A politician - who is also a sworn- in barrister ? says in a public gathering that a member of Parliament, who is also a minister, appears on a list of the biggest drug traffickers in this country. In simple layman?s terms, this is an allegation. What the barrister is alleging is that the minister is a drug trafficker. In any country where drug trafficking is an offence, one of two things would happen.

One, the minister reacts. After all, this kind of allegation is prejudicial to honour and, the more so, if you?re a minister. That is why the legal systems of most countries provide for reparation. The offence is called defamation and it only works when the allegation has been proved untrue.

The other thing that could ? and should happen - is that the barrister, who happens to have evidence pertaining to this matter, or so he says, goes to the police, who are the guardians of the peace and upholders of the law. And the latter would normally feel it its duty to investigate the matter if, of course, the allegation is substantiated. The absence of reaction from the minister could be interpreted as a give-away that things might not be totally what they seem.

When neither of the above-mentioned reactions materialises, something else happens. People start asking themselves questions. The questions get even more persistent if somebody ? say, a social worker - has repeatedly, before the allegations were made, talked about a list submitted to an acting prime minister a few years back. The same list that was said to contain the name of a minister.

Even more eyebrows are raised when the same acting prime minister, having now become prime minister, claims he does not recall being given a list at the said time. Things get further complicated when the then president of the Republic confirms that a list was submitted and that it was copied to him.

The questions raised by the public are legitimate enough. They are legitimate because having voted for the minister, whose name is on the list, they have a right to know how far those allegations are true. Most of them are probably looking for some kind of reassurance that the whole thing is just a sham.

Why deny them this? They also have a right to know why, if he?s lying, the barrister has not been sanctioned. Why, if somebody has the nerve to stand up and make such allegations in public and challenge those who dare sue him, is the challenge not taken up?

The people also want to know why everybody is pretending nothing shocking has happened. Why no one seems bothered. Why no one has reacted. The people want to know if laws still exist in this country. The people also want to know if the police still know how to function in this country that has gone to the dogs?