I must say I am disappointed in this article by Anand Ramlogan. Normally, I look forward to his articles each week with much eagerness. It's the first I read each Sunday, even before I read the headlines of the Guardian. This week, my disappoint lies because he has moved from being an impartial observer commenting on the law, to defending Panday. He is entitled to do so, but to me it signifies that one cannot trust in his opinions, much like I have a distrust of the Chief Magistrate now. He has joined the thoughtless masses and brought the situation down to race, not to law. Despite Pa-trick's actions, even I as an East Indian find it hard to believe that he did what he did because of race, especially in this era where the world sees your actions mere seconds after performing them.
Mr Panday may be the only one singled out for legal prosecution of not declaring his bank account (or assets) but that does not mean that he is right in not declaring it. If one person breaks the law, does this mean that he or she should not be prosecuted because 199 others did it and have not been? No, it means that steps should be taken to pursue the other 199, even though one may argue that pursuing the one is victimising him.
On the basis of the statement that C Duprey has the right to spend his money as he sees fit, this is such a closed statement I shudder to think Mr Ramlogan defends clients thusly. Can he spend his money bribing officials? No, I think not. Now, I am not saying that he paid the Pandays a bribe, but when one is in public office, one must be careful as to what gifts one can or cannot receive. Hence the regulation in some states as to the maximum VALUE of a gift. As an ordinary layman, not legally trained, I may not be able to determine that this gift was legally okay like Mr Ramlogan, however I, like many others, think something is morally wrong about it. Saying that Pa-trick also had assistance paying his children's tuition does not make Panday's position any less so.
I hold no brief for Pa-trick. He has become arrogant, and this can be blamed on Panday. By his own irresponsible actions over the years, the ridiculous and thoughtless speeches he makes, Panday has shown Pa-trick he has no worries over an election. He has not provided the necessary checks and balances he ought to have done. Therefore with nothing to stop him Pa-trick rampages on, his actions only to feed his own ego. Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." We can see how power has twisted these two men over the past several decades. There is no defence for this.
This is a convoluted and twisted mess, made no easier by the various opinions of 'experts'. One can only delve into the mire and emerge with the truth, and answers to all questions, by having an open, (and publicised) inquiry, now that the criminal proceedings have been stopped. Then and only then, can the questions of bribery, race, law and so forth be answered. Anything less, remains speculation.
