Dear Editor,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Committee For Human Rights in Grenada (UK) in response to some of the recent letters published in the Voice on the subject of the release of the Grenada 17.

It has never been our position that the trial of the Grenada 17 was unfair because they were denied the right of appeal to the Privy Council. It is our view that the original trial was not a free and fair one as required by the constitution of Grenada, and that the Privy Council would reach the same conclusion were the case allowed to come before it. In previous letters I have catalogued the numerous procedural irregularities in the original trial proceedings. The Court of Appeal have failed to explain why these irregularities did not affect the decision of the original trial as their Lordships judgement has never been published, allegedly because the Government has failed to pay the Appeal Judges. This failure in itself should concern all Grenadians and cause them to question the original verdict. As an individual who attended some of the Appeal hearings I would be fascinated to see how the Judge who told the court that he could see no evidence against Cecil Prime subsequently justified confirming his original sentence.

What should be of more concern to all Grenadians is that the prosecution never produced any credible evidence that the member’s of the Central Committee were guilty of any offence. The prosecutions allegation was that the Central Committee members had gone to Fort Frederick after Maurice Bishop had been released from his house arrest and had met there to decide that he should be killed. Only one witness could be found to support the prosecutions imaginative accusations, Cletus St Paul, who claimed to have witnessed a meeting of the members of the Central Committee members at the Fort. There are considerable problems with the evidence given by Cletus St Paul: -

  1. He gave a different version of events at the preliminary hearing and the trial. The main plank of the prosecution case was that there was a conspiratorial huddle of Central Committee members at the Fort after which Leon Cornwall told the soldiers that Prime Minister Bishop and others must be liquidated. In his sworn evidence to the Preliminary Inquiry Cletus St Paul mentions no huddle of Central Committee members. The original President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Haynes, had ordered the Supreme Court registrar to subpoena Cletus St Paul to appear at the appeal because of the contradictions between his original statements and his evidence at the trial. Sadly, Justice Haynes died and Cletus St Paul was never required to appear at the Appeal.


  2. The evidence of Cletus St Paul is contradicted by the other witnesses called by the prosecution. For the evidence of Cletus St Paul to be true, the soldiers in their armored cars would have arrived at Fort Rupert by 11.30AM at the latest. In fact, five other witnesses testified that that the soldiers arrived at the Fort some two hours later.


  3. At the Preliminary Hearing Errol George, who had been with Cletus St Paul at Fort Frederick did not support the evidence given by St Paul that there had been a gathering of Central Committee members at the Fort. Errol George was listed as a prosecution witness and was present at the court, but the prosecution never called him. Had he been called, the evidence of Cletus St Paul would have been materially contradicted.


  4. The Court was not told why Cletus St Paul was at the Fort at the time. In fact, he was under arrest in connection with a charge that he had attempted to create unrest by the circulation of a false rumour. The rumour in question was that Bernard Coard and Phyllis Coard were planning to kill Prime Minister Bishop. Had the prosecution called him, Errol George would have referred to this fact in his evidence.


  5. In his actual evidence at the trial, Cletus St Paul did not say that anyone had ordered the liquidation of Prime Minister Bishop.

This is the total evidence on which ten individuals were sentenced to the death penalty. It remains our view that if these Defendants had been given a free and fair trial then they would not have been convicted of any offence and that therefore justice demands that the Privy Council should review the case of all seventeen Defendants.

Mr Michael Regis finds it ridiculous that the seventeen are sometimes referred to as political prisoners. In reply, I would ask him to consider this. The seventeen were arrested following an invasion which has been declared unlawful by the United Nations. They were tried in a special Court of necessity in proceedings which were funded by the United States of America. The Appeal was also heard by contract judges who have never produced a written judgement to justify their findings. They claim that this omission is because the Government of Grenada has not paid their fees. The OECS Supreme Court made it clear that they would not allow Grenada back into the OECS Court System until the Bishop case had been resolved. After the Appeal was over, the Governor passed a proclamation to re-enter the OECS Supreme Court. When the 17 filed a motion at the OECS Court he promptly withdrew Grenada again. The 17 were denied access to documents taken by the United States, which they urgently needed for their defence as they claimed diplomatic privilege. I put it to Mr Regis that at the very least he must accept that there has been political interference in the case of the Grenada 17, and therefore their conviction is tainted. I welcome the tone of forgiveness in the words of Mr Regis, and I share his concern over the desire of the relatives of those killed to give the departed a Christian burial. However, I put it to him that it is the occupying forces who need to state where the remains are located, as we understand that they had the bodies for the purposes of identification following the invasion.

Several years ago the 17 sent a long letter of apologies to all of those that had been detained by the PRG. Contained within this letter was an apology to the entire Grenadian People in which the 17 accept full political and moral responsibility for the deaths of Maurice and all those who died on October 19th 1983. They accept that as part of the collective leadership, they were responsible for creating the atmosphere in which the crisis unfolded.

I would like to congratulate Dr Keith Mitchell on his party’s remarkable election victory. When I heard him speak in England several years ago the keynote of his excellent speech was National unity and reconciliation. He is now in a position to do something momentous to help heal the old wounds and launch Grenada into the new millennium; he can draw a line under the events of October 1983 and release the Grenada 17 from their imprisonment in Richmond Hill Prison. I accept that this would not be an easy decision for him to take, for that there will be complaints from the usual negative elements on the Island. But it would be the decision that a true statesman would make. Great strides have been made in South Africa under Nelson Mandela’s Government of reconciliation. Hopeful signs are coming from Northern Island as the two communities seek to reconcile their differences. The concerns about the trial of the Grenada 17 will continue to be raised around the world until this matter is resolved, and this can only have a negative effect on how the rest of the world perceives Grenada. As the British Government has learnt with the Guilford Four and the Birmingham Six, the truth will come out in the end.

I would like to congratulate Archbishop John Noel for his brave call for the 17 to be freed, and I call on Prime Minister Mitchell to show that he is a true statesman and to put the long term interests of Grenada first by releasing the Grenada 17 and reconciling the wounds of the last sixteen years.

Yours sincerely,

Alan Scott
Secretary
CHRG(UK)
Published in Grenada Voice

back to letters menu