What the DPP decision means for Guyana

The DPP is the custodian of justice. She is there to protect every citizen by ensuring that the law is applied fairly and evenhandedly. When a case is brought to her, she is supposed to study the evidence and determine whether there is enough evidence for a successful prosecution. She studies the evidence in a matter and determines whether there is enough to prove the allegation beyond reasonable doubt. This is the remit of the DPP and she is supposed to exercise her responsibilities with due dispatch, because justice delayed is justice denied. Recently, the Commissioner General of the Guyana Revenue Authority filed a complaint against the publisher of this newspaper, alleging that the words spoken during a telephone conversation, for which no recording was produced, constituted a threat. This threat, he said, caused him to be fearful for his life. This matter was quickly investigated by the police and considered by the DPP. Charges were recommended and were filed in rapid time against the publisher of this newspaper. Contrast the decisiveness of this case with the inordinate delays involved in investigating the charges made by the publisher of this newspaper against the Attorney General of Guyana.  This was not a complicated case. There is a recording which has been made public and in that recording certain words were spoken. There has been no denial that the voice at one end of the recording is that of the Attorney General. The Attorney General admitted to the words spoken on the recording, but indicated that the recording may have been tampered with. Interestingly, after months, there was no word on the status of the investigation into this matter. It was only after it was publicized that the file was still with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions that the DPP made known her decision, to wit, that no evidence is there to charge the Attorney General. But how come, then, there was evidence to charge Glenn Lall for allegations that he denied making against the Commissioner General? Is this evenhandedness or have the scales of justice tilted in these instances? Not only is the decision of the DPP inexplicable, but it also requires an explanation as to why it took so long. Is the DPP satisfied that no laws, moral or otherwise were flouted? Even if no laws were broken, there is an issue of propriety which the DPP should not ignore in her recommendations. The DPP is supposed to be independent.  However, the contrasting recommendations in two recent cases raise questions about how the public perceives the independence of this office. It undermines the rule of law when the public, rightly or wrongly, perceives the DPP office as being far from independent. This perception needs to be disabused. Lack of confidence in judicial institutions will undermine the integrity of the justice system and the rule of law.