Letter: Presumption of innocence

The government is seeking to make a case of “Presumption of innocence” to justify its dereliction in dealing with corruption in the UDeCOTT outrage.

Because of a “Presumption of innocence” it was unable to act against Calder Hart.

By that logic it follows that no prosecution can ever take place for any crime that may be committed, and indeed, no investigation may be pursued.

How can investigation or prosecution of the innocent be justified?

By this token, the AG has acted wrongfully and maliciously in investigating Calder Hart and UDeCOTT, having been prompted by the public outcry that was generated.

The prime promoter of this ideologue is the very Christian Minister Dick, whose Christian conscience was clear when she pursued similar investigations against her Christian brother and colleague in the Cleaver Heights issue.

Realistically, presumption of innocence applies to the Court or Judge who may not convict until guilt has been formally and legally established.

Indeed, guilt must always be presumed for the public good when serious charges arise that suggest grand impropriety in the public purse.

In this tradition, the normal process is to suspend the officials while investigations are undertaken without prejudice in order to safeguard the public purse and trail of evidence that can be contaminated.

While the presumption of innocence also applies to murder suspects, the enormity of the crime demands that bail be denied and the presumed innocent incarcerated until exonerated.

The plundering of the public purse to the detriment of the citizenry in the long and short term is a crime of enormous proportions and the possibility of official involvement makes it imperative that prompt investigative action is always initiated.

The corruptive capability of untrammelled power in the hands of fundamentally dishonest man is well known.

That the Prime Minister had to be compelled to initiate the Uff Commission against his clear will and then to continue to defend Calder Hart doggedly, and continue to honour and praise him publicly is a violation of the principle of simple Presumption of innocence.

That the AG did not inform the cabinet of his recruitment of Bob Lindquist is highly significant. Clearly the AG did not trust that knowledge with the Cabinet.

Newly returned from London as a corruption buster, the AG gave assurances to the Parliament in September last that UDeCOTT would not challenge the functioning of the Uff Commission in court as was generally feared.

When his assurances proved of no effect, he was ridiculed in the Senate and he bore that stoically and to his credit.

The question was asked repeatedly as to why the UDeCOTT board was being allowed to challenge the Commission. The bona fides of the government came into serious question.

Evidently the AG himself was nonplussed at the inaction of the PM in this matter and at the magnitude of Hart’s power.

In those circumstances, when only hard evidence would justify a Prime Ministerial response, the AG did as his earlier predecessor in office and exercised his discretion and acted overtly with the recruitment of Lindquist.

At this time, the continuation in office of the AG is imperilled. Should he be shuffled away at this time, by some insanity, there is no question but that the nation should rise in concerted revolt.

The sycophant cabinet has been taken by surprise and Ministers Dick, Dumas et al are fumbling for excuses and a coherence that is increasingly irrational.

These are not only exciting times, but extremely dangerous times. The functioning autocracy is being challenged. Self preservation, the first law of nature also motivates men of religion.

The corruption that Lindquist has clearly exposed will implicate many. Cornered men will act desperately.

A grand duty now descends on all good men to act in conscience.

Rowley, Penny, and others must now be prepared to mutiny firmly against a captain no longer worthy of the helm.

The nation calls upon the PNM party leadership to demand and accomplish the deposing of the stricken man who now has run their ship aground against the national interest.

The PM had no reason to shield Hart that one can imagine except self interest and self preservation.

The courageous AG deserves our highest commendation.

MFRahman - via email