In defence of Justice Navindra Singh

Jun 21, 2016 Letters

Dear Editor,

Terrence Campbell of Church’s Chicken House wrote a partial and prejudicial letter against Justice Singh, a sitting Judge of the High Court which was published in last Saturday’s edition of your newspaper and I feel compelled to make known my observations.
According to Mr. Campbell, the “incident” between his employee and Justice Singh is alleged to have occurred in excess of a year and a half ago. Why did he choose to publish it only now? Mr Campbell obviously has a hidden agenda. I have examined Ms. Allen’s story and I wish to highlight the following observations:
1. A strange man is driving aggressively and dangerously on the road next to her, he exits his vehicle, comes out and taps on her window. She claims to have been afraid. In that situation, I believe a reasonable response would perhaps be to toot your horn, scream for help and/ or call the police. What did Ms. Allen do? She wound down her window and said “Good morning”!
2. This strange man allegedly went on and threatened to kill her. According to her she is “afraid’, “threatened’ and “intimidated’. Again I would have expected a reasonable reaction in those circumstances to be a scream for help, a call to the police, going to the nearest police station quickly or all to the above. What did Ms. Allen do? Drive away and go home.
3. According to the purported statement of Ms. Allen, about four hours after the alleged incident, the police went to her home and served her with a Notice of Intended Prosecution. One would reasonably have expected that Ms. Allen would have used this opportunity to complain to the police about her unfortunate experience earlier that day. Ms. Allen did not do that, but rather she leveled a complaint against the police saying that she was never informed about any traffic infraction before the Notice was served on her.
4. In his letter, Mr. Campbell said that the police went to the home of his employee acting on the complaint of Justice Singh. It is obvious that Mr. Campbell is aware that Justice Singh made a complaint against Ms. Allen but he deliberately failed to disclose in his letter the nature of Justice Singh’s complaint. It seems to me that a lack of bias would have dictated that he ought to have disclosed this in his letter but I gather fairness is not one of Mr. Campbell’s virtues.
5. This incident, according to Mr. Campbell, was captured by the cameras at his place of business at Camp and Middle Streets but according to Ms. Allen this incident is alleged to have occurred on Camp Street between Quamina and Church Streets. It is therefore not factual that the radius of his super sensitive cameras would have clearly captured the incident as he alleges. It seems therefore Mr. Editor that the sole reason behind Mr. Campbell’s claim that the incident was captured on his cameras is to mislead the public into believing that he actually witnessed the alleged incident in order to give credibility to this trumped up story.
6. How did this unpleasant story end? According to Mr. Campbell, “I guess wisdom prevailed and no further action was taken … “ What Mr. Campbell appears to be saying here is that the goal and strategy of both he and Ms. Allen was achieved when she avoided being prosecuted by the police. It seems to me, therefore, that her story was concocted solely for that purpose.
I hope Mr. Campbell deals with all of his employees legal problems with the same zest with which he dealt with Ms. Allen’s legal difficulty and this is not a special privilege he reserves only for Ms. Allen. In closing, I challenge Mr. Campbell to produce the recording of this incident captured by his cameras as I seriously doubt this footage would substantiate Ms. Allen’s incredible tale. I, like Mr. Campbell, trust that you will have the courage to publish my letter in full.
Ganeshlall Persaud

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News