THERE is no way that famed political activist Danhai Williams can be charged for failing to testify in the just-concluded Crawle murder trial since he was granted immunity, Opposition spokesman on Justice Delroy Chuck said yesterday.

“There is no case against him. He was granted immunity, and could only have been charged if he was not granted immunity. All he had was a moral obligation to testify,” Chuck, who is an attorney by profession, told the Observer.

Chuck was responding to media reports that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) could proceed with a case against Williams.

But up to late last night, the Observer was unable to get confirmation from the DPP’s office. An employee said that only DPP Kent Pantry could speak on the matter, but he was out of office.

On Tuesday, a 12-member jury returned a not guilty verdict for Senior Superintendent Reneto Adams and corporals Patrick Coke and Shane Lyons, who were charged with the 2003 murder of four people at Crawle in Clarendon. Just over a week earlier, constables Devon Bernard, Roderick Collier and Lenford Gordon were acquitted of similar charges.

Tuesday’s verdict was handed down following eight weeks of trial proceedings, during which the prosecution, headed by the DPP, called 43 witnesses. During that time, the DPP painted a picture of Adams and the other cops as executioners, while the defence team maintained that the lawmen had acted in self-defence.

Williams, meanwhile, failed to show to give testimony in the matter, despite having reportedly been granted immunity from prosecution by Pantry.

Yesterday, Chuck, a former law lecturer at the University of the West Indies (UWI), argued that the absence of Williams’ testimony killed the prosecution’s case, and that they were further shot in the leg with the immunity granted to him.

Williams was expected to have provided evidence to support the alleged planting of a gun, by Adams, at the scene of the deaths. The gun, it was alleged, was collected by Adams’ cohorts at an East Kingston premises.

Williams, however, failed to make an appearance in court, and the prosecutions attempts to have his statement on the issue adduced on December 7 were rejected. The rejection came after more than two-and-a-half hours of legal arguments by defence and prosecution attorneys on December 7, from chief Justice Lensley Wolfe, who presided over the matter. Wolfe ruled against allowing the statement to be read into the records on grounds that it would be in breach of the Evidence Act.

– Additional reporting by Erica Virtue