Many service commissions are rubber stamps

Dear Editor,
A news article on the brouhaha involving DPP Shalimar Hack and Ombudsman Winston Moore Re: Dismissal of three Executives at NBS, provided a reasonably good account of the elements of the story, but left out one crucial part.
Here is a quote from your article:
“But according to the DPP, she reviewed all statements in the police file and found that there was strong and compelling evidence to institute the charges against the employees as advised.
“The charges against the three persons were dismissed after the victim of the alleged fraud did not turn up to give evidence. The DPP stated that she cannot be responsible for the fact that the victim did not attend court to testify against these persons.”
As a reader following the story, I want to make up my mind on whether the DPP did anything wrong. Was the evidence meritorious and compelling to cause the DPP to recommend charges? Who was the victim of the alleged fraud, and why didn’t he or she show up to prove the charge? This bit of information is crucial to help the reader decide whether Shalimar Hack did anything wrong.
On one other point, Shalimar Hack claimed she was not a beneficiary of a favour from the president Jagdeo (she did not “curry favor” anything. No quid pro quo), that she was appointed by the Judicial Service Commission. Her claim lacks merit.
The average citizen knows these so-called independent Service Commissions are anything but independent – they are just rubber-stamps of the Big Man ruler.
Indranee Jagnandan