Why is it so difficult for those in authority to speak their minds?
Just once I'd love to hear an individual with a position of import speak his mind and not cloak his language in robes of prose.

For those ignorant of the proceedings, Dr Narayansingh a prominent surgeon both locally and regionally -perhaps Internationally-, lost his wife to a gunman's bullet a few years ago. Subsequently the police detained, arrested, and charged Shawn Parris for the murder.
Parris confessed and a deal was struck between his defence attorneys and the Director of Public Prosecution for the murderer to testify against his hirers. The theory here being, the hirers are just as culpable as the trigger-man and if one has to sleep with the devil to cut his throat then so be it.

Sounds reasonable, ent?

Not to the sitting Justice, Mr Volney.
Now Mr Volney is already seized of dubious reputation in the eyes of the Public. The learned Justice was the adjudicating authority in the 'infamous' Brad Boyce matter.
Infamous because those were the very words used to tarnish the State's forensic expert and in so doing led to the Justice advising the jury to declare a not guilty verdict.
The forensic expert, whose name now escapes me was charged with infamous conduct, words used in the Medical Act to describe unbecoming and fraudulent conduct of a Medical Officer.

But I digress.
Justice Volney rejected the deal agreed to and sentenced Parris to much more than he bargained for.
Nevertheless the State initiated proceedings against the goodly Doctor, his wife, and an alleged accomplice, with Parris as the main witness.

The State failed in it's attempt to bring Dr Narayansingh's matter to trial when Senior Magistrate Wellington upheld a no case submission.
Is is noteworthy that Queen's Counsel Karl Hudson-Phillips opined the DPP's attempt to prosecute the Doctor as one of the worst cases of prosecuting malice he has ever seen in umpteen years.

Magistrate Wellington however saw prima facie evidence worthy of committing Mrs Narayansingh and the alleged accomplice to trial.

Now that the State is ready to proceed Mr. Volney is once again a main character on the stage. The Justice will see to the matter even in the face of a missive directing the Director of Public Prosecutions misgvings to his appointment.

Mind you, there is nothing in law that debars Justice Volney from hearing the matter, but there is certainly a lot in ethics and decency that demands his recusal.
It begs the question therefore, why is the perspicacious Justice so determined to be responsible for this matter?
Is there no other Justice capable of seeing to this case?
Are we undermining the capabilities of the sitting Magistrate for the San Fernando Court?
Why is the Chief Justice entering the debate with a clear disposition and bias to Mr Volney?

Now, I am not saying there is conspiracy afoot, or the Justices are mixing malicho, but surely if ever Justice must be seen to be done this is the case to use as a flag-bearer.

Justice Volney must recuse himself from the matter!

Chief Justice Sharma must desist from public comments on the matter if only because he is already entangled in its web as we well know!

And finally, the DPP, Mr Henderson must find the courage from anywhere he can, to address the matter not by dictated missives but by verbal missiles. The Director of Public Prosecution must face the media and present his argument to the Public because at the end of the day we pay his salary, Volney's salary, and The Chief Justice's. Much as they like to deny it, we are the lot to whom they are accountable and I for one am sick of their back-room dealings and half-truths.

It is either justice for all; or none.