of criminal charges!” You have a truth and reconciliation situation where roughly equal forces which can’t neutralize each other will have to find accommodation.  It is really a sort of peace treaty. What we need are exemplary criminal charges… Catch a few of the big fish on both sides of the political divide; sentence them to the mandatory 15 year sentence they are debating in Parliament and make a good example… of them.”

 Ian Wilkinson , the attorney with a large criminal practice, was far more open to the idea of Truth & Reconciliation:

 “I like the idea of a Truth & Reconciliation Commission because, just as when you have a gun amnesty or a tax amnesty, such a commission will encourage persons to come forward who would not normally would have done so.”

Henry countered with the assertion that none of these amnesties had ever worked well enough in the past.

 Nevertheless, Wilkinson argued that “a lot of persons who have not paid taxes in the past have come forward at such times (of amnesty), a lot of guns have come forward… It cannot hurt to have such a thing.”

This is a highly debatable issue, which, hopefully, will elicit numerous comments, pro and con. Feedback is welcome!