Between Public Accusation and the Demand for Truth: A Clash Between Smith Augustin and Sauveur Pierre Étienne

A public exchange has been ongoing for several days between former Transitional Presidential Council member Smith Augustin and intellectual and politician Sauveur Pierre Étienne, concerning a particularly sensitive issue: the potential responsibilities related to the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse.

The controversy originated from statements made by Sauveur Pierre Étienne on Radio Télé Métropole, suggesting the existence of elements that could establish Smith Augustin's direct involvement in the magnicide. These remarks quickly drew reactions, both due to the gravity of the accusation and the status of the individuals involved.

In a publicly released correspondence, Sauveur Pierre Étienne provided important clarifications. He indicated that his remarks were not intended to impute personal and direct involvement in the assassination of the head of state to Smith Augustin, but rather to question his institutional role as a former head of diplomatic mission in the Dominican Republic. According to him, the reflection would focus on a potential «chain of institutional responsibility,» assuming a Haitian consulate had issued visas to Colombian nationals subsequently involved in the crime.

This clarification led Smith Augustin to, in turn, publish an open letter. In it, he acknowledged the nuance introduced by Sauveur Pierre Étienne, while emphasizing that the initial tone of the media statements could reasonably suggest the existence of evidence establishing direct involvement. He insisted on the need to clearly distinguish between institutional suspicion and personal accusation, to avoid any confusion among the public.

Fundamentally, Smith Augustin disputes any knowledge of or involvement in the issuance of visas by a Haitian consulate in the Dominican Republic. He reiterated that the functioning of consular services is not based on a prior visa control mechanism placed under the direct authority of the ambassador. According to him, there was no formalized inter-ministerial protocol or structured decision-making chain allowing him to exercise such control. He further stated that upon taking office in August 2020, he proposed a strategic plan aimed at modernizing diplomatic action and establishing a formal mechanism for consular coordination and supervision, including a uniform and numbered visa format. This initiative, which was not followed up, is presented as proof of his willingness to correct institutional shortcomings rather than perpetuate them.

Beyond personal defense, Smith Augustin's letter falls into a broader category: that of the responsibility of public debate in a national context marked by institutional fragility and the quest for justice. He affirmed sharing the objective of truth and supporting any rigorous investigation conducted by the competent judicial authorities. However, he warned against hasty declarations that could fuel damaging interpretations and exacerbate divisions within society.