THE recent announcement by the Chambers of the Director of Public Prosecutions that it was re-opening the murder case of former Guyana Defence Force officer and activist, Courtney Crum-Ewing, was indeed great news to a society that was beginning to give up hope on this matter.
That the DPP chambers also announced that respected attorney-at-law, Nigel Hughes, would continue to be the special prosecutor of the case on behalf of the state was even greater news. No one would question the skills of Mr Hughes as a defence lawyer– regarded as one of the better legal minds in our country. His professionalism, experience and competence will in no small measure add depth to the prosecution of this case and hopefully all Guyanese would finally see justice served in the murder of Mr Crum-Ewing.
Enough has been said and speculated as to who committed the act and the intellectual authors. That the former administration under whose watch Mr Crum-Ewing was gunned down while urging residents of Diamond to vote at the May 2015 General and Regional elections did not ensure that this case was prosecuted, is not lost in this debate.  The relatives of Mr Crum-Ewing have also speculated on who were behind the killing and have for months protested in front of the Attorney General’s Chambers, while Anil Nandlall was the office- holder.
Mr Crum-Ewing was fearless. His courage to stand up against the PPP government that had become increasingly desperate months before the May 15, 2015 elections was legendary.  It is for this reason and more that every effort must be made to find his killers and mete out justice to them. Major-General rtd of the Guyana Defence Force, Joseph Singh, had correctly stated that the persons who shot and killed Crum-Ewing did not have the courage to face him. According to Singh, Crum-Ewing had his political preference and that was his democratic right. The former army head went on to say that the shooting of Mr Crum-Ewing was a calculated act of cold-blooded murder of a son, sibling, and father and called on the police to bring the killers to justice. It took the coalition government on entering office before any charge was laid and even when charges were laid against one suspect it was dismissed. The magistrate had argued that while the gun used in the murder was found at the suspect’s home, the prosecution had failed to pin him to the murder.
One of the reasons there are laws in society is to ensure justice and equity by holding everyone to the same standards and have them play by the same rules. When this is upheld, where there is violation to a person, it is expected that justice be sought in a court of law. The benefit of this is that decision and penalty are guided by law and not one’s feelings, which leads to vigilante justice.
Whenever a crime is reported, the police have a responsibility to investigate it. That investigation needs to be conducted within the confines of the law and acceptable standard practices. It means that all evidence — collected and stored — must be consistently pursued and presented in a universally acceptable manner,  including ensuring the rights of suspect and accused are respected at all times.
Bringing an accused before the courts, the evidence presented at trial must satisfy the requirements guided by the standard practices and laws to ensure conviction. In addition to the Crum-Ewing case, a number of other cases have fallen through the cracks for want of strong and credible evidence.  The force may find it prudent to look within and engage in critical review of its performance in helping the court to dispense justice.
If evidence is not properly collected, stored, retrieved and presented to support the charge made, then the presiding magistrate or judge is given no option other than to dismiss the case. While in the court of public opinion the person may be known to have committed the act, to achieve conviction in a court of law requires thorough preparation, including marshalling of thoughts on the facts and issue, and vigorous representation  of the case from the prosecutor’s perspective.
The police should be concerned at the number of cases being lost in the court. For outside of playing their important role in maintaining law and order and ensuring the delivery of justice, the institution also helps in building the people’s confidence in the justice system. When people hold the view that the court and police are not doing their jobs, it creates the avenue for vigilante justice, and threatens the legitimacy of the State.  The society must never reach the place where its citizens feel justice will not be served, because the force is incapable of discharging its duties, or because its personnel have been compromised.