399 / 494
398
11.105) for his response thereto. His response on 25 April 2016 appears at
Appendix AC11 to the Report.
Summary of Response by SSP Budhoo
11.121.
(i)
The Commission has misconstrued his evidence.
(ii)
Having regard to the prevailing conditions on 24 May 2014,
akin to a theatre of war he was offering whatever assistance
he could in the circumstances.
(iii)
A finding of dereliction requires the assignment of a person
to a particular duty and a failure to perform the duty. In
that context, it was not suggested to him that he was in
dereliction of a duty or had any duty in respect of the
processing of dead bodies.
(iv)
He was never assigned a task to collect and/or process
bodies. Therefore he could not be in dereliction of a duty.
Commission’s Comments and Findings
11.122.
SSP Budhoo’s evidence-in-chief contained much discussion
about his role in respect of the collection and removal of dead bodies
on 24 May in particular. It revealed that about 5.30 p.m. he received a
call “from Control” of bodies being seen in Tivoli Gardens. SSP Budhoo
said that he spoke with DSP Tabannah and told him to retrieve the
bodies and they discussed how the bodies were to be retrieved.
SSP Budhoo said he told DSP Tabannah to ensure that a record was
made of the location of bodies and have them taken to KPH. He said
that he also spoke with Sgt. Waugh and told him to ensure that there
was a record made of the locations of bodies.
11.123.
Whereas we accept that the operational plan of the JCF did
not assign any duty to SSP Budhoo in respect of the retrieval of bodies,