Key aspects of the verdict that aligned with expectations include:
Establishment of wrongdoing: The commission found evidence of wrongdoing, confirming allegations of misbehavior, irregularities, or violations that necessitated an investigation.
Identification of responsible individuals: The verdict named individuals or entities responsible for the identified wrongdoings, providing accountability for actions and ensuring that those responsible are held liable.
Recommendations for corrective actions: The commission's report typically includes recommendations for corrective actions to address the identified issues, offering practical steps to prevent future instances of similar wrongdoings.
Transparency and disclosure: The commission's proceedings and findings were generally open to the public, ensuring transparency and allowing stakeholders to understand the basis for the verdict.
However, it's essential to note that not all aspects of the verdict may be universally embraced. Certain individuals or groups affected by the findings may express disappointment if they feel that the commission's conclusions do not fully address their concerns. Additionally, there might be differing opinions on the severity of the wrongdoings, the adequacy of the recommended actions, or whether more or different individuals should have been held accountable.
Overall, the verdict by the commission of enquiry can be viewed as reasonably aligned with expectations based on the available evidence and the commission's mandate. However, it doesn't eliminate the potential for differing interpretations and dissatisfaction from some parties involved.