Magisterial inquiries

Elections to 23 councils have come and gone. Inevitably post-mortems will follow. People will want to know why they lost and people will want to be reassured how they won. It is in the nature of things that human beings become analytical in the face of events of importance that affect them. And such events are happening all the time.

Of course events that instigate inquiry may be of various kinds. Some of great national and political importance, like the outcome of elections, others like sudden, unexpected deaths in public institutions such as prisons or hospitals, warrant a more formal type of inquiry, regulated by provisions in our laws, other occasions such as instances of maladministration or corruption call for investigation at a different level.

However in all such cases, the community needs to know more, it demands that the whys and wherefores are examined by a responsible panel of competent people, and their findings reported on openly. It feels it has a right to know and feels cheated and threatened if it is kept in the dark.

The Shadow Minister of Education has recently written of the hassle he has been put to, topped by an egregious official offer on payment of a fee, just because as an elected representative and shadow minister he wanted to know the findings of the magisterial inquiry on the conduct of the Foundation for Tomorrow's Schools (FTS). The report of the inquiry was not being made public; a truly reprehensible state of affairs on any count.

Is not the time ripe for a closer look at magisterial inquiries with the object of making them the serious investigations, bearing an official stamp, independent and transparent and militating in favour of the common good, that they are supposed to be?

Some five years ago a journalist wrote that magistrates conducting inquiries into deaths, accidents, crimes and other matters are failing to abide by provisions in the law regarding time frames. The deputy Attorney General at the time agreed with this and made the usual excuses, but has the situation improved? The magisterial inquiry investigating the death of a young woman outside a party venue on New Year's Eve has yet to see the light of day.

And further, should the results of a magisterial inquiry be kept secret? After all, the findings of a judge in a court of law are public matters. Justice has to be seen to be done if the ordinary man (and I do not mean ignorant and indifferent man or woman) is to be satisfied with the way things are run.

And if a magisterial inquiry is the serious independent inquiry it is meant to be and as such equipped with the expertise it can command to reach just and valid conclusions, why should we replicate it with sundry inquiries, by calling them 'internal', 'departmental', 'commissions', or what have you?

Such replicated internal inquiries are a waste of public money and being pro domo suo often serve to fudge responsibilities and not to shed light.

One of the many problems that afflicts a mini-state such as ours is that of accountability in matters of public importance. Being often related and living cheek by jowl with each other, it is natural that we find it difficult to point the finger at anyone and much easier to shrug shoulders and let it be.

However, as a self-respecting country we should look to our judiciary to take on the appropriate responsibilities and be the vehicle for the conduction of serious independent and transparent inquiries into matters of public importance.