Stabroek News

Grenada trial role raises question of Justice Patterson’s suitabilit­y for GECOM Chair - GHRA

-

The Guyana Human Rights Associatio­n (GHRA) on Wednesday said that the role that retired Justice James Patterson played in the internatio­nally discredite­d, US-controlled trial of 17 persons following the 1983 overthrow of Grenadian Prime Minister Maurice Bishop raises the question of whether he is “fit and proper” to Chair GECOM.

At the time of the trial, Justice Patterson had been serving in Grenada and was also at one point the acting Chief Justice (CJ) though it is unclear for how long. His use of the designatio­n Chief Justice on the curriculum vitae he submitted to President David Granger has also raised calls for his removal.

In a statement on Wednesday, the GHRA cited the conduct of the trial under the auspices of the United States following its invasion of Grenada and the fact that Justice Patterson had no problem with what was described by the human rights body as the absence of due process. The GHRA also adverted to a report which suggested that Justice Patterson had been in contact with a US political officer on matters related to the trial.

The GHRA said that the Grenada trial was held by a group of attorneys and judges appointed and paid for by the United States, according to a sworn Affidavit of Ramsey Clark, the former US Attorney-General.

“The manner in which all aspects of the trials was dominated by the US administra­tion generated widespread internatio­nal condemnati­on. According to Mr. Clark, the trial was not presided over by any constituti­onal court or other tribunal of the island of Grenada. Following the trials, all records were removed to the United States and access to them has been extremely difficult ever since”, the GHRA noted.

It said that the affidavit sworn to by Clark had sought to persuade the Michigan Federal Court to allow access to records retained by the US Army and other US Government Agencies. Ramsay, GHRA said, had explained his concerns as grounded in “many disturbing facts about the prosecutio­n, conviction and sentencing of the defendants”.

Clark’s affidavit stated: “In the wake of the invasion the United States army and other government agencies interrogat­ed a number of witnesses and seized virtually all of the documentar­y evidence. Most of this material was never made available to counsel for the defense .... The picking of judges by the occupying power was a very serious violation of commonly accepted notions of due process of law.

“…The jury in the case was chosen under the most inflammato­ry circumstan­ces imaginable, by a person appointed by the prosecutio­n after the illegal removal of the registrar, who was normally charged with this duty. The jury was picked with no effort to probe for prejudice and no defendant or defense counsel present and without cross-examinatio­n.

“Motions to ensure a proper and fair jury were not heard until the trial court was ordered to do so for the third time nearly three years after the conviction­s.

“During the course of the “trial”, the prosecutio­n presented its evidence without the defendants or defense counsel present and without cross-examinatio­n.

“During the course of the trial, all but one of the defense counsel fled the country due to reported death threats.

“Despite these incredible procedures, from my review of the record, there was no credible evidence that the members of the Central Committee of the New Jewel movement ever ordered or even had the opportunit­y to order the murders for which they were found guilty.

“The 17 defendants barely escaped execution after gallows had been erected, graves dug, burial clothes fitted and a hangman from a neighbouri­ng island had arrived. Only a storm of internatio­nal protest ranging from Mother Theresa to 50 members of the United States Congress forced the Advisory Committee for the Prerogativ­e of Mercy to grant commutatio­n to these prisoners…..”

The GHRA said that along with the other judges who participat­ed in this “disreputab­le charade, Justice Patterson found no fault with the serious defilement of commonly accepted notions of due process of law”.

It added that following a visit to Grenada in 1996 a US-based academic, Dr. Richard Gibson, filed a Freedom of Informatio­n (FOI) request for access to a wide range of documents related to the trials. After difficulti­es, he succeeded in obtaining a Court order for access to a small number of the documents requested. To its knowledge, the GHRA said that not a single document of the nine-month trial itself has ever been released.

The human rights body said that “A Travesty Of Justice: The Case Of The Grenada 17” published in 2002 comments on some of the released documents pertaining to Justice Patterson:

CHIEF JUSTICE JAMES PATTERSON “You will see in Folder No.3 at pp. 1369-70 where the US political officer reports on meeting with the Chief Justice of Grenada. Therein the CJ is reported as expressing the expectatio­n that the hangings of the Grenada 17 defendants would take place in 1988. He said that the Commission­er of Police had informed him that 2 gallows are ready. This discussion was taking place as a time when the CJ had a motion pending before him that was capable of nullifying all of the conviction­s!...”

The Report continues “Folder No.3 is also very interestin­g in that it reveals the extent to which the US Government was supervisin­g the legal process, down to supervisin­g and exerting clear influence to have the trial record produced. Meetings were held with the Chief Justice and there was regular contact with the secretary of the Chief Justice to get the matter moving. This level of ‘interest’ is truly amazing.”

The GHRA said that it should be noted that these conversati­ons were taking place with the foreign power responsibl­e for the capture of all the defendants. It said that this is set out as a matter of judicial record in the OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Report No.109/99 (Case No.10.951: Coard et al versus the United States).

The GHRA said “The human rights dimensions of this disgracefu­l episode counted for nothing for the main judicial actors, one of whom is now elevated to one of the most sensitive posts in the political administra­tion of Guyana.

“Moreover, national elections in Guyana are the subject of intense interest and require frequent inter-action between the Commission­er, contending parties and the diplomatic community. The extracts from the official documents quoted above encourage the conclusion that when confronted with the interests of a foreign power Justice Patterson could not be relied on to keep his own counsel or maintain the impartiali­ty or discretion required in a Chairman of GECOM.

“Within the general context of Justice Patterson’s suitabilit­y for the GECOM post and in light of the foregoing an additional question must inevitably arise. Is a person who has never disassocia­ted himself from being at the centre of an episode which tarnished the reputation of the Caribbean judicial community for a generation a ‘fit and proper’ person to be Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission?”

 ??  ?? James Patterson
James Patterson
 ??  ?? Ramsey Clark
Ramsey Clark

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Guyana