By Sue-Ann Wayow
THE families of the four men who died tragically last year while at Paria Fuel Trading Company Ltd facilities should get no opportunity give evidence at the Commission of Enquiry (CoE).
Additionally, their witness statements already given should also not be taken into consideration given the CoE’s terms of reference.
Paria’s senior counsel Gilbert Peterson, SC, made the submission on Monday, the day the family members were scheduled to give oral evidence at the International Waterfront Centre, Port-of-Spain.
He said whatever the family members had to say to the CoE was irrelevant and would also be deemed prejudiced against his client.
CoE’s chairman Jerome Lynch, KC, had previously indicated the family members would be allowed to give their statements as they have been directly affected by the incident.
However, Peterson told Lynch, “I did as the tradition of the profession requires, I did alert counsel to the Commission that we wish to take an objection to the family members giving evidence.”
He said, “My objection is grounded is really on relevance.”
Peterson told the Commission that he spent most of his weekend perusing over the terms of reference.
“The fault may be mine, but I was unable to discover the relevance of that testimony within the strictures of the terms of reference as set up by this Commission,” Peterson said.
Lynch asked, “The application is an objection to the evidence at all?”
“Yes, it is an objection to the evidence,” Peterson responded.
Lynch then asked if all the evidence already supplied to the CoE and published on the website should be removed from the Commission entirely.
Peterson replied, “Yes sir. I could find no relevance with respect to assisting this Commission with respect to what caused the incident or the management of it right after. I can’t find any probative value in that evidence with respect to the terms of reference of this Commission.”
He added, “I am not unmindful of what the families may have experienced and I am sure there will be adequate forum for them to indicate their feelings and the impact of it on them.”
Peterson repeated that it would not be relevant based on the terms of reference. “I find difficulty placing that evidence in the terms of reference.”
He said, “The only thing I could find in it may be prejudicial effect against my respectful clients and I say this with the greatest deference to you Mr Chairman.”
Lynch again asked to be certain, “That which we have already been provided with and has been available on the website for now some time should be removed and your invitation is the Commission should ignore that which is set out in those statements?”
“Yes sir. It was submitted so one couldn’t prevent it being submitted,” Peterson said.
Again he made reference to the CoE’s terms of reference.
Lynch asked if anyone else from the interested parties aligned themselves with Peterson’s submission and at the time, there was no-one else.
Attorney Asif Hosein-Shah, representing the Seamen and Waterfront Workers Trade Union (SWWTU) opposed Peterson’s submission.
He said, “In so far as it relates to the SWWTU’s position, we will be asking that the families be able to give that testimony.”
Attorney Prakash Ramadhar representing two families affected was not in the room at the time and Lynch said he would further hear on the matter before the Commission goes on its first break and then a decision would be made.
Before Peterson spoke Lynch said that the Commission was very mindful of the families left behind following the deaths of Fyzal Kurban, Yusuf Henry, Rishi Nagassar and Kazim Ali Jr who were directly interested in the CoE’s outcome.
He said, “It would be wrong in our view as presently formed, it would be wrong to stifle any of them from saying what they want to say within the confines of what I have described.”
Lynch also said they would not allowed to be cross examined or allowed to cast blame on any particular entity for the incident.
