Dear Editor,
It is with dismay that I read the recent statements made by the Honourable Minister of Home Affairs, Mr Clement Rohee, highlighting the fact that 74 bail petitions had been granted for perceived non-bailable offences. The Honourable Minister expressed his dissatisfaction with the granting of bail for such offences.
The presumption of innocence has always been held sacred in a democratic state. The sentiments expressed by Minister Rohee indicate the fundamental misdirection of the emphasis of government’s policy in focusing on draconian legislation aimed at pre-trial incarceration. Indeed, this misunderstanding has led to the current dilemma in our criminal justice system. There is no emphasis on ensuring a competent prosecution of criminal matters.
The Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecution has been faced with at least 13 resignations within the last few years. Some of the current prosecutors who are among the most recent graduates at the bar, are pitted against the most seasoned defence advocates. The single factor explaining this high turnover of prosecutors within the Chambers of the DPP is the conditions of service, specifically the pittance offered as a salary.
The Honourable Minister queried: “Where is the justice for people who suffered at the hands of the perpetrators of this crime?”
Whilst many different answers may be posited, one can definitely say that pre-trial incarceration is not the answer. While pre-trial incarceration may have appeared attractive in two recent cases, if for example, Minister Kellawan Lall, who was being investigated as a result of the discharge of a firearm had been charged, I am sure that the Honourable Minister would have been less vocal in his support of not granting bail.
In the present criminal justice system, criminal matters involving narcotics and firearms are being adjourned by local magistrates, sometimes for several months. First offenders are remanded without bail. The sad state of affairs which prevails at the Chambers of the DPP, is but a reflection of the state of affairs which obtains in the entire judicial system. There is an acting Chancellor, an acting Chief Justice, an acting Chief Magistrate, an acting Director of Public Prosecutions, an acting Registrar of Deeds, no Ombudsman, no Solicitor-General, no Public Trustee, and by extension, an acting Commissioner of Police.
The aim of the criminal law has been to impose a sanction after a conviction which acts as a deterrent. Pre-trial incarceration on the basis of an allegation cannot be used as a punishment. I believe that the question which ought properly to be asked by the Honourable Minister is:
Where does the responsibility lie for the failure to effectively prosecute the persons charged for crimes committed?
Yours faithfully,
(Name and address supplied)
