WE would really like to throw our wholehearted support behind the police’s request for the individual who captured the video footage of the policeman who fatally shot Mr Ian ‘Ching Sing’ Lloyd to come forward with a statement for court purposes.

After all, it is the responsible thing to do, with a view to assisting the due process of the court.

However, we can’t, in all good conscience, ignore the very many factors that would tempt one to shy away from making the tremendous sacrifices that would attend such co-operation.

For in our view, the footage, which was made available to the media represents a vivid example of the whistle blowing process at its most effective. And whistle blowers require protection. Now, if the videographer decides to come forward, the State will be obliged to protect him, ironically from its own agents as well as the myriad potentially explosive characters who have unabashedly endorsed what, at face value, appears to be a murder most foul.

This is likely to be a far and more difficult cry from the process that would be required for the protection from known criminal elements.

For there are few things more dangerous than the unknown.

That is why a corrupt State which does not demonstrate respect for the transparency that is critical to good governance must be condemned and resisted.

A State that cannot be trusted is unsustainable and inimical to the public interest.

A State whose elected servants cannot come straight with the people they purport to serve will not engender the type of loyalty or patriotism that is being requested of our mystery videographer.

Remember, it wasn’t all that long ago that calls were being made by the State for the revelation of the identity of a certain policeman who helped the US authorities to acquire wiretap evidence against former Tivoli Gardens strongman Mr Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke who, having waived his right to an extradition hearing here, is now awaiting trial on drug and gun-running charges in New York.

Lest we forget, that policeman is in protective custody in the United States.

Protection from what and whom? we might ask.

If the answer is what we suspect it is, we submit that our energies would be better spent urging the State to take an introspective look at its own capacity and moral authority to govern, as well as the impact it has had on the ability of the police force to command the society’s respect and co-operation.

Maybe then, when the clouds of distrust and suspicion have lifted, we will all be more disposed to come forward.