Allister questions Ford's stance on Amnesty
24 February 2012
On foot of an Assembly answer by David Ford, TUV Leader Jim Allister has suggested the Justice Minister may be a closet supporter of amnesty for historic crimes.
In a statement Mr Allister said:-
“In an Assembly Question I asked the Justice Minister for his view of the Police Ombudsman’s support for an amnesty. Instead of taking the opportunity – as might be expected of a Justice Minister – to repudiate any such anti-justice suggestion, I suspect from the minister’s answer that he too would be willing to betray victims by affording amnesty to those who made them victims.
“By saying he would welcome a public debate on these issues, he is, I perceive, signalling empathy with the cause of amnesty. Amnesty is the antithesis of justice. It both rewards the law-breakers and punishes their victims. The rule of law requires the certainty that, however long it takes, facing justice hangs over the perpetrator. Extinguish that hope for the victim and you add to his/her hurt.
“I am, therefore, disappointed by the minister’s stance. He had the opportunity to reassure victims that the long arm of the law would continue to pursue the criminal, but instead he chose to give solace to the lawbreaker.”
Below is the relevant Assembly Q & A:
Question:
To ask the Minister of Justice for his assessment of the suggestion by the Police Ombudsman of an amnesty for historic crimes.
Answer:
There is an Article 2 duty on the Executive to ensure there are proper investigations in respect of cases where there has been a loss of life. The Police Ombudsman, the Historical Enquiries Team and the Coroners Court will continue to investigate these cases unless and until an alternative is put in place. However, I recognise the difficulties that this creates for the Ombudsman’s Office.
The absence of a political consensus about dealing with the past makes it hard to envisage the early creation of an alternative mechanism to address these cases. However, I would welcome a public debate on these issues and urge the Secretary of State, First Minister and deputy First Minister to consider how that debate can most effectively be taken forward.
