Dear Editor,
The article headlined ‘Chancellor mulls action against Hughes for attack on office’ published in SN of December 10th, 2010, has been brought to my attention.
I would not want to comment on the findings of contempt purportedly emanating from the office of the acting Chancellor, save to say that they, the allegations on which they are supposedly made on, are a complete misrepresentation of the alleged occurrences.
I am, however, troubled that the Acting Chancellor has resorted to relying on hearsay in this case, a newspaper report, to level charges and make findings of contempt against me.
I am further concerned that said Chancellor, is now using the medium of the newspapers to instruct his subordinates how to find on any issue of contempt that may engage their attention brought at his instance.
I assumed, mistakenly, as it now appears, that the single commonality between me and the Acting Chancellor, other than being attorneys-at-law, was the belief held amongst lawyers, that a man is innocent until proven guilty. C.A. Nigel Hughes
Junior Counsel