CATEGORY:COMMENTARY ----------------------- INSIDE GRENADA THURSDAY June 28,2007 by Lloyd Noel GRENADA: Let me firstly apologize to the readers of this column for having missed two issues in June. I had to travel to England on family matters and did plan to send back the material for publication. I succeeded for one week but circumstances beyond my control obstructed the other two weeks. But looking back at the issues and stories that made headlines or breaking news, I can see that there were more than enough to fill the gap I created. As I was leaving at the end of May, the on-going saga between the Trinidad and Tobago Government and chief Justice Sharma was again raising its ugly head - and since then the Chief Justice has again been suspended pending a Tribunal Enquiry at the behest of Prime Minister Manning. The “Charges” or allegations against the Chief Justice are the same ones that a Criminal Court in Trinidad and Tobago had to throw out, because the star witness failed, or refused, or got cold feet about - when his turn came to be cross-examined by the Defense. The relevance for the region as a whole is ever present, and must be giving grave causes for concern to one and all - but more so to John Public. But it is particularly relevant in the Grenada context - because of the furor that raised it own brand of distorted, distasteful, and hypocritically very ugly head, in the re-sentencing matter now on-going in the Grenada arm of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, from the 18th June 2007 - that involves the Grenada 13(or 14) from the painful events of March 13th, 1979 to October 19th (or 25th) 1983. But before I go back in print, let me share some very serious concerns from my observations and reliable information picked up during my short stay in the motherland on the recent visit. Before going into some details, I cannot repeat often enough, my fondness and appreciation for the British people , their way of life, their standards and principles, and above all else their unique brand of Justice and Structural Legal arrangements that are in place to serve their citizens. And flowing from the above, my eternal gratitude for the opportunities that were given, or made available to me, when I arrived in England those many years ago as a colonial immigrant, seeking fame and fortune and a better way of life than what obtained in the colonies at the time. And I have absolutely no doubt, that I speak here for hundreds of thousands of Caribbean and Commonwealth nationals who took the same or similar routes to the United Kingdom. But sad to say, that the problems and very serious fears I saw, and could almost feel as I went about London in those three weeks, have derived or developed from the historical reality that we faced in those days as Emigrants, though British by history, determined to succeed in the “foreign” mother land - as compared to the factual truisms, of those emigrants’ descendants who have been born and bred in the British Isles, and know no other home but in England, Scotland or Wales. I have no doubts, that the influx of European Union (E.U.) Nationals into Britain has made a lot of difference to the way and manner that the British treat so-called foreigners. I can also see and understand the dilemma being faced by Black emigrants’ descendants, who are being treated as “Foreigners” and much worse than the new-comers from the E.U. and elsewhere. And therein lies the recipe for disaster, that could erupt from racial and ethnic tensions on the streets in cities and towns nation-wide – and not in the too-distant future. The differences, or the rationale, or the mis-derstandings, or the grave suspicions that can ignite the explosive situation - are all in themselves very reasonable in their own ways. But I submit, if effective steps are taken urgently, a lot of the possible adverse repercussions and serious disaster can be avoided, or very greatly reduced in due course of time. Steps and programmes must be introduced to recognize and facilitate those emigrants’ descendants, to realize their full potential as British subjects. Loads of them attended Colleges and Universities and skills Training Centers, and are qualified to take their rightful places in the society. But the hue and cry is that this is not happening, because of the colour differences. What is worse is that thousands of those of colour are opting out of the normal or usual society structure, and increasingly turning to a life of crime in open and dangerous rebellion. One good sign I saw or read about just before leaving London, was that the very rich in the society have at last become aware of the great gap between them and the growing masses of very, very poor - and the dangers involved therein. Realizing that the victims of racial tension could be themselves in many ways - they seem prepared to work out a solution. Our black brothers (mostly) and Sisters must also realize and understand, that the best position from which to demand their rights and privileges and justice from the society - is standing tall with an Educational Certificate in their hands, whether from a College or Skills Training Centre it matters not - rather than a jail record. Also, because of the “9/11incident" in the U.S.A. and their own experiences in London in July, 2005, people in general, and those in authority in particular, are too prone to see everyone who looks different as a potential Terrorist who must be stopped and questioned. Vigilant security is an essential must, but it also must be tempered with civility and diplomacy, to avoid creating more distrust and feelings of hatred. I suppose that those of us who enjoyed the feelings of superiority in England, when west Indies cricketers ruled the World and we played in local leagues ourselves - we can now sympathize with all West Indians living in England that have to put up with the humiliation our current team are undergoing. That feeling certainly helped in those days. The tension in England is not only from a racial or ethnic perspective, mind you; the effects or fall out from the war in Iraq are also explosive, and now the new move within the E.U. to bring into effect some of the measures that were thrown out in the original Constitution - by means of a New Treaty for the E.U. that is being spearheaded by Germany, with the active support of all the other members except England, and Poland to a lesser extent - that too is raising people’s tension. A useful measure by our OECS members at this time could be an active programme to entice our Nationals who have retired in the U.K., to come back home to spend their remaining years in the comfort of a warmer climate with a lot less tension and stress. The effects on our struggling economies and un-employment could be beneficial to all concerned in these trying times. But coming back home I find things are just as bad and getting worse, if that is at all possible from experience. The Resteiner Brief Case saga has taken a new turn and now the Prime Minister is reportedly a Defendant in another New York case, involving a Government Minister for obtaining money from fraudulent sources. The strange twist is that the Prime Minister is allegedly refusing to accept the writ, or avoiding the Bailiff who is seeking to serve the same on him; and apparently his security chaps are securing him from receiving same. I cannot understand why that attitude, since the Prime Minister himself has been the Claimant in more Court Cases than any of his predecessors in office, on the one hand; and on the other hand, this is yet another ready-made opportunity to clear his name by showing the Court that the allegations of receiving half a million, or the one-million U.S. dollars now being claimed are all false. And then I understand that the Governor General has decided, or is seriously considering re-opening the one-man Commission of Inquiry into the very same Brief Case matter that has been adjourned two years or more ago. But over-shadowing all the foregoing, regarding our domestic affairs, is the drama surrounding the Richmond Hill 13 (14), formerly seventeen, but three of those were released earlier this year after having served their sentences for the lesser convictions of Manslaughter. Those chaps and one woman (Mrs. Coard) were taken into police, or the rescue forces custody, in October/November 1983. They were subsequently tried and convicted of the Murder of Maurice Bishop and others on the 19th October, 1983. They were sentenced to death for those Murders, and years later the sentences were reduced to life imprisonment for the rest of their natural lives, by the Governor General They made many Appeals which they all lost, including one to the Privy Council in London, before Grenada had been re-admitted back into the OECS or Caribbean Supreme Court in 1991 or thereabouts. The first Appeal to the Privy Council was quickly thrown out, because Grenada had abolished Appeals to her Majesty in Council, by the People’s Laws passed by the (PRG) Peoples Revolutionary Government. And even after Grenada was admitted back into the fold of the OECS Supreme Court System, the major limitation provision was that no matters already adjudicated upon by the Grenada Court of Appeal, could be brought back to the OECS Court. The cases of Hughes and Spence in 2002 or thereabouts, decided that the Mandatory Death Penalty was un-constitutional, as in-human and degrading punishment, and that convicted persons must be given the opportunity to address the Court after conviction, to try and show why they should be given a lesser sentence than death. For example life imprisonment or a fixed term. That decision opened the door for all persons who were on death row to challenge their sentences; and even those who may have been sentenced to death and then their sentences were reduced to life imprisonment - they too could challenge the original sentence in an attempt to get a fixed term sentence through the process of a sentence re-hearing. The above Legal situation was decided by our OECS Court of Appeal in St. Lucia, and the same was upheld by the Privy Council in London - as our Final Appellate Court. The Richmond Hill 13 followed that route, and when the High Court in Grenada agreed that they should be given a sentence re-hearing, the Government Appealed and the OECS Appeal Court over-ruled the Judge in Grenada; so the Thirteen went to the Privy Council and that Court up-held the Grenada Judge and over-ruled the Court of Appeal. I wonder which of those five Law Lords in London conspired to free the thirteen? A sentence re-hearing was ordered by the Privy Council, with a further order that the nearly 24years those guys have been in prison must be taken into consideration when passing sentence. Because the presiding Judge, who ruled in the thirteen favour for a re-hearing, is still the Judge here - a different Judge had to be sent into Grenada to hear the Case - hence Justice Francis Bell who had served in Grenada before. The same Chief Justice, who headed the Court of Appeal that over-, ruled the Grenada Judge in the matter, he sent Justice Bell to hear the matter. The protesters, and Bobby Clarke in Barbados, and Nelson Louison in Grenada - are now saying and clearly implying that Chief Justice Bryan Alleyne and Justice Bell have conspired to free the thirteen. Need I say anymore? Not worth it. Those Fourteen persons should have been freed a long time ago. They have more than paid their penalty to society for whatever they did - and for those walking freely in society to-day who are just as, and even guiltier of ruthless crimes against out people for four and a half years. As for the protesting victims - even after nearly twenty-four (24) of getting justice - I leave it to their consciences as to where they were, when over Three Thousand innocent Grenadians suffered in prison (and many were killed) at the whims and fancies of their very loved ones who held the power in Grenada. They had wives and children, and fathers and mothers too - and they all had to suffer in silence. Reconciliation and final closure must be brought to bear on this matter, so that we can all move onwards. Convenient loss of memory is no excuse for Hypocrisy.