Forest of doubt

SO, WITH relief and bloodshed, it has ended. Anisha Hosein’s ordeal has closed.

But for a country beleaguered by crime and suspicion, there is no reprieve. A new saga, relating to the police, now begins.

Ms Hosein’s safe return is cause for hope.

The development, coming after the 27-year-old doubles vendor was snatched on May 18, has bucked a trend. Hers is a fate, thankfully, not like other high-profile cases. The hundreds who marched anxiously in St Joseph on May 20 may exhale.

However, Ms Hosein’s survival has been accompanied by the return of all-too-familiar patterns.

Even before what took place between May 18 and May 23, there were questions surrounding the police response.

Was there a ransom demand or not? Such details should be treated as highly sensitive. Yet a prominent officer said one thing, while Ms Hosein’s relatives said another.

Trifling as such matters may appear, the fact of the receipt of a ransom request would turn the crime into the class known as “kidnapping for ransom,” for which a different series of operational and juridical consequences might apply.

The deaths, however, of at least four people, reportedly in a forested area of St Augustine at some time after or around Ms Hosein’s release, raise disturbing questions.

The history of police-involved shootings yields a repetitive narrative. Officers attest to acting in self-defence.

However, statements by Snr Supt Richard Smith, who on May 23 invited a clear link between Ms Hosein’s kidnapping and the shootings, at a media event convened on the edge of the wilderness, paint a worrisome picture.

With scant details besides saying a pistol and an automatic rifle had been found, he said, “This type of crime, we will not tolerate this.” He added, “As bad as it may sound, some may succumb.” He also said, “I was not there.”

In the delicate balancing act that should accompany the use of force, such remarks insinuate the placing of weight on the need not for proportionate action, but rather, the availability of deadly force as part of a policy of deterrence.

We condemn in the strongest possible terms kidnapping, kidnapping for ransom and gang violence.

We note there will be many who will say of accused people, “They look for that,” or “It good.”

But extra-judicial killings affect not just criminals.

Our brave and heroic police officers, shorn of functioning body cameras, will almost certainly come under more brazen attacks from perpetrators believing the wild west prevails.

Meanwhile, if this matter was a joint enterprise, who was its mastermind? Or was this a crime of opportunity?

Should the public never discover the answers to such fundamental issues at a trial because of the consequences of fatal police interdiction, nobody can feel safe.