Right Steps & Poui Trees


18 Comments

No Written Rules Banning Sleeveless Dresses: An Access to Information Story

I look at the Gleaner this morning and see that the issue of the banning of women wearing sleeveless dresses is again in the news here in Jamaica. The Gleaner’s editorial entitled “Dressing Sleeveless in Jamaica” was sparked by social media commentary pointing out “that women in Jamaica could not dress like Mrs May to enter several government departments and agencies, including hospitals, prisons and schools.” This was a reference to the UK Prime Minister’s sleeveless attire in a formal setting during the official visit of the US President.PM May - Trump visit 7-2018

But we don’t have to go that far afield to show the disparity between what is accepted in a formal setting and what will get a Jamaican woman barred from entry to do business in some government entities. We only need to look at our own Governor General’s wife at the swearing-in ceremony of PM Andrew Holness at King’s House in 2016. She, like a number of women who attended, wore a sleeveless dress, which was perfectly acceptable attire for that very formal occasion. Yet wearing that same or a similar dress, I would risk being barred from entering some government ministries or agencies.

Back in May this year, someone shared the classic story of her elderly mother, a woman of high standing in the field of education in Jamaica, being barred from attending a meeting at the Ministry of Education recently because she was wearing a sleeveless dress. Undeterred, she returned to her car, tore a hole for her head in a sheet of The Gleaner newspaper, returned with her arms covered in this way and was allowed to enter!

I have been interested in this issue for a number of years and have written a couple of blog posts about it and decided that I wanted to actually see the regulations that guided this sleeveless ban. So I made a request under the Access to Information Act to seven Ministries for

“any regulation/guideline/protocol/etc documenting the Ministry’s prohibition of female members of the public wearing sleeveless dresses or blouses entering the Ministry to do business.”

I also made this request to one Executive Agency.

I made my initial requests on May 29 & 30. This week I received the response from the last of the bodies. Not one produced any document prohibiting the wearing of sleeveless dresses or blouses by female members of the public.

The Ministries & Executive Agency and Their Responses

The Ministries and Executive Agency I made ATI requests to were

  • Ministry of Culture, Gender, Entertainment & Sport
  • Ministry of Education, Youth & Information
  • Ministry of Finance & the Public Service
  • Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Foreign Trade
  • Ministry of Health
  • Ministry of Justice
  • Ministry of Labour & Social Security
  • Registrar General’s Department

I selected some of these Ministries and the Registrar General’s Department because they have featured in sleeveless banning complaints in the past; the other Ministries were included just to extend the range. Their responses are as follows.

Ministry of Culture, Gender, Entertainment & Sport

June  5, 2018 – “In response to your request stated below under the Access to Information Act, I am not aware of any documentation from this Ministry regarding any regulation/protocol or guideline for the prohibition of female members of the public wearing sleeveless dresses or blouses entering the Ministry to do business.”

Ministry of Education, Youth & Information

June 8, 2018 – “The Ministry of Education, Youth and Information (MoEYI) is pleased to grant you access. Please see attachment Visitors Dress Code.”

MOYC Visitors Dress Code ATI 2018

On June 11, 2018, I made two subsequent ATI requests. It is now more than 30 days since I made these requests and I haven’t received either an acknowledgment of them or any documents in response to them.
“1. I note that this document does not include “sleeveless dresses or blouses” in its list of prohibited wear. Is there any document that does?
2. The document sent seems to be a photograph of a framed notice at the Ministry. It includes the words “Signed Human Resource Management and Administration. Ministry of Education. 2009”. Are there any documents (minutes, memos, letters, reports, etc) relating to the issuance of this notice and the establishment of the dress code for visitors policy on which it is based?
Please regard this as a formal request under the Access to Information Act.”

Ministry of Finance & the Public Service

July 9, 2018 – I am somewhat heartened by the indication that the Ministry of Finance is currently reviewing its “practice of restricting access by females who wear sleeveless blouses or dresses”.

MFPS ATI response 9-7-18 sleeveless dresses

Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Foreign Trade

June 15, 2018 – “I hereby acknowledge receipt of your request dated Wednesday, May 30, 2018. The Ministry however, does not have any documented regulation prohibiting female members of the public wearing sleeveless dresses or blouses when entering the Ministry to do business.”

Ministry of Health

July 3, 2018 – “Please be advised that we have undertaken the necessary research to respond to your request for any “regulation / guideline /protocol/document which guides the Ministry’s prohibition of female members of the public wearing sleeveless dresses or blouses entering the Ministry to do business”.

To date no document has been identified or located. It appears that this is an unwritten policy that has been carried on over many years.
In pursuit of a concrete response we have sent the request to the Cabinet Office and continue to await their response.”

Ministry of Justice

June 22, 2018 – “Reference is made to your Access to Information application below, please be informed that no documents were found in support of your application.

Ministry of Labour & Social Security

July 11, 2018 – “Thank you for your application under the Access to Information Act, wherein you requested the Ministry’s Dress Code to enter its offices. Please note that the ministry in keeping with other Government entities established a Dress Code Guideline for its customers. The Dress Code prohibits:

  • Camisoles
  • Tube Tops
  • Merinos
  • Short Shorts
  • Mini Skirts
  • Low Cut Garments exposing the Bosom
  • Tights
  • Sheer (see through) Garments
  • Pants below the waist

It should be noted that persons are not prohibited from entering the building, as long as the clothing is not excessively revealing. Steps are also being taken to review this guide bearing in mind the Ministry’s stakeholders.”

The list included in the Ministry of Labour & Social Security’s response is displayed on printed posters at the guard house at the gate and in the lobby of the Ministry. It is delightfully ironic that the poster in the lobby has a piece of masking tape affixed to it, on which is written the word “sleeveless”!MLSS dress code poster 7-18 - sleeveless

Registrar General’s Department

May 30, 2018 – “The Registrar General’s Department does not have any formal regulation/guideline/protocol documenting the prohibition of female members of the public wearing sleeveless dresses or blouses.

We do however follow the general rule of most Ministries and Hospitals, which prohibit the wearing of alter backs, tube tops and spaghetti blouses.”

On May 30, 2018, I replied making a follow-up ATI request:

I’d like to make a request under the Access to Information Act for a copy of any document (memo, correspondence, minutes, report, etc) in the possession of the Registrar General’s Department that sets out “the general rule of most Ministries and Hospitals, which prohibit the wearing of alter tops, tube tops and spaghetti blouses” referred to in your email, which you advise that the RGD follows.

On June 11, 2018, I received the following reply: “The Registrar General’s Department does not have a written document, but there is an unspoken, unwritten dress code which is in force.

Please note with regard to Dress codes each organization sets its own policy, which can be written or unwritten. It differs and is dependent on the organization.

Our unwritten policy encourages our customers to dress in such a way, that shows consideration for other members of the public.”

(I remain somewhat puzzled at how the dress code can be efficiently communicated if it is both unspoken and unwritten!)

Concluding Comments

So there you have it. A small sampling of government entities.

  • 8 entities requested via the ATI Act to provide documents setting out “any regulation/guideline/protocol/etc documenting the Ministry’s prohibition of female members of the public wearing sleeveless dresses or blouses entering the Ministry to do business.”
  • 6 out of 8 indicated that they had no such document.
  • 3 of those 6 gave some background or context for the unwritten sleeveless ban policy/practice.
  • 1 of those 6 made mention of some of the prohibited garments.
  • 1 of those 6 indicated that they had referred the request to the Cabinet Office for a further response.
  • 2 of the 8 entities sent the list of garments prohibited by their dress code. Neither of those dress codes specifically prohibited sleeveless dresses or blouses.
  • 2 of the 8 entities indicated that they were currently undertaking a review of the existing practice.

It is time that this practice – unwritten, unspoken (?), unjustified, whatever its origin – be officially abandoned and those Ministries and other government entities applying it recognise that a woman in a sleeveless dress or blouse entering their precincts will not bring government business to a screeching halt.

P.S.

A note on camisoles, tube tops, halter tops, spaghetti blouses mentioned by those dress codes supplied…they are different from sleeveless dresses and blouses.sleeveless collage

P.P.S.

Donkey seh di worl nuh level. I guess the Ministry of Education hesitated to apply the sleeveless ban to a former government Minister. No Gleaner newspaper needed to cover her bare arms?

Tweet 31-3-16 Flloyd Green & Lisa Hanna at Min of Ed

March 31, 2016 tweet

Advertisements


3 Comments

Asma Jahangir, Renowned Human Rights Defender, Dies: Her Visit To & Report On Jamaica In 2003

Asma JahangirI was saddened to learn on Sunday of the sudden death of Asma Jahangir, the remarkable Pakistani lawyer and human rights advocate, who died of a heart attack at the age of 66. Ms Jahangir was a courageous human rights defender, who had great impact within her own country, as well as internationally in a number of capacities and on a number of issues.

A United Nations release titled “World loses a ‘human rights giant,’ says UN chief on death of rights expert Asma Jahangir” spoke about her work and included comments from the Secretary General’s statement on Sunday:

“We have lost a human rights giant,” said Mr. Guterres in a statement.

“Asma was brilliant, deeply principled, courageous and kind […] She will not be forgotten,” he added, expressing his condolences to Ms. Jahangir’s family, friends and colleagues, including in the UN and civil society.

I had the privilege of meeting Ms Jahangir when she visited Jamaica in 2003, for a country visit in her capacity of then United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. I sat with a number of clients of Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) – family members of people who had been killed by the police – as they individually told her about the death of their loved ones. At times I helped with translation, when Ms Jahangir wasn’t clear what was being said in patois.

I was struck by the sensitivity, compassion and respect shown towards the family members by Ms Jahangir during her interviews, as they recounted their experiences, often in traumatic detail. Hers was an attitude that was often not shown to them by local officials, as they navigated the long and frustrating search for justice for their relatives.

On the last day of her visit, February 27, 2003, Ms Jahangir held a press conference at the Ministry of Justice to give some initial remarks regarding her observations. Asma Jahangir - Gleaner 28-2-2003 pA1

The Gleaner report of the press conference included the following:

A United Nations-led independent assessment of reports of human rights violations in Jamaica has determined that extrajudicial killings are still rampant with not enough policemen being punished for their actions.

Asma Jahangir, the UN Commission on Human Rights’ special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, yesterday told a press conference at the Ministry of Justice, Oxford Road, New Kingston, after her 10-day mission to the island, that many of the reports she received during her research indicated excessive use of force and targeted killings of individuals which could amount to extrajudicial killings and executions.

“In a number of cases there are strong indications that these reports might be accurate,” Ms. Jahangir said.

“There is a strong belief among the disadvantaged that the police and security forces abuse them with impunity. I’ve often heard the term uptown and downtown
justice being used to describe the notion that two different standards of justice were being applied. Another disturbing element of these reports was the allegations of the apparent lack of interest on the part of the Government in recognising this problem.”

She expressed concern that influential pressure groups justified the excessive use of force as a legitimate measure to fight crime; at the deep anguish expressed by the families of those killed by the police and the frustration of witnesses; that a number of people interviewed showed their reluctance in testifying to such killings as they were afraid of reprisals and had little confidence in the criminal legal system; and that she had received reports of threats by the police against families of the deceased.

Ms. Jahangir, however, had high commendations for the Government’s efforts, and expressed high hopes for change if the conclusions and recommendations from her pending report are considered.

She welcomed the fact that in the last few years the resource allocation to the Police
Public Complaints Authority(PPCA) had been enhanced and that several steps had been taken to further develop the training of police and the security forces, to strengthen community policing and to establish the Police Service Commission.

“Almost everybody I met confirmed that there is an official recognition that despite the high levels of crime, it is crucial to ensure that the police and security forces act in accordance with the law,” she said. “ However, I regret that the public discourse centres on the issue of crime without sufficiently recognising that rough and easy justice only adds to more crime and bitter crime.”

Ms. Jahangir’s mission was prompted by reports of killings of civilians by the police and security forces and included meetings with representatives of the Jamaica Constabulary’s Bureau of Special Investigations, the PPCA,  the Jamaica Constabulary’s Office of Professional Responsibility, Jamaica Chamber of Commerce, and Jamaicans for Justice.

She is now mandated to recommend further constructive measures that the Government can take in addressing the challenges they are facing.

“ I’m not satisfied, of course, otherwise I would not be here,” she said. “There have been convictions of 136 policemen (between 1990 and 2001) on complaints of abuses
but not on extrajudicial killings. I believe the number is very, very low when it comes to this, it is possibly just a couple…”

She said that she was impressed with the openness of Government leaders and ordinary citizenry in expressing their concerns.

Gleaner, February 28, 2003, pp A1 & A6

Later that year, Ms Jahangir’s report was delivered and included references to the wide range of individuals and organizations she met with. It outlined the context of her visit and detailed the concerns that arose from her observations. A number of individual cases were described: Janice Allen and her family, Richard Williams, Michael Gayle, Basil Brown, Patrick Genius, the persons killed and injured in West Kingston in July 2001 and the Braeton 7.  The report ended with a list of conclusions and recommendations. Nearly fifteen years later, it is worth reading to note both what changes have taken place and what remains more or less the same.

Special Rapporteur Jamaica report 2003

UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions report – Mission to Jamaica 2003

This quote from Asma Jahangir, included in a Democracy Now segment remembering her, is an inspiring and good place to end:

“When you start off, there’s something inside you telling you to do it. And it comes because you have a heart and an eye and the courage to stand up against those forces—and there are plenty of them, believe me—that do not wish to see people free. Human rights, it’s not a job, it’s a conviction. I have used the law as an instrument, and I’ve used the courts, but I have been on the streets, as well. I’ve been in protest marches. I have been to prison. I’ve been under house arrest. So, for each issue and for each incident, there has to be a thought-out strategy. Justice is a rare commodity in our part of the world. Very rare. But sometimes even shouting for justice gives you some satisfaction that you’re being heard. And you must be heard. You knock, and you knock, and you knock, and you knock, and you knock, and one day they are going to hear.”

(I was Chairperson of human rights organization Jamaicans for Justice in 2003, when Ms Jahangir visited. I remain a member of the organization. My blog posts are all done in my personal capacity, however.)


Apologise for What? – When the state commits human rights abuses

gleaner-headline-5-9-2000-cash-for-street-peopleIn 2000, the Jamaican government agreed to pay compensation to the so-called MoBay street people – homeless Jamaicans, many of whom were living with mental illnesses – who had been rounded up in Montego Bay on the night of July 14, 1999. They were taken by truck to St Elizabeth, where they were callously dumped near a mud lake in the dead of night. After the Commission of Enquiry, the government accepted responsibility and indicated that the sum of J$20,000 per month was to be paid to the victims of its abuse. One of the women who was subjected to this horrendous treatment, Miss Sarah, was subsequently interviewed by a reporter about the news of this compensation. She was asked how she felt about the money that the government would be paying her. Her response was that the money was all well and good, but up to that time no-one had yet come and told her sorry for the way she was treated.

When the state through its agents commits human rights abuses, there are many things that the state has an obligation to do as part of the process towards justice. This includes prompt and effective investigations, actions towards holding those responsible accountable, and steps towards reparation for those harmed by the abuse. An often overlooked step in the reparation process is that of apologising for the harm done.

IACHR & Michael Gayle

In 2005, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) published its findings in the petition filed by Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) regarding the death of Michael Gayle, the 26-year-old man who died after being brutally beaten by police and soldiers on the night of August 21, 1999. The Commission made a number of recommendations for action by the Jamaican state. Among those recommendations was that the state should make a public apology to Michael Gayle’s mother, Miss Jenny Cameron:

At the time, the Jamaican government said that it had issued an apology, but Miss Cameron and JFJ, which had made the petition on her behalf, disagreed. This raises issues about the nature of an apology given by the state, where and how it should be given and what it should say. Certainly, the person or people to whom the apology is given should be in no doubt that an apology has been made, nor should the community and country at large.

West Kingston, May 2010

Last week, Minister of Justice Delroy Chuck indicated that the government would within a matter of weeks be issuing an apology to the residents of West Kingston. This was one of the recommendations made in the report of the West Kingston Commission of Enquiry, released to the public in June this year.

Some people have again been asking, as they did at the time the report was released, “Apologise for what?” For some, the actions of the police and soldiers during the May 2010 joint security operation were completely justified and they feel that the state has nothing to apologise for. After hearing and examining the evidence put before them during the Enquiry, the Commissioners are of a different opinion.

It is the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) that now forms the government that will deliver the apology in Parliament; it was the JLP that formed the government at the time that human rights violations were carried out in May 2010. Yet, if it had been a PNP administration in government now, they would have had the responsibility to deliver the apology nonetheless, as the state responsibilities continue, whichever party forms the government at a particular time.

A public apology is an important part of justice and reparation, but there must be no misunderstanding that it is all that is needed. There is much additional concrete action that needs to take place to fulfill the recommendations of the Commission of Enquiry and the state’s obligations for accountability (including accountability for crimes committed), for compensation and for measures that will prevent such an occurrence again.

UN Basic Principles & Guidelines

un-logoIn 2005, the United Nations (UN) adopted the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, which is a useful and relevant document.

In the section dealing with Reparations for harm suffered (IX), there is a list of principles which are necessary for full and effective reparation: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. Among recommended actions contributing to the principle of satisfaction is:

“Public apology, including acknowledgement of the facts and acceptance of responsibility.” 22.(e)

 

Public apology is there among the many facets to the provision of justice for those who have suffered serious violations of their human rights.

Apologise for what? The Jamaican state must apologise for the human rights abuses carried out by its agents.

 

 


4 Comments

Report of West Kingston Commission of Enquiry Made Public; Now Online

Today (June 15, 2016), the report of the West Kingston Commission of Enquiry was tabled in Parliament by Minister of Justice Delroy Chuck. The report is the culmination of the work of the Commission which began its public hearings on December 1, 2014 and held its final sitting on February 19, 2016.

 

The three Commissioners who presided over the 90 sittings have now signed off on their report.

WKGNCOE report - signatures

The full report is available on the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) & Parliament websites. Below, I have included links to the report on both sites. The report is in two volumes, the first with the main contents and the second with the Appendices.

In the coming weeks, there will be much review and analysis of the contents and findings of this report. Its release marks the beginning of the next phase of the search for justice for those who died as a result of the May 2010 events. Minister Chuck informed Parliament that a sub-committee of Cabinet would be established to review the report and that the report would also be subject to review in Parliament. It is essential that the wider society engages in this process as well.

Links to Parliament’s website Report of Western Kingston Commission of Enquiry 2016

The Ministry of Justice website went down recently, but is now back up. If ever none of the links to the report posted below are working and you want to find the report, try the Nationwide News Network site at http://nationwideradiojm.com/west-kingston-commission-enquiry-full-report/ (December 15, 2018)

Click here for Volume 1

(Link to report on Parliament’s website no longer functions. Scroll down to use link to report on Ministry of Justice website. Edited 29/4/17)

WKGNCOE Report Vol 1 (Parliament)

Click here for Volume 2

(Link to report on Parliament’s website no longer functions. Scroll down to use link to report on Ministry of Justice website. Edited 29/4/17)

WKGNCOE report Vol  2 (Parliament) aWKGNCOE report Vol 2 (Parliament) b

Link to MOJ web page with Report of Western Kingston Commission of Enquiry 2016

(At times the Ministry of Justice links stop working, though they are currently working. If the links don’t work and you want to find the report, try the Nationwide News Network site at http://nationwideradiojm.com/west-kingston-commission-enquiry-full-report/ (July 10, 2019)

WKGNCOE cover vol 1

Introductory Sections

Chapters

  • Chapter 1 – Introduction

  • Chapter 2 – Background to the Commission of Enquiry

  • Chapter 3 –  THE SITUATION IN WEST KINGSTON AND RELATED AREAS IN MAY 2010 PRIOR TO THE ATTEMPT TO EXECUTE A PROVISIONAL WARRANT FOR THE ARREST OF CHRISTOPHER “DUDUS” COKE AND THE REASONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE DECLARATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY IN MAY 2010 – ToR (A)

  • Chapter 4 – THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH, AND BY WHOM, SEVERAL POLICE STATIONS OR OTHER STATE PROPERTY (INCLUDING POLICE OR MILITARY VEHICLES) WERE ATTACKED AND DAMAGED OR DESTROYED BY FIREBOMBS, GUNFIRE OR OTHER MEANS DURING OR AROUND THE PERIOD OF THE STATE OF EMERGENCY DECLARED IN MAY 2010 – ToR (C)                                    &  WHETHER, AND IF SO, UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, STATE OFFICIALS AND LAW EXFORCEMENT OFFICERS CAME UNDER GUNFIRE ATTACKS DURING MAY 2010 IN INCIDENTS CONNECTED TO THE ATTEMPTS BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF JAMAICA TO ARREST CHRISTOPHER “DUDUS” COKE – ToR (B)

  • Chapter 5 – THE ALLEGATION THAT PERSONS WERE ESPECIALLY ARMED TO REPEL ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORT TO CAPTURE THE FUGITIVE CHRISTOPHER “DUDUS” COKE AND, IF SO, BY WHOM – ToR (E)                               &  THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONCERNING THE RECOVERY OF ILLEGAL FIREARMS AND OTHER MUNITIONS IN WESTERN KINGSTON OR ANY RELATED OR AFFECTED AREAS – ToR (M)

  • Chapter 6 – WHAT WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH, AND BY WHOM, EMBATTLEMENTS AND BARRIERS WERE SET UP IN TIVOLI GARDENS, AND WHETHER EFFORTS WERE MADE, AND BY WHOM, TO RESTRICT INGRESS AND EGRESS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR TO PREVENT THE ARREST OF CHRISTOPHER “DUDUS” COKE – ToR (F)

  • Chapter 7 – WHAT ARRANGEMENTS WERE MADE, AND WHAT PRECAUTIONS WERE TAKEN, TO PROTECT CITIZENS IN TIVOLI GARDENS AND OTHER AFFECTED AREAS FROM UNNECESSARY INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE DURING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION IN THE STATE OF EMERGENCY, AND THE ADEQUACY AND APPROPRIATENESS OF THOSE ARRANGEMENTS AND PRECAUTIONS IN THE PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES – ToR (G)

  • Chapter 8 – THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH, AND THE PERSONS BY WHOM, PRIVATE PROPERTY WAS DAMAGED OR DESTROYED DURING OR AROUND THE PERIOD OF THE STATE OF EMERGENCY DECLARED IN MAY 2010 – ToR (I)                                                                                                                                              & WHETHER MONIES, BENEFITS OR COMPENSATION WERE PROVIDED BY THE STATE TO COMPENSATE RESIDENTS OF WESTERN KINGSTON INCLUDING TIVOLI GARDENS AND, IF SO, HOW MUCH WAS ACTUALLY PAID OR DISTRIBUTED, THE MANNER AND RECORDING OF SUCH PAYMENT OR DISTRIBUTION, AND THE ADEQUACY OF SUCH COMPENSATION – ToR (Q)

  • Chapter 9 – WHETHER, AND IF SO, UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, CIVILIANS, POLICE OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS OF THE JAMAICA DEFENCE FORCE WERE SHOT AND KILLED OR INJURED DURING MAY 2010 IN CONNECTION WITH THE SECURITY FORCES SEEKING TO EFFECT THE ARREST OF CHRISTOPHER “DUDUS” COKE ON A PROVISIONAL WARRANT IN EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS – ToR (H)

  • Chapter 10 –  WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF ANY PERSON OR PERSONS WERE VIOLATED IN ANY OF THE AFFECTED OR RELATED COMMUNITIES BY EITHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR BY ANYONE ELSE AND, IF SO, WHOSE RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED, AND THE MANNER AND EXTENT OF SUCH VIOLATIONS, AND BY WHOM SUCH VIOLATIONS WERE PERPETRATED – ToR (J)

  • Chapter 11 – THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IN RELATION TO THE DECISIONS CONCERNING THE OPERATIONS BY THE SECURITY FORCES IN TIVOLI GARDENS AND RELATED AREAS DURING MAY 2010, AND THE RESPECTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES OF EACH PERSON IN THAT CHAIN OF COMMAND – ToR (K)    & WHETHER ANY DERELICTION OF DUTY OR UNLAWFUL CONDUCT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY PERSON OR PERSONS IN THAT CHAIN OF COMMAND IN CONNECTION WITH THE DECISIONS CONCERNING OR THE EXECUTION OF THE OPERATIONS BY THE SECURITY FORCES IN TIVOLI GARDENS AND RELATED AREAS DURING MAY 2010 AND, IF SO, TO WHICH PERSON OR PERSONS, AND THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF SUCH DERELICTIONS OF DUTY OR UNLAWFUL CONDUCT – ToR (L)

  • Chapter 12 – WHETHER THERE WAS ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE FUGITIVE CHRISTOPHER “DUDUS” COKE AND ANY JAMAICAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL (OR OFFICIALS) OR ANY AGENT THEREOF, DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN WHEN THE REQUEST FOR EXTRADITION WAS FIRST COMMUNICATED TO THE JAMAICAN GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS AGENTS OR OFFICIALS AND WHEN THE FUGITIVE CHISTOPHER “DUDUS” COKE WAS ARRESTED; AND IF SO, BY WHICH OFFICIALS AND/OR AGENTS THEREOF, THE NATURE OF ANY OR ALL SUCH COMMUNICATIONS, BY WHAT MEANS, AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE – ToR(N)                                                          & WHETHER COPIES OF AFFIDAVITS AND OTHER CONFIDENTIAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO OR RELATED TO THE REQUEST FOR EXTRADITION OF CHRISTOPHER “DUDUS” COKE WERE FOUND IN COKE’S OFFICES, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH AND THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THOSE DOCUMENTS CAME TO BE THERE – TOR(O)

  • Chapter 13 – THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE FUGITIVE CHRISTOPHER “DUDUS” COKE MANAGED TO ELUDE ARREST DURING AND AFTER THE OPERATION BY THE SECURITY FORCES OF JAMAICA IN TIVOLI GARDENS AND RELATED AREAS IN MAY 2010, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS CAPTURE – ToR (P)

  • Chapter 14 – THE CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS BY THE SECURITY FORCES OF JAMAICA IN TIVOLI GARDENS AND RELATED AREAS DURING THE SAID STATE OF EMERGENCY IN THE MONTH OF MAY 2010 – ToR (D)

  • Chapter 15 – Recommendations

    WKGNCOE cover vol 2

    Volume 2 – Appendices

  • Appendices 1-30 & AC1-14 can be accessed by clicking on the appropriate tab on the MOJ web page.

(I discovered yesterday that the links to the report online at the time I published this post were no longer working. The Parliament link no longer functions and the Ministry of Justice links had changed when it updated its website. I have gone through and updated the links for the report on the Ministry of Justice website; they are all working now. My apologies if you tried unsuccessfully to use the post to access the report. Edited 29/4/2017)

The Ministry of Justice website was down recently, but is back up now. If ever none of the links to the report in the post are working and you want to find the report, try the Nationwide News Network site at http://nationwideradiojm.com/west-kingston-commission-enquiry-full-report/ (December 15, 2018)