St Kitts and Nevis: St Kitts-Nevis Labour Party stated the DPP needs to step down and let the matter be dealt with fairly and justly.
St Kitts-Nevis Labour Party affirmed that Dr. Terrance Drew’s attorneys responded to DPP Valston Graham’s request for full disclosure of evidence in a detailed letter 25, 2021. Three days after the request was made unexpected in the last court hearing on February 22, 2021.
The letter indicated that the DPP’s office did not “send formal and written correspondence to the Magistrate’s Court indicating your intention to make representations in the matter, with such correspondence being copied to Counsel for the parties.”
The letter additionally indicated that apart from not receiving proper notice via correspondence, not even a phone call was received to show the change. The attorneys were then basically ambushed the morning of the court matter.
The letter further stated that when the case was first appeared on the Magistrate court list for hearing on February 1, 2021, before His Honour Justice Fitzroy Eddy, “there was no intervention, appearance or representation made by you (DPP Graham) or any other representative of your office. Now suddenly, we are faced with this intervention.”
Justice Eddy was asked to recuse himself because of his close affiliations with the People’s Action Movement. However, now DPP Graham, although openly revealing that he has close ties with the leader of the same party, has opted to take over the case utterly void of a moral compass.
The defendant is a sitting member of the government and a member of the People’s Action Movement.
In the DPP press conference, he spun the narrative of his alleged impartiality and objectivity by using Leon Natta’s case as an example.
However, what he failed to outline to the public was that “the decision to withdraw the matter came against the background where it had only been made after the defense had become aware of the names of others, including a Minister of Government who had not renewed their gun licenses and it was revealed that the charging of Mr. Natta was outside of the time limit for so doing.”
The DPP attempted to trivialize Dr. Drew’s case versus Mr. Hamilton’s, insinuating that there was no factual basis for the charges, after which he invited one of the journalists to judge for himself.
The letter highlighted that the “underlying dismissive tone in the press conference coupled with your associations and relationships cumulatively create significant doubt in our client’s mind as to your ability to review the matter fairly,” and rightfully so.
The DPP’s mannerism at the press conference in no way indicated fairness would be meted out at the upcoming hearing. The DPP needs to step down and let the matter be dealt with fairly and justly.