Insufficient Evidence and little TRUTH: Does it really matter?

Editor: The verdict handed down by the High Court Thursday, March 21 on the 2015 Election Petitions, has left many people puzzled. What did the people who attended the court sessions hear? From the articles in the newspapers whose reporters covered the much anticipated hearing, it would seem that “damnable” evidence was presented in the court. Notwithstanding it was insufficient for the learned Judge to make a judgement that many were anticipating. Wow! But where is the truth in this whole saga? I have been “advised” that the Court is there to hear evidence and not necessarily the truth. If that is the case, why then are witnesses asked to take the oath “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” I have been further advised that it is the job of a “Commission of Enquiry” to gather evidence and establish the truth of a matter. WOW! So in this case, we the people are a little more knowledgeable about some of the things that went on during the election, but are we closer to the truth?

Can we the people understand the “mysteries” of these men in robes and wigs, who allow witnesses with no previous or subsequent evidence of any mental problems to stand before the court and declare that they “cannot recall?” We have read of cases where “Counsel” have presented evidence that an accused was insane at the time when he committed the crime, and therefore was incapable of providing the court with “acceptable evidence.” We may chuckle at anecdotes of court theatricals, and legal gymnastics such as bawling like goat, or pretending to be dumb or admitting to certain lifestyles as evidence before the court to secure a favourable verdict. And such learned counsel may be regarded as brilliant, and their cases have entered into the annals of Historical Court Cases to be quoted as precedence, but what was really the truth of the matter? Are these just court trivia or miscarriage of justice?

It is my opinion that when subterfuge and cunning are used to subvert justice, it is not a laughing matter. When “Truth and Justice”, the foundational pillars of a civilized society are shaken, there is only one outcome, collapse of that society. We are part of a society where morality, ethics and decency still mean something.

In the current case referred to above, the court heard the evidence and based on that evidence delivered its verdict, but do we as a people really know the truth and does it matter that we do? Some of us who appeared before the court, and some who didn’t, know the truth, and we were given the opportunity to tell it. Did we? We may die without ever revealing it; till then we have our consciences to live with. But what about us, the other people, does it really matter?

It matters that we know the truth, because trust, which is so vital to a society’s survival, can only be exercised if I believe you, and you believe me. And for me to believe you, I must have evidence and confidence that you are telling the truth. Do we as people believe and trust one another, our leaders and our institutions? The people are still pondering! Do we? A matter unresolved in the minds of the people is not settled. “He who hides the wrong he did, does the wrong thing still.” The people are still wondering, will they ever get the truthful evidence of this matter?

Philmore Isaacs