Letter: Magistrate Abigail Gibbs Applies a Consistent Standard for the Rule of Law

Dear Editor,

Magistrate Abigail Gibbs deserves recognition for her intelligence, impartiality and adherence to the rule of law.
When Daniel Seeram was found guilty of assaulting his former wife and remanded, many members of the public welcomed the court’s decision. Now that Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed has been remanded in a separate matter, some of those same voices appear to have a problem with the magistrate’s decision.

The public should apply one standard to everyone. A magistrate must consider the law, the evidence and the circumstances before the court, regardless of whether the accused is a public official, a  political supporter or an opposition leader.
In Mr Mohamed’s case, the public record includes his designation under United States sanctions, ongoing extradition proceedings and separate firearm, ammunition and obstruction charges for which he was granted bail. These matters do not prove that he committed the offences now before the court, and he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. But they are part of the wider context that the court may consider when deciding questions such as bail.

Some people may see the pattern of legal troubles as showing a lack of respect for the law. That is a public judgment, not a verdict on the current charges. The proper course is to let each case proceed through the courts and to challenge decisions through lawful channels.

Magistrate Gibbs should not be condemned simply because her decision is unpopular with some people. The same respect for due process that many showed when Daniel Seeram was remanded should also be shown now. An independent judiciary can only command public confidence when we accept that the law must apply consistently, without fear or favour.

Yours faithfully,
Quincy Anderson