THE recent acquittal of an alleged murder accused at a preliminary enquiry hearing because of the absence of prosecution witnesses, inclusive of the police, and other vital evidence, supports the general public’s disenchantment with the nation’s justice system and the consequential loss of faith  in its workings.In this particular instance, the accused Carlyle Barton, in May 2013, had been captured on surveillance cameras carrying out what was definitely a cold-blooded act of murder, shooting Shawn Nelson in the head, before calmly returning to his car. This brutal scene that was shown, on virtually every national network, exemplified an act being committed by a person without due regard for the resultant consequences. It was chillingly callous and utterly disrespectful to the sensitivities of those who were its witnesses.

One would have expected that with the assailant identified, apprehended and charged, that a committal process for subsequent trial was without any expected difficulty. But such a conclusion has been unfortunately proven wrong by a situation that is well known as a cause for defeating the course of justice–failure of witnesses to attend court, coupled with the absence of vital evidence.
Once mandated, witnesses are bound by law to discharge such an obligation by appearing in court, whether it is for the defence or prosecution. It is a cardinal rule that the police are charged with ensuring their attendance, since they are pivotal to the proper dispensation of justice. Furthermore, when they fail to attend hearings, summons ought to be issued for their arrest. It is instructive to note that in the Barton proceedings, there were postponements because of the absence of witnesses. Just why was such a questionable state of affairs allowed to continue without action initiated against the errant parties is surprising. After all, these were proceedings into the very serious case of murder, and the fact that even police officers as witnesses were also absent, speaks of the gross disregard that the latter as supposedly custodians and defenders of the law, hold for the very laws they have sworn to uphold.
Why a case of this nature should be allowed to fail points to a highly irregular state of affairs and something very sinister. It leads to the reasonable conclusion of a deliberate plan to defeat the course of justice. The fact too, that it was reported that the surveillance recordings although removed from a nearby business was not presented in court, justifiably supports such a contention.  This cannot be fair to first, the deceased victim’s family who were expecting justice; and society, that expects wrongdoers to be sanctioned if found guilty.
Surely, the justice system was not conceived to function in a manner whereby its purpose is defeated by its first line of defenders who fail in their duty. But it has been repeated again. We cannot urge the proper functioning of this most indispensable institution, pivotal to the proper order of the state, when there are those within that are undermining its process. This unholy state of affairs must cease!
It must be reiterated, that the justice system can only function properly if all its component parts carry out their respective duties as demanded by law. Therefore, those who fail in their mandate must either be removed or be censured accordingly.
Society expects no less.