We either have a problem with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and his seemingly endless powers or we don?t. We either want to change things or we don?t. We are either committed or we are not. So which is which? Your guess is as good as mine or as good as that of the government for that matter.

When Cehl Meeah was released last year, after three years spent in jail, there was a public outcry. Everybody wanted to know why, out of the blue, it was decided that Mr Meeah had no case to answer. No such information was forthcoming. In the absence of any kind of public information, speculations were rife ? and the liberation of Cehl Meeah was closely associated ? wrongly so, with Bérenger taking up office as Prime minister. And so, to react accordingly and send out the ?right? signal, the government announces it had decided to revise the powers of the DPP. A constitutional amendment would be required to ensure that the DPP loses the privilege of not explaining any of his decisions.

The announcement caused a lot of noise. Debates after debates were organized to discuss the shape such an amendment would take and it was finally realized that any revision of the powers of the DPP would not be a straightforward move. And so, all the noise, excitement and protestations died down. Almost as suddenly as they had started.

No more was heard about the matter except for some rare indications that the government is still willing to go ahead with the revision. From the tone and the lack of interest shown, it is however clear that the powers of the DPP is not on the top priority of the government?s agenda. Except when it is politically correct.

It was politically correct in the Cehl Meeah case ? the government had to be seen to disapprove. When the issue was raised again with the Dev Hurnam affair, the government could not be seen to interfere and so it was left to lawyer MP Collendavelloo to make the ?correct? noises. To send two different messages; one to the public and one to Dev Hurnam himself.

And now, Bérenger has to be politically correct again. He could not be seen not to react to the perceived ?victimization? of Sandra O?Reilly and so he announces that the powers of the DPP will have to be revised. Give us a break. Enough of the empty slogans. The question is: will the powers of the DPP be in fact reviewed? Why? How? And When? The government has not been able to convince us of their commitment to find a solution to the particular problem raised by the all-powerful office of the DPP.

The seriousness of the matter begs for immediate attention. We are talking about the right of any individual to be given the protection of the law, as guaranteed by section 3 of the Constitution. This right is being trampled upon, is being jeopardized and made a joke out of, simply because there is no consensus of what the role of justice should be in this country. Simply because nobody is too sure whether the courts are here only to punish or to protect over and above all. In this confusion, stands the government who clearly has other priorities at the moment and thinks it is enough to make the right noise at the right time.

Enough of this sham. We?ve had enough of being taken for rides. The role and functions of the DPP will be reviewed? Fine. We already knew. Tell us something we don?t know. ?When? would be a good place to start.