Latest update November 26th, 2024 1:00 AM
Nov 05, 2010 Letters
Dear Editor,
The report in your edition, captioned, “Jagdeo says DPP must pursue Sharma to ensure prosecution”, of Monday, October 25, 2010 is referred.
I write to take strong objection to President Jagdeo’s intervention into a matter that is sub judice (under judicial consideration). Ordinarily, and I use this term advisedly, having regard to the President’s powers of immunity, a citizen would have been condemned by the court for making such a statement.
Not only could the statement be regarded as tantamount to interference into the conduct of a pending criminal trial, but also it appears to have far-reaching consequences as to the “independence” of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). I would not be surprised if Mr. Sharma’s lawyers seek a halt of the trial on the ground of unfair comments that prejudice his ability to have a fair trial. After all, this is the President of Guyana speaking about a certain desired outcome.
If we are in any doubt as to whether his words have weight, just ask the Directors of Barama who were recently warned to re-start operations or else.
Whilst holding no brief for Mr. Sharma, I believe that President Jagdeo needs to be schooled in the basic tenets of the Rule of Law and Constitutional rights of citizens and to be informed of offering comment on matters that are engaging the attention of the court. This schooling undoubtedly, should come from the head of the Bar, the Hon. Attorney-General. Our Constitution purports to guarantee that an accused person is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty; and the office of the DPP is expected to be insulated from political direction and control. Any interference in a prosecution however subtle must be condemned and I am surprised that the Bar Association and legal luminaries have not reacted to this statement, though I am not surprised that people are genuinely afraid to speak out.
I recall recently that when citizens in the persons of Paul Slowe and Patrick Yarde commented on matters that were before the High Court, the learned Attorney-General filed contempt motions to have them committed to jail for their “alleged” contempt. What is good for the citizen must be good for the President and I wait to see how the learned Attorney-General will address the issue even in the face of the President’s immunities.
It is befuddling that the President is so keen to jump into the arena so to speak, when it comes to Mr. Sharma, but refuses to comment when accusations of fraud, unlawful discharge of firearms, sexual molestation, and dangerous driving are made against high government functionaries. Where are his strong views then, and must one only be on the outside of his “cabal” before being singled out and condemned?
The President of Guyana is the first citizen of the land and is entitled to have opinions, but needs to hold his opinions on sensitive matters and be very circumspect when speaking on issues before the court.
Raphael Trotman
Nov 26, 2024
SportsMax – Guyanese hard-hitting left hander Sherfane Rutherford will get the opportunity to shine on T20 franchise cricket’s biggest stage once again after being picked up by the...…Peeping Tom Kaieteur News- Burnham’s decision to divert the Indian Immigration Fund towards constructing the National... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – There is an alarming surge in gun-related violence, particularly among younger... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]