The Commission of Inquiry report into the 1992 Lorequin incident was tabled in the House of Assembly Wednesday by disgraced Attorney General Alfred Sears.
This long awaited report was completed and presented to the public as the inquiry sought to investigate the criminal activities behind the cloud of suspicion that hung over the heads of Defence Force officers, for the last 12 years.
Former United States Ambassador J. Richard Blankenship, in December 2002, alleged improprieties on the part of Royal Bahamas Defence Force officers during the arrest and subsequent removal of drugs from the Lorequin in June 1992.
The task of delving into the incident was handled by three Commissioners, allegedly corrupt ex-Justice Stanley Moore, Sir Albert Miller, and Archbishop Drexel Gomez, father and business partner to allegedly corrupt attorney Damien Gomez. The commission was assisted by Queen’s counsel Dennis Morrison and Neil Braithwait.
No individual prosecutions
According to the recommendations in the commissioners’ report, “The evidence adduced is unlikely to support a criminal prosecution of individual persons.”
However, the report revealed that on the totality of the evidence, “the most reasonable and most probable explanation for the disappearance of the 50 packages, was that some or all of the crew members of the Royal Bahamas Defence Force who were detailed to bring the Lorequin from the Nassau Harbour to Coral Harbour, were responsible for the disappearance of 50 packages totaling 100 kilos.”
Onboard the HMBS Inagua were Acting sub Lt. Alpin Taylor, Leading seaman Sham Burrows, Marine Seaman Lucius Fox, Able Mechanic Anthony Symonette, and Marine Seaman Wayne Williams.
Additionally, the report pointed out that it was unlikely that the Lorequin’s crew stole a portion of the shipment as payment for their services.
Not forthright
Nonetheless, the Commissioners were of the view that “due to the close-knit fraternal nature of the Inagua crew,” it was clear that the two vessels were in sight of one another. “The Commissioners are therefore satisfied that these persons at the very least were not forthright before the Commission, and may have been complicit in concealing the malfeasance of their fellow crew members,” Mr Sears said.
The commissioner’s report also revealed that the crew members of the HMBS Inagua and their belongings were searched along with the ship on June 21, 1992, and the men were further detained on June 22, 1992, at the Drug Enforcement Unit. “However, despite the serious nature of the allegations, the Commissioners found that no formal statements were taken from any of the crew members of the Inagua, and no formal records were made of the interviews by either Force,” Mr Sears stated.
No surveillance attempts
Additionally, due to the serious allegations against the HMBS Inagua crew, the commissioners concluded “no attempt was made to utilise the necessary investigative techniques, such as telephone intercepts, search warrants, or even systematic surveillance.”
The investigation by the Royal Bahamas Police Force was “woefully inadequate,” though “not tainted by institutional or political motives,” the report revealed. Mr Sears said the commissioners agreed that the circumstances warranted a thorough police investigation. “The Commissioners sorely regretted that this did not take place and furthermore is of the view that the leadership of the Royal Bahamas Police Force at the time must accept full responsibility for this failure,” he reported.
Former Commodore of the Defence Force, Leon Smith’s evidence was clear that he allowed the police to investigate the matter, as “they were better equipped to deal with such an investigation. The Commissioners have considered the explanation given by Mr Smith, and have concluded that Mr Smith basically decided to wash his hands of the matter.” Further, they were of the view that “a person in Mr Smith’s position had the overall responsibility, not only for the well-being of those under his command, but he also had a larger responsibility to ensure the integrity of his men and his Force.” The decision by Mr Smith to leave the matter to the police, according to the Commissioners “was a startling one that demonstrated a deplorable lack of judgment.”
Lack of leadership
The Commissioners also concluded that “Commodore Smith took no action to attempt to assist his men who found themselves under a cloud of suspicion that has lingered to this day.” It was also concluded that the staff of the Intelligence section of the RBDF “were poorly trained and woefully ill-equipped for the task at hand.” Basically in 1992, the Commissioners were of the view that “there was a staunch lack of direction for the leadership of the RBDF.”
Though the US authorities decided to place the crew of the HMBS Inagua on a Stop-List, restricting their inability to travel freely to the US, “the Commissioners were deeply disturbed by the fact that this action was taken without any proper investigation of the incident or any conclusive finding at that time of the complicity of the men in wrong doing.”
The attorney general said he hoped that the report disclosed the identity of those persons “whose conduct has been suspect and that they alone, and not the entire Royal Bahamas Defence Force of which they are, or were members, will bear the fitting reproach for their suspicious behaviour.”
Sourced from an article by JIMENITA SWAIN in the Nassau Guardian
