Dear Editor
One should not have been surprised by Bharat Jagdeo’s invoking of presidential immunity, when he refused to answer questions about Pradoville 2, at the Special Organised Crime Unit’s (SOCU) Headquarters.

This, of course, refers to the 1980 Constitution, promulgated during the President Forbes Burnham administration.

Editor, this is the very constitution so much reviled, and ridiculed by the Peoples Progressive Party (PPP/C), when they were in opposition, which they had vowed to change, especially with regards reducing the powers of the President. It is passing strange, and the greatest of contradictions that Jagdeo is now clinging on to this supreme document for dear life. But for how long?

Judging from his pronouncements post the SOCU encounter, about making a statement when the said matter that also involves some former members of his cabinet, comes to court, one gets the same old Jagdeo game of brazen bravado, and of course, perennial denial.

There is no doubt that Jagdeo and all his former members of cabinet, especially those who purchased those lots at the Sparendaam–Plaisance location, committed an offence. And since the accusations against this collective would have stemmed from proper audits, they would have been properly investigated by the relevant authorities. I am in no doubt that with the proper and appropriate charges made, any reasonable court would convict.
Editor, what is being witnessed thus far, is a behaviour of the highest bombast, representative of a clique that has concluded that they have no right to be called to account for actions that are entirely criminal in nature, and committed against the state. Apart from the latter, they seem energized by those decisions that have so far gone against the state, with at least one being appealed. Also, there may be the perception that they have cowed sections of the judiciary.

One does not expect the latter institution to convict on weak evidence, but where it is incontrovertible; society expects that justice must be done. It is a legitimate expectation by the citizens of this nation. And even where there may be a technicality such as an “incorrect charge’’, this ought to be identified quickly, so that justice is not impeded. These people must not be allowed to make a mockery of the legal system, and hence justice.

After all, crimes against the state are very serious in nature, particularly the type that the many audits would have exposed. These have been committed by supposedly persons of trust, but who were really in truth and in fact, without conscience as they plunder without conscience. It is time that the wheels of justice turn.

Regards
Earl Hamilton