The Commission of Inquiry set up to investigate whether there was any evidence linking Home Affairs Minister Ronald Gajraj to involvement in extra-judicial killings has found that there was not. The only direct evidence would have come from George Bacchus, who was ruled out by the three commissioners as a credible witness, and who in any case is now beyond the reach of earthly cross-examination. However, that does not mean that some of the other findings of the panel should not have given the government pause for reflection.

The first is quite simply that the report connected Axel Williams and his associates to contracted killings, and suggested the existence of other groups engaged in similar activities as well. If nothing else, this furnishes support to those who before the establishment of the commission had argued for much wider terms of reference for its investigations. The public was entitled to know as many details about the origins, direction and operations of these groups as it was possible to elucidate in a formal setting, and it is unfortunate that because of the President's timidity such a narrow focus was set for the inquiry, which inevitably impeded the illumination of these shadowy forces in our society.

Furthermore, the government was under pressure prior to the setting up of the commission to include in its remit a probe into the circumstances of the 'Buxton' killings as well as those committed by the death squad(s). Surely the families of all the victims who died at the hands of whichever group of perpetrators were entitled to know something of the context in which their loved ones lost their lives. As it is, the administration has closed the door on them ever finding out. It hardly seems like natural justice.

It might be added in passing that no proper provisions were ever made for the protection of witnesses, something which was essential if there were to be no in camera hearings. As it was, witnesses were afraid to volunteer themselves, and in the event, everyone who testified had to be subpoenaed. Given the limitations, perhaps more emerged from the inquiry than might have been expected, but it was still a long way from explaining the full circumstances of what transpired between 2002 and 2004.

As far as Mr Gajraj himself is concerned, the report criticized his "operational relationship" with Axel Williams, for which the commissioners said there was "cogent evidence." The Minister had testified that his association with the hit-man had been linked to intelligence gathering, an initiative which won him no brownie points from the panel. Not only, they said, was he exceeding his authority by involving himself directly in the collection of intelligence, but he became tainted by Williams's operations, opening himself to allegations that he too was involved in unlawful killings. Furthermore, the report continued, a relationship with the Minister was likely to have given Williams and his associates a false sense of security, and encouraged their involvement in crime on the assumption that he would protect them.

Then there was the matter of the gun licences. A compliant Commissioner of Police made possible the deviation from normal practice whereby the Minister gave approval for the grant of licences before a police security check had been conducted on the applicants. "Such a predisposition," said the commissioners, "allowed the Minister to exercise an almost absolute authority in the grant of firearm licences." As had the Disciplined Forces Commission before it, this commission too recommended a change in the firearm regulations, which President Jagdeo in a statement on Friday said that Cabinet had accepted.

It was this general deviation which had made it possible for Axel Williams to receive a gun upgrade, even although he was known to have killed food vendor Rodwell Ogle some months before. The commission was of the view that the Minister, who had approved the upgrade, had failed to give consideration to the fact that "Axel Williams, armed with an upgraded firearm, posed a real danger to the lives of others..." Mr Gajraj, the report said, had been aware of Williams's involvement in the Ogle shooting at the time he gave his approval, and it was felt that the relationship which had developed between the two men had influenced his decision. In other words, the Minister had acted in relation to this matter out of "a conscious or unconscious bias..."

So here we have a Minister who first of all exceeded his authority by involving himself directly in intelligence gathering; secondly, who deviated from normal practice in relation to the issuance of gun licences; thirdly, because of a conscious or unconscious bias who approved an upgraded firearm licence to a man he knew had shot a food vendor; fourthly, who placed his trust in someone he had no idea was a hit-man, enthusing on the witness stand about his "courage... in the area of public security..."; and fifthly, who as a consequence of the relationship quite unwittingly may have given a sense of security to contracted killers. It is not an inspiring record.

In any other democracy a Minister of Home Affairs who had displayed the same naivety, misjudgement and penchant for exceeding authority in certain areas as Mr Gajraj has done, would have had to step down. And one who had made such an unsavoury contact as Axel Williams would have had to step down as well. But our Cabinet has decided to reinstate the Minister, on the grounds that he was not involved in extra-judicial killings.

It is true that the commissioners found unanimously there was no credible evidence that he was, but what they did find raises questions about his suitability for a difficult and sensitive post like the Ministry of Home Affairs. This is one case, perhaps, where the Cabinet has rushed too quickly to a decision.

President Jagdeo - His India roots