Dear editor: Let me start by saying what I think every, if not most right thinking and patriotic Saint Lucians will agree with, that is, the resolution of the IMPACS issue is of utmost importance to the general well-being of this country and should be brought to closure as soon as possible.
This matter has been politicized too much by politicians, so-called political analysts, and journalists, including at the editorial level. In the debate on the issue, we hear a lot of ill-informed or misinformed statements such as “The Bull Dog” analysis which seem to have lauded the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) without examining all the contending issues, even though the DPP kindly corrected the misinterpretation of her first statement following Stanley Felix’s blast on the market steps.
How can one commend the DPP for her action or rather inaction following her receipt of the IMPACS report? As a public officer with 12 years of experience in her current position how can she say she did not accept the offer of a special prosecutor because she would prefer a Deputy who would be able to tackle the current backlog together with IMPACS. Could she not have accepted the Special Prosecutor who would handle only the IMPACS matter whilst her staff try to address the backlog of cases?
The police who it is claimed are demoralized are the very persons who have to also play a role in addressing the backlog. The police cannot get arms and ammunition from the United States; their Marine Unit depends heavily on the U.S. for parts and accessories; they cannot receive training from the U.S. nor training from the RSS if funded by the U.S.
Should it not have been in the public officer’s interest to try to bring closure to IMPACS if for nothing else but for the sake of the police? The DPP claims that the report was submitted to her without the evidential statements which the Minister for Internal Security confirms. Although I find it strange that such information was withheld, a public officer who is keen on getting on with the job, would ask for same considering as aforestated the matter was important and urgent.
To my thinking, the ongoing DPP like Magdaleena in Chippy’s calypso who was afraid to touch her Christmas gift—was afraid to touch IMPACS. Thank you Stanley Felix for without your outburst on the market steps we probably would have heard nothing from her.
In one of “The Bull Dog” analyses it was stated she was without political colour; that it is for the public to judge. Nevertheless, I hope that the current administration will not appoint a red DPP. For the love of country I quote Wulf-Soulage in his article on the weekend VOICE of 9th January, 2015, “My instincts also tell me that there is a silent minority in this country who are tired of inhaling the toxic fumes of partisan politics and yearn for healthier and more measured debate on all things political, economic, social and environmental”.
Finally on the matter of “The Bull Dog” analysis I quote Wulf-Soulage “simply reporting the news is not enough—more analyses and back stories are needed. The news media will need to describe all aspects of the story with a carefully measured tone and as balanced as possible”.
Mr. Wulf-Soulage, I hope you do not mind me quoting from your article which I recommend for good reading. I hope Clinton does not get at you for advising the media.