Dear Editor,

Every accused deserves a fair trial and should have his/her day in court to answer charges, and this is how the justice system should always work.

It is puzzling from many angles, however, to understand the logic behind the recent dismissal of charges in the Kern Spencer/Coleen Wright case. It’s one thing to be found not guilty, but a dismissal of a case is another matter. It could mean many things, among the reasons could be a lack of firm evidence or failure by the prosecution to make a strong enough case against the accused.

Fraud, corruption, and money laundering cases aren’t supposed to be as complex as violent crimes. Investigators aren’t looking for fingerprints or DNA or an alibi or weapon(s). Somewhere along the lines, with corruption, there will be hard evidence, a trail, usually a paper trail, and hard evidence, and/or conspiracy. The accused in this case must have had enough links, in the first place, to be arrested and initally slapped with seven charges. If there were no clear evidence, or if the evidence was vague, why were they arrested? And why did the case have to take as long as six years to arrive at this state?

Regardless of the outcome, the questions remain. We now have to take what the former state minister Kern Spencer says: I am a decent, honest, law-abiding, and God-fearing person.

But, explain how four million free light bulbs accumulated expenditure of up to $276 million? Why was so much spent, and where did all this money come from, and where did it go? And what about the company, Universal Management and Development Limited (UMD), which was formed around the same time the light bulb distribution project began. Is this to be forgotten? And what about the indirect ties of the company’s directors to Spencer and family? Why did the Government need a private company to distribute free bulbs? And what happened to all the evidence and witnesses that the prosecution thought they had? What about Mr Chin, Managing Director of UMD, who was initially accused, but later became a witness for the prosecution? What was he supposed to testify against Kern to say? Shouldn’t someone else be responsible for the occurrences? Where is the transparency? Everything cannot just be dismissed quietly? No case?

P Chin

chin_p@yahoo.com