Networked Knowledge - Media Reports

[This edited version of the report has been prepared by Dr Robert N Moles]

Dr Charles Smith Homepage
Canadian Issues Homepage
Article on Australian miscarriage of justice cases
Article on UK miscarriage of justice cases
Article on USA miscarriage of justice cases

On 18 October 2007 Thomas Walkom of the Toronto Star reported on Frank Iacobucci's secretive inquiry.

He said that to call Frank Iacobucci's judicial inquiry into the torture and imprisonment of three Canadians secretive would be an understatement. The former Supreme Court justice's inquiry is so secretive that it censors even the complaints about its obsessive secrecy. By comparison, Prime Minister Stephen Harper seems positively garrulous. By comparison, even Dick Cheney – the deeply paranoid U.S. vice-president – is a paragon of openness.

Iacobucci's inquiry began with great hope. The respected jurist was chosen by Harper last year to determine whether Canadian officials played any role in the detention and torture abroad of Canadians Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin. In effect, Iacobucci was to be Part Two of Justice Dennis O'Connor's earlier inquiry into Maher Arar. As part of his report, O'Connor had concluded there were "troubling questions" about the role of Canadian officials in the treatment by Syria and Egypt of the three other Muslim men.

He recommended that the government investigate these cases further, not through a full-scale public inquiry but by means of an "independent and credible process" that could take less time. Which is what the Iacobucci exercise was supposed to be. Under the terms of reference ordered by Harper, the former judge was to take "all steps necessary to ensure that the inquiry is conducted in private" except where he thought public hearings "essential." But since then, the inquiry's doors have been shut so tight that the credibility of the inquiry – its entire raison d'être – is in doubt.

No one expected the government to share its national security secrets with the public. But this inquiry has shared virtually nothing. In an application dated Oct. 2, the three men – along with interveners such as Amnesty International – complain that they have been provided with almost no substantive information. They have not been given any documents, even non-secret ones. They have not been allowed to cross-examine witnesses. They don't even have a witness list. There have been no public hearings. Nor have summaries of evidence been provided.

The very fact that the three men complained to the commission about its secrecy was kept secret until Friday. The complainants themselves weren't allowed to talk about it. And when it did make the complaint public, the commission censored portions – not because they dealt with matters of national security but because they spoke to how the commission was handling its business. One entire page of a letter to the commission from lawyer Paul Copeland is blacked out. In another letter, this one from Amnesty International's Alex Neve, most of the section dealing with "interviews about torture" is blacked out. "We have to be faithful to the terms of reference," explained commission counsel John Laskin yesterday. He said the censored portions concern off-the-record discussions with commission counsel. These discussions, he said, did not touch on national security. But because they dealt with the commission's operation, they were deemed to fall within the stringent and secretive terms of reference set by Harper.

Iacobucci is supposed to report by the end of January. But no matter how balanced and judicious his findings, he runs the risk that he won't be believed. It's hard to put much faith in a secret inquiry where only one side – the government's – has been heard.

Source: 18 October Thomas Walkom Toronto Star - Frank Iacobucci's secretive inquiry.

Top of Page