In consideration of Section 21 of the Constitution, the ongoing delay in the cocaine‑smuggling case may constitute a violation, according to Criminal Court “C” Judge Blamo Dixon, who made the remark yesterday at the prosecution’s request. Since the case—alleging a US $100 million cocaine smuggling operation—began, government lawyers have offered numerous excuses that have contributed to the delay, potentially breaching Article 21 of the Constitution. That provision guarantees, among other rights, that “upon indictment by a Grand Jury… the accused shall have the right to a speedy, public, and impartial trial by a jury of the vicinity, unless the accused, with appropriate understanding, expressly waives the right to a jury trial.” Yet Judge Dixon has again postponed the trial, this time at the prosecution’s behest, marking the second suspension within four days.
The trial was first suspended on 30 March when the prosecution claimed one of its three remaining witnesses was not ready to testify. Although the defense objected, Dixon accepted the request and promptly rescheduled the hearing for 3 April to give the prosecution additional time to prepare the witness, whose testimony they deemed crucial. At the Monday hearing intended for the prosecution to present that witness, the prosecution appeared without the witness, stating that the individual was ill and unable to attend. The prosecution filed an application for continuance, asserting that the witness had suddenly fallen ill, a condition confirmed by both the hospital authority and the witness’s doctor. The application requested a postponement to 4 April so the witness could appear, but it failed to name the hospital or the doctor, despite there being three other witnesses still available for the prosecution’s case.
The defense counsel acknowledged the legitimacy of postponing a trial due to a witness’s illness but pointed out that the indictment listed eight witnesses, five of whom had already testified, leaving three remaining. “The prosecution’s claim about the ill witness is true, which the defendant does not dispute; however, two other witnesses out of the eight could have testified today,” the defense argued, adding that the name of the ill witness had not been disclosed. The defense urged Judge Dixon to caution the prosecution to be prepared at all times in order to protect the defendants’ constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Another source of delay, according to Dixon, was the Ministry of Justice’s failure to provide sufficient fuel for the bus transporting the defendants to court. Dixon reported that correction officers had to use their own money to purchase a single gallon of fuel, causing the defendants to arrive late. “The information the court received reveals that it was the correction officer who put money together to buy one gallon of fuel for the bus. The prosecution should take note and act accordingly,” Dixon said after postponing the trial. He ordered the Ministry of Justice to supply enough fuel so the defendants could be brought to court on time.
A judicial worker assigned to the case told the Daily Observer that the fuel shortage routinely delayed the trial’s start. “The case was expected to begin by 10:30, but often the defendants, due to lack of fuel and the correction officer raising money to buy it, appeared in court very late, sometimes at noon,” the worker explained. A senior lawyer emphasized that the government remains responsible for ensuring that all criminal defendants receive a speedy trial.
Comments are closed for this story.