Dear Editor,
It appears that the state’s legal machinery is so unprepared and lacking that it cannot get most matters right; or at least victoriously through the court system. According to the records, negligible isolated success has been the reality. What is really going on here? There are many other pointed questions stirring the conversations at different levels in this society; a few of them now follow.
Is it that the government advocates cannot get a fair break? That the system is so deaf, so resistant to its representations that conclusions and judgments are all but foregone? For instance, how and why is a case involving a former minister decided, when it is common knowledge that a pivotal ruling is before the Chief Justice? A related ruling that can be impactful? Why is there what can be contended amounts to untimely and unnecessary haste? How could it have hurt to wait? I find myself asking these questions. There are many others. On the other hand, it can be positioned that justice delayed is justice denied. Okay. But I do not find this overpoweringly persuasive.
Then there is the matter involving a former senior public official. Thanks to reliance on an arcane and incredible interpretation, this two-worded title has become the latest heavy thorny albatross on the neck of the nation. In this case involving an enormous amount of money, passport is released and studies can commence. Overseas. Once more: what is going on here? I must wonder that if it was a less visible charge, less sensitive situation, and less influential presence whether there would not have been the fears of flight risk, and vocal concerns about the scales of the law being unbalanced and weighed against the lowly and lesser. Is there a double standard here? I believe so.
Why is the government for its part so silent and submissive? Independence of the judiciary notwithstanding and duly appreciated, I am alarmed that government people are not taking the lead to question, if only to voice surprise, rather than a difference of opinion. Why is there nothing by way of dissent of that which has raised many an eyebrow? Why is there this bland acquiescence to what is tantamount to departures from fairness and equity (and the appearance of) and which immerses in the controversial through the egregious? There is strong sentiment in some government nooks that its own people are part of understandings involving returning favours through barter arrangements. Call it payback for past courtesies.
I have heard it said that some matters in the judiciary are probed to discover a rationale to exonerate. Still unuttered is that dark sinister word -conspiracy. The belief is that the system is organized and (pre)arranged like the house in a casino: there are winners, there are untouchables, and there are suckers. This sentiment has had traction for some time now; it has gathered momentum as of recent and is visualized by some as an uncontrolled train thwarting justice, and arguably lacking in either substance or credibility in large parts. All of this is sure to be shrunk from as heresy; it is a more unforgivable heresy to plead ignorance. Insanity it would be.
Last, there is a case pending that has more than a few involved and interested parties beyond those in the dock. It could be a test. The evidence is clear, the circumstances self-incriminating. The reality, however, is that the accused have powerful forces aligned in their corner; behind the scenes, of course. But these forces have reach and riches; they move and shake, which they did with the old, and now do with the new. These invisible hands have a lot at stake, a lot to hide. The defendants are the cheap pawns used and a microcosm of the warped practices run amok in this society. They must be protected. Their freedom is sure to be pricey, but funding is not a problem. Not a problem to cover every fingerprint, footprint, and voiceprint in what already has all the hallmarks of a fix. There is glaring precedent. The problem is that several believed secret genies are out of their bottles; they whistle piercingly. Who is going to cover for whom? All the technicalities and expensive sanitizing will be for naught.
Let’s watch to find out if there will be more of the spurious reasonings to derail (again); or some sacrificial lambs abandoned to quiet the still muted clamour.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
