Some time ago we had an unknown voice calling from up high to release two Bajan fishermen. Now I know it was not the Almighty, and I know that was about flying fish, not red herrings.
I wonder though, does any one but me find it suspicious that Sherman McNicolls is not even being questioned over a fishy land deal made with a witness in a case he was still presiding over, and yet Sharma being done over on several simultaneous fronts? I dimly recall that it was only when Sharma questioned Shermie about the deal that he dropped the ax on Sharma and complained about the interference in the Panday case. The ethics of buying land from a witness in a case he was still presiding over, at preferential rates, may be boggling to many, but not to Shermie. Hmm, was this a case of taking in front?
Now he refuses to give evidence at trial. I suppose when you are the Chief Magistrate you are allowed to decide whether you are going to testify or not. Not so for everyday folks like you or me though, lest you think you can refuse to testify in court in future. It's his decision as a 'judicial officer' remember?
"As a judicial officer I form my own decisions on the law..."
"In my judgement it would have been improper both in principle and in law to allow for the cross-examination of evidence in two separate proceedings..."
But again I am wondering if the real reason is that the details of a particular land deal may have to be made public.... any one have any thoughts?
I wonder though, does any one but me find it suspicious that Sherman McNicolls is not even being questioned over a fishy land deal made with a witness in a case he was still presiding over, and yet Sharma being done over on several simultaneous fronts? I dimly recall that it was only when Sharma questioned Shermie about the deal that he dropped the ax on Sharma and complained about the interference in the Panday case. The ethics of buying land from a witness in a case he was still presiding over, at preferential rates, may be boggling to many, but not to Shermie. Hmm, was this a case of taking in front?
Now he refuses to give evidence at trial. I suppose when you are the Chief Magistrate you are allowed to decide whether you are going to testify or not. Not so for everyday folks like you or me though, lest you think you can refuse to testify in court in future. It's his decision as a 'judicial officer' remember?
"As a judicial officer I form my own decisions on the law..."
"In my judgement it would have been improper both in principle and in law to allow for the cross-examination of evidence in two separate proceedings..."
But again I am wondering if the real reason is that the details of a particular land deal may have to be made public.... any one have any thoughts?
