Truth Commission by another name....

John Hume, drawing parallels with the South African apartheid regime, once stated that what Ireland needed was a unionist de Klerk; to which David Trimble responded saying simply that it was not a unionist de Klerk that was much needed, but a nationalist one in the context of the British Isles. Nationalists and republicans have both attempted to compare their pre-agreement 'struggle' with that of Nelson Mandela, not that it bears any resemblance, but because of the political 'peace process' that resulted from the fall of apartheid. Sinn Fein/IRA are attracted to the prominence of the ANC as they had close connections with their militants and this was epitomised by the appointment of Cyril Ramaphosa as one of the inspectors of the IRA arms dumps (it itself a method used in South Africa). Such an emotive figure of Nelson Mandela has a draw for all nationalists in Northern Ireland and the benefit in PR terms of building a narrative similar to that of South Africa has many benefits.

A reoccurring theme of the 'peace process' in Northern Ireland has been the call for a South African inspired 'Truth Recovery Mechanism' or a 'Truth Commission'. Sinn Fein and Gerry Adams in particular have been prominent in the call for this, and many would fairly ask: what is the problem? The obvious intention of any Truth recovery is to obtain the facts about the troubles and from the facts find out the truth. But to get the facts a commission would need the full backing of all the paramilitary groupings, the British and Irish governments and the full support of the general public. The IRA have already failed to talk to the Eames-Bradley group and their withholding of the information surrounding the disappeared who they murdered and secretly buried is a true indictment of their intentions.

Another connected issue is that of an amnesty. In South Africa anyone who participated in the Truth Commission was given a full amnesty after giving testimony to victims or relatives of victims. Sinn Fein have repeatedly called for amnesty for on-the-runs and for the expunging of the records of former IRA criminals. Northern Ireland already has an amnesty for these criminals and it is called the Good Friday Agreement: for any 'political' crime committed before the GFA, the individual qualifies for early release. Why would another amnesty be needed? Surely for those still outside of the law, on-the-run or otherwise, they will be sentenced and almost immediately released. There is no justice for the victims of terrorist violence in prisoner releases and there certainly will not be one present in a Truth Commission.

This is where the Eames-Bradley Consultative Group appear to be heading:

It is expected to call for the establishment of an independent commission for a five-year period.

It would take over the role of re-examining all killings during the Troubles, something currently carried out by the Historical Enquiries Team.

The commission would also investigate controversial killings where there are allegations of collusion with the security forces - a role currently undertaken by the Police Ombudsman.

In cases where there is no possibility of a prosecution, the commission would ask the families of victims if they want to know details about what happened.

If the families agree, the commission would then call on those responsible - whether it was paramilitary organisations, the police or army - to come forward and provide details.

There would not be a general amnesty - but those who agree to meet the commission would be given immunity for the information they provide, meaning it could not be used for prosecutions.

All I see is another black hole where money will disappear and come up with nothing worth the effort put in. What it will narrow down to is no adequate response from the paramilitaries, the governments handing over some evidence and it basically being a 'blame the Brits' exercise. The only thing that has been forthcoming in investigations of these types is participation by the security services and the British government, and because they are the primary participants they are the ones under investigation.

What I want to see is justice. I want to see convictions in the court room at the very minimum; I also think victims want to see sound convictions. They may qualify for early release, but at least they were found guilty by their peers in a court of law. I am not optimistic, the South African model was a farce, information provided for a media circus where the same information that was relayed around the world was later thrown out by a court of law: it was not fit for testimony but this person was granted full amnesty. Justice is certainly not what any Truth Recovery Mechanism is about.