Dear Editor,
The recently concluded Carvil Duncan case raises a lot of questions. The dismissal of the case on the grounds of insufficient evidence calls into question the seriousness of the state in bringing to justice alleged wrongdoers of the former regime. Why after the case was studied and prosecution recommended, was a Senior Counsel not assigned to prosecute the case? Given the low level of legal competence of most police prosecutors and, fully aware that the prosecutor would have been opposed by one of the country’s leading lawyers, the authorities should not have identified that calibre of prosecutor to present the state’s case.
Reading the Magistrate’s legal justification for throwing out the case, the poorly prepared case of the prosecution was highlighted. Some of the shortcomings are elementary matters, for example, the presentation of photocopied documents without any attempt being made to prove that an original existed and that the copy was a true representation of the original.
The prosecution also led no circumstantial evidence in relation to the bank statement showing that a sum had been debited from GPL’s account, so the court could only admit that it existed, not the truth of it.
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
