I write in reference to the inquest of Christopher Kanhai, from Calvary Hill, Arima. Anyone familiar with this incident will understand exactly what I am saying. Firstly, this incident took place over five years ago, but the inquest was just completed. As we know, poor people involved with police-shootings very seldom get speedy hearings, except when it's clearly going to be in the Police's favour.
This inquest decision is important to everyone. I am quite familiar with the facts of this case and would stake everything, that I have achieved in my life-time, to conclude that the coroner's decision was influenced. Why would the coroner make statements to the defence team, that they would have to help her?
Why suggest to material witnesses and people who are key players in this shooting, that they should make sure, that they really want to make the statements that they are making and eventually,accept changed testimony? Why allow testimony in the absence of attorneys for the civilians and make decisions in the Police's favour without the opportunity of the other parties' lawyers to respond?
I would like any reporter who has the guts and wherewithal, to report all the irregularities that took place in this hearing. Why would the family member of a principal, in this matter, who is a high-ranking civilian from the Police Commissioner's office, be allowed in the court and to sit in the area reserved for officials only, during testimony? Is this to intimidate, or influence the coroner's decision?
Judge Stanley John's observations about rulings by magistrates are valid and should be of concern to every citizen. If this case is not reviewed, police-shootings will continue, whether justified, or not.
Aubert Modeste
via e-mail