<B>Intervention vs interference</B>

Mr Robert Ahnee raises an interesting point in his letter published in l?express of 29th August 2008. Journalist Deepa Bhookhun reports in her column of 14th August, entitled the Valayden-Berenger saga, that Hon Valayden said: ?If I really wanted to interfere, I would have taken Jacob Zuma?s call when he tried to get in touch with me about his case; I wouldn?t have decided not to be involved in the Teeren Appasamy case; I would have gotten involved in the Hamuth case. Or I would simply have waited for all the cases to reach the DPP?s office instead of calling the police. Surely that would have been easier??

Valayden is clearly confusing his constitutional role to intervene legally with his political role to ?interfere?. Valayden has never been requested to ?interfere? in the Hamuth?s case. He was simply asked to use his official ministerial powers, conferred to him by the Constitution, to intervene legally, to ensure that a citizen?s rights are respected and the provisions of the Constitution applied correctly. He refused to do what he was duty bound to do. The systematic objection by the State Law Office to the release on bail of Hamuth, without any reasonable grounds, is seriously questionable. (...) Unfortunately the principles of equality and justice do not apply equally to everyone. Even skippers suspected of crime are released on bail despite the high risk of evasion by sea! Compare this to Hamuth who has no criminal background, has always cooperated with the law, and who does not enjoy good health, and most important of all, is presumed innocent until proven guilty. (...) Sadly, no human rights organization or any other pressure groups have cared to delve into this issue.

Furthermore, the constant denial of Hamuth?s right to be examined and treated by a medical practitioner of his choice should have been of serious concern to Hon Valayden who is officially legal adviser of the government and responsible for the subject of Justice and Human Rights, according to his presidential letter of appointment dated 19th July 2005. It is unacceptable that in 2008, (...) some people still have to fight to obtain what is guaranteed in our Constitution (...)

<B>Shaffick HAMUTH</B>