Consider this... Observations : 1) The CHC trial has not been concluded and they have not been convicted by our Court of Law for siphoning money. 2) The AGC has previously taken people to task for sub judice. The purpose of sub judice contempt was said to be about protecting the integrity of ongoing Court proceedings, and to prevent decision makers and witnesses in proceedings from being unduly influenced. (E.g. 2013 AGC vs Lynn Lee) 3) The PM, through his advocate, asserted that Roys picture in his article is alleging that he has siphoned off money by comparison of him and CHC, thus defaming him. Questions : 1) By initiating legal proceeding against Roy on that ground, isnt the PM also alleging that CHC is guilty of siphoning money even before the judge has passed judgement? 2) If so, then has the PM committed sub judice? What do you think? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong in any part.
Posted on: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 04:02:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015