Why silence on indemnity proceedings?

THE EDITOR: On January 28 a report was carried in a newspaper in which MP Dinesh Rambally made a public call for the Attorney General to make firm representation to the court that the ongoing Vincent Nelson indemnity proceedings be made public.

I completely agree with Rambally’s position on this. The citizens must be able to see justice served, especially as there is a feeling that there is one form of justice for some and another for others.

Rambally’s reported statement, that “What is in the dark in our democracy must be brought into the light,” is spot on.

As a former Industrial Court judge, Rambally will be very aware that the court is not a political animal and should jealously guard that independence. In that regard, I expect he will agree that the final decision will be the court’s and not the AG’s.

Since the date of the report, I have been pouring over the daily newspapers to see if the AG has been asked to comment on this matter or to get a position from the judiciary or even further reporting on the matter, but there has been nothing and I have to ask why?

This matter calls into question the alleged actions of multiple holders of public office (past and present) across both parties and a free and fair fourth estate should take all steps to make sure that the public is kept informed on the proceedings, especially at a time when public sentiment in the courts and among politicians is not exactly at an all-time high, to be polite.

Is this a case of enforced radio silence on the part of those who ultimately will have to answer for their alleged actions or those of their predecessors and colleagues, or is it inaction by journalists? I’m not sure which answer I would prefer but I think we all deserve one.

DANIEL P WILLIAM

Diego Martin