<B>Anil GAYAN SC</B>

Once again a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in the Vanessa Lagesse alleged murder case has put the office of the DPP and the person of the DPP in the spotlight. That the DPP has a discretion in whether or to prosecute anyone is not the purpose of this piece. There may be all sorts of reasons why a body entrusted with a discretion should exercise it in a particular way. But the discretion is not absolute and that exercise must be subjected to some measure of scrutiny. No one is unaccountable under the Rule of Law.

I am sure no one has computed in money terms all that the State has spent in this particular case. For example, how much did the Police spend in public funds concerning all the stages of the enquiry? How many man-hours of different grades of officers were spent on the investigation? Transportation, expert witnesses, resources utilised at the State Law Office during the investigation and all the numerous sittings of the Preliminary Enquiry, the costs attributable to the Judiciary this non-exhaustive list alone must run into tens of millions of rupees.

Over and above the question of public funds, more fundamental are the issues of confidence in the investigating powers and skills of the Police and the despair of the relatives of the victim in not being able to put closure of their trauma.

There was a murder and someone did it. In our system, we expect the Police to unravel the murder. Those who claim to be ?Colombo or other mystical sleuths? have not only failed the trust of the public but they have demonstrated their sheer incompetence. I am sure that our Police is very successful in trailing opposition politicians or monitoring the telephones of those who are perceived to be anti-Government. But when the same Police are called upon to demonstrate their talent for detection of crimes, they come out miserably. If there is need to get experts from overseas to improve and overhaul the machinery of detection, let us have them. We already have thousands of them here. A few more cannot do nay further damage. Too many crimes in the recent past have gone undetected. No wonder the Law and Order situation is in such a colossal mess.

The DPP can only meaningfully act if the high-profile crimes have been diligently, competently, professionally and honestly investigated by the Police and the other forensic science departments. There are serious doubts about mechanics of the whole process from commission of a crime to that of determination by the DPP.

There may be valid reasons for the decision of the DPP. His Office will gain in respect if he were to come clean on the reasons for the decision. People still recall the ?unexplained? reasons for the non-prosecution of Cehl Meeah by the-then DPP. Judges, magistrates and all bodies called upon to determine the rights and claims of people are bound to give reasons for their decisions. Transparency and good prosecutorial governance are the minimum that the citizens of this country are entitled to expect from those who take decisions in their names and who are paid out of public funds.

So, DPP, speak now and give us the reasons for your decision in the Maigrot case. Silence in these circumstances can cause permanent damage to your Office.