There has been a buzz recently about the Commission of Inquiry and even a poll conducted to test public sentiment about whether it was thought as politically motivated.

While no one can dismiss political motivation, nor can they dismiss responsible governance. Sometime during the 1990s, the first world court to look into the injustices of leaders was established. It was created to address the impunity of governments and leaders who used their unchecked power to victimise and commit crimes against their populations without consequence.

These new international courts are addressing the extreme end, with war crimes and crimes against humanity, but the less severe and nonetheless repugnant issue of corruption of leaders is still a problem worldwide, without in many cases the forum to bring justice, except among developed democracies where courts and tribunals are well established. The core issue is justice and pulling the reins on the impunity of leaders, which is important for the sobriety of any society. Injustice always has victims and tyrants, who after any peaceful resolution will need to coexist. Justice helps in the healing process, which allows both sides of conflict to develop the means, even if through subsequent generations who can live beyond the stains and scars of a troubling and oppressive era.

Truth and reconciliation is not just a fancy term; it is important with a view to restoring harmony in societies. Even corruption and corrupt leaders create victims and beneficiaries, often drawn along ethnic or tribal lines, which will ultimately need reconciliation.

The bright side of the CoI is that it is a marker that will set a precedent as a deterrent for future leaders who might be inclined to abuse the privilege of governing while believing there is no consequence.

However, the issue of justice has a twofold purpose: not one simply of reproving or punishing the guilty, but also of bringing quiet to the disaffected society so that people can get along and live with each other after the fact.

So it is good we get some reconciliation on the years referred to in the CoI report, which are very current in the affairs of our society. The question is what about all the other years that still have a lingering effect, where the limbs and skeletons of the victims are bearing the scars as evidence of past injustices?

Can we go on with a free moral conscience having dealt with what is deemed as relatively current injustice and cast a blind eye to the injustice levied upon those, many of whom still walk the streets or are the children of direct victims?

The question has real merit because not only did Parliament approve of the CoI, it also passed another legislation to deal with past improprieties, presented by MP Walton Brown and withheld by a request for specifications by the Governor. For balance, if there is genuineness in the Government’s intent, it should willingly assist Brown in developing the terms of reference that the Governor requested.

Certainly this new governor should have no reservations in abiding by the request of Parliament. For balance, and similarly to remove the hint of politics from the situation, the Opposition should resurrect the legislation to allow revision of past misbehaviour to be adjudicated by doing the work and furnishing the terms of reference requested by the Governor, rather than living on the perceived benefits of protestation against him or the British overlord.