Dear Editor,
With reference to the letter by Neil Aubrey Boston captioned ‘The media should not be “trying” the Commissioner’ (SN, December 21), Mr Boston must know that a citizen’s duty to call for the resignation or the dismissal of the holder of high public office upon serious allegations of impropriety is not a denial of that high office holder’s right to the presumption of innocence. Notice I characterized the recent alleged misconduct of our Top Cop at this stage as an impropriety.
When I called for the resignation and/or dismissal of the Commissioner I did so after having heard what the Virtual Complainant (VC) had to say on a video recording, and after being told by a Commander that the Commissioner in response had invoked his right to remain silent and to seek legal counsel. In these circumstances, and in addition to allegations of text messages from the Commissioner allegedly threatening the VC, I regarded it as my duty as a citizen, a lawyer, and a public figure to call him out! This is my right and in these circumstances I will exercise it as I did. It was also the right of Mr Boston to exercise his right as he saw fit. He did not want to call the Commissioner out! And I respect that.
But it is the purported rationale that he alluded to in his letter of Dec 21 that beats me.
He obviously erroneously conceives that to call for resignation or dismissal will be tantamount to denying the Commissioner his presumption of innocence. Living in such a legal misconception, must not make Mr Boston feel that others will be as legally tardy. If Mr Boston wants to remain silent, let him. But he must not force a silence upon others through the instrument of his legal misconception.
Boston’s mis-application of the dicta of the renowned Lordships he quoted, ought not to be sound guidance on this issue at hand, either. As the Lordships would have told him, the law as to prejudicial pre-trial publicity is not violated when the press carries the allegations of the VC and even the opinions of some letter-writers. That is what the press did here. But more important, how will these matters in the press affect a jury, when charges have not even been as yet filed? My learned friend is so premature. If indeed charges are filed (an unlikely probability in my mind), a trial will be years away. Does Mr Boston think that what is said today will adversely affect the minds of twelve of the Commissioner’s peers in, say, 2015? Oh come on Neil, don’t give me that! And which jury will convict in 2015 on the ground that in 2011 the accused had to resign because Ramjattan and Trotman had called for that?
As prominent public figures, myself and colleague Raphael Trotman have to promote what is morally admirable and demand sanctions for what is morally deplorable.
This is the least we can do. The conduct of the Commissioner in all the circumstances in our opinion was deplorable. We called him out. We are within our realm. We have not denied him his presumption of innocence nor convicted him. His misconduct may well do so.
Yours faithfully,
Khemraj Ramjattan
