400 / 494
399
recording their locations and matters ancillary thereto, we remain
satisfied that the
circumstances
on 24 May fixed him with a duty to
ensure that his instructions were carried out. Those circumstances
were these: (a) he was contacted by Control and told of the presence
of bodies in Tivoli Gardens; (b) he called DSP Tabannah and
Sgt. Waugh and gave them instructions to have the bodies removed
and their locations recorded. Notwithstanding his clear role in this
matter, on his own unchallenged evidence, SSP Budhoo did not follow
up with DSP Tabannah and Sgt. Waugh subsequently to ascertain
whether his instructions were carried out or not. The situation of a
“theatre of war” did not prevent him from giving instructions; it should
not have prevented him from enquiring whether those instructions
were carried out.
11.124.
In his response, SSP Budhoo laid great emphasis on his
duties relating to the provision of troops to block the southern border
of the cordon, providing for the security of detainees, providing patrols
at Seprod and sentries at the Command Post. He said that he was
“never assigned the task to collect and/or process dead bodies;
therefore I could not be cited for dereliction”. We are at a loss to
understand how such a narrow construction could be placed on the
extent of SSP Budhoo’s duties. As he asserts, he was never assigned
the task of collecting or processing bodies. But, in his evidence he
admitted giving instructions in respect of the collection and removal of
bodies on 24 May. As regards 25 May, Sgt. Pratt testified that
SSP Budhoo gave him instructions to “roam the community” in pursuit
of the recovery of bodies.
11.125.
Upon an evaluation of the totality of evidence adduced to
the Commission on the matters of retrieval of bodies and recording the
locations thereof, we are satisfied that these matters were not properly