The outrageous decision by the Chairman of the West

Kingston Commission of Enquiry, Sir David Simmons, to

prevent me from exercising my constitutional right to
attend a public hearing, as a citizen observer, has
brought into question his judicial fitness to lead an
enquiry into allegations of constitutional and human
rights abuses by the state.
It was not sufficient for him that I accepted his biased
December 8, 2014, ruling that I could not be allowed to
participate in the proceedings . It was not sufficient for
him to be reminded that I had a constitutional right as a
citizen to attend a public hearing.
No, the Chairman wanted an apology from me for having
exercised my right to freedom of thought and freedom of
expression. He is outraged because I made critical
remarks in a newspaper article about the direction of
this commission of enquiry. His response is to embark on
a personal vendetta against me. It is hard to believe
that this gentleman is a former Chief Justice of Barbados
and not some petty tyrant.
The Chairman refuses to accept that the basis of my socalled outburst stemmed from his arbitrary, unfounded
and biased ruling to prevent me from fully
participating in the Enquiry, which is not a trial.
Without realizing it, he quickly fell under the spell of
clever security forces lawyers.
The Chairman's contempt for democratic rights was
further displayed for all to see when he ruled that he
would not allow me into the enquiry as an observer
(which is my constitutional right as a citizen); nor on
"these premises" which seems to extend way beyond
the territorial bounds of his imperial powers.
His reason for such a broad, imperial ruling was that he
was not convinced that there would be no more
outbursts from me! Shockingly, the implication of that
ruling is that the Chairman subscribes to the notion of

preventative punishment which has no legal foundation

in Jamaica or Barbados and is antithetical to the
essence of a free and democratic society.
This ruling is tantamount to the police deciding that they
have the right to arrest someone, not because they have
committed a crime, but because they suspect that the
person may commit a crime. Does this sound like what
happened in May 2010?
The stated basis of this ruling that I didn't apologize
(punishment) and to prevent me from committing a
further outburst -- is nothing less than an assault on
my constitutional rights. Does this sound like what
happened in May 2010?
I now clarify: the Chairman has proven himself to be a
farce and a legal hack. Don't hold your breath
expecting his report to produce anything beyond his
obviously limited intellectual and legal capabilities.
Lloyd D'Aguilar
Tivoli Committee