Dear Editor,
I have read the reports of the indictable case of Police v. Dr. Walter Ramsahoye for abduction.
It seems clear from the report that justice will not have its day in court. I draw that inference from the statements by Ramsahoye’s lawyer made to the Magistrate in open court that he was reliably told the virtual complaint has given a statement to the police that he did not want the case to continue.
The police prosecutor denied this. The lawyer also stated in open court that he had spoken to the DPP Shalimar Ali-Hack who told him that the abduction charge had not been sanctioned by her. The lawyer also stated that the DPP had advised him that in a case where the virtual complainant does not want to proceed she would discontinue the matter.
These are grave statements affecting the administration of justice.
The magistrate was right to remind the lawyer that the charge reflects crimes against society and stressed the seriousness of the offence.
The Magistrate should be complimented for not being blinded by the virtual complainant’s desire that he wanted to end the matter.
There should be an investigation of the DPP’s reasons for making such statement, in view of the pre-emptive statements which colour the Administration of Justice. Patrick Chase