Akili Charles' legal team condemns his murder

THE team of attorneys who represented Akili Charles in his challenge against the Attorney General on the issue of bail for people charged with murder, has condemned his murder while praising him for his efforts to improve inadequacies in the criminal justice system.

In a statement on Sunday afternoon, attorneys Anand Ramlogan, SC, Ganesh Saroop and Jayanti Lutchmedial collectively condemned Charles' murder while describing him as a respectful young man who worked hard to live a decent life and separate himself from criminality.

In their statement, the attorneys said it was likely that people would wonder whether Charles' murder was linked to his success in the court which led to the Appeal Court ruling that people charged with murder can apply for bail.

The attorneys noted his murder would be particularly heinous if it was prompted by that court case, noting that if this was the case, it was a dangerous response which threatens the legal fraternity and administration of justice.

"If it did, it is an outrageous and sinister attack on the justice system itself as it shows that unpopular judgements can bring social revenge.Such behaviour is a threat to the rule of law and undermines the legal system.

"If that is where we have reached as a society then we are simply a failed state – we are a decaying state that refuses to confront the raw and ugly reality all around us as we slide deeper and deeper into the social abyss and coma that defines our present existence," the statement said.

As of Sunday afternoon investigators did not have a motive for Charles' murder.

The attorneys said it would be inappropriate to judge Charles based on where he was from and suggested that any attempt to justify his murder, was part of a wider pattern to cope with the prevalence of violent crime, rather than stirring outrage.

The statement also argued that Charles had no criminal conviction and noted that while he was charged with the 2010 murder of Russell Antoine, he was eventually freed owing to a lack of evidence by the State.

"It's easier to say, 'He was probably involved in some gang ting,' or assume he was involved in some wrongdoing and, 'that's why it happened.'

"That type of justification enables the 'it won't happen to me' mindset which is comforting to the average citizen," the statement said.