The outcome of two significant investigations — Emailgate and the misconduct allegations against sitting Chief Justice Ivor Archie — do not seem to satisfy the public’s thirst for justice, depending on which side of the fence opponents sit.
On one hand, the Prime Minister has pointed suspicious fingers at key members of Opposition, including its leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar, although a police investigation into claims of a criminal conspiracy based on a series of purported emails did not produce enough evidence to prosecute anyone.
Dr Rowley and other senior Government members have relied on the advice of the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Joan Honore-Paul to support their contention that the authenticity of the 31 purported emails “can neither be confirmed nor denied.”
They have also made heavy weather of the fact that all but one of the people named in the email thread co-operated with police by handing over their devices for inspection, as well as the nine-month lapse before a US Court approved a warrant to examine the officeholders’ email accounts — by which time potentially incriminating emails could have been deleted.
That being said, the same argument can be used in the case of the Chief Justice, who was accused of seeking the assistance of the Prime Minister to fast-track State housing for three people.
Neither Chief Justice Archie nor the Prime Minister addressed the issue, nor cooperated with an investigative committee appointed by the Law Association to probe the case against this country’s third-highest office holder.
In his correspondence to the Law Association, the Prime Minister claims that he did not have any communication with the Chief Justice on the issue of HDC housing.
However, the Chief Justice, in a public statement on December 2018, did not deny that he had recommended to the Prime Minister the names of three people to obtain State housing.
Even the independent legal advice upon which the Prime Minister relied suggested that once information could be provided that there was communication between the Chief Justice and the Prime Minister, the matter could be reopened for further consideration.
So where does the truth lie?
The committee investigating the allegations should have been provided with all the necessary assistance so the country could benefit from the outcome and public confidence in the administration of justice could be restored in some way.
These two cases not only impact on the credibility of persons in high office but also can influence ordinary citizens to make more informed decisions when next this country heads to the polls.
The scenario involving the Chief Justice is even more sacrosanct.
This is where justice is dispensed and any cloud over the individual ultimately responsible for this process can lead to a far greater chasm in a democratic society.