I consider Sir David Simmons 1990 Commission of Enquiry and refer to the complex puzzle that has emerged. It is "a novel event for us," said a Chicago Cardinal elsewhere, in an understatement. Dr Hafizool Mohammed may resign. If he chooses not to, some difficult questions arise–too many to discuss here.Example: What is in the public interest? Recall in the Clico Enquiry the DPP asked the AG "to advise the President to suspend the enquiry, or vary its terms of reference."
The AG refused. Further, one will recall Sir Anthony Colman's ruling (in part): "So also should public enquiries proceed unless the risk...is so great as to displace that public interest."Due to a constitutional gap, Mohammed may cling on using a legal technicality. So the enquiry will then proceed under the Colman rule above.How then may the larger team of four commissioners preserve the pure stream, prepare and complete their most valuable and necessary report?
Many options, one of which is to inform the President that in these delicate circumstances (a) a majority report shall be prepared exclusive of Dr Mohammed's signature and/or concurrence with its contents; and (b) only out of courtesy to his continued presence, he will be asked to present a minority report–to cover that narrow band of expertise that he claims to have.
I have reflected on the cogent evidence of Generals Theodore and Brown, and of Rear Admiral Kelshall. So also have I on the questioning of them by "Major" Dr Mohammed.In their support, observing their creative responses to an insurgency/and a double hostage crisis, I submit they could not have been confined to a rule book or "standard operating procedure."
Noting from Newsweek (November 12, 2012, p 64) that my assertion reflects firmly Rule 4 of General David Petraeus's 12 Rules for Living - "... it is up to leaders to determine when exceptions should be made and to explain why they made them."
Arthur L McShine
Via e-mail