The Tribune

By IVOINE INGRAHAM

AN important distinction exists between special favours and the perception of preferential treatment. One involves actual misconduct—using influence, wealth, or political connections to secure an unfair advantage. The other involves public suspicion that such advantages exist, even when they may not. Yet in matters of justice, perception is almost as important as reality. Courts may operate according to the law, prosecutors may follow legal procedures, and judges may make decisions based on evidence. But if ordinary citizens repeatedly leave believing that the wealthy and well-connected are treated differently, confidence in the justice system begins to erode. And once public confidence is lost, the damage extends far beyond any individual case.

The principle that “nobody is above the law” is among the most fundamental promises of any democratic society. It assures citizens that status, wealth, race, political affiliation, or social standing will not determine who receives justice. The law should be the great equaliser. It should stand between power and abuse, protecting the vulnerable as much as it restrains the powerful. But that promise sounds hollow when the public repeatedly sees influential individuals arrested with great fanfare, charged with serious offences, and then seemingly walk away with little consequence.

Whether those outcomes are legally justified is not always the point. The issue is what the public sees. They see well-known individuals retain the country’s best legal representation, exploit every procedural avenue available, and benefit from delays, technicalities, and legal arguments beyond the financial reach of ordinary citizens. They see cases collapse after years of waiting or end with penalties that seem disproportionately light. To the average person struggling to pay rent or feed a family, it is hard not to conclude that justice comes with a price tag.

The uncomfortable truth is that people judge justice and equality before the law not solely by legal principles, but by their own experience of the justice system. If citizens repeatedly observe what appears to be one system for the wealthy and another for everyone else, they naturally begin to question whether justice is truly blind.

This perception is not born out of cynicism alone. Repeated experiences, conversations, and observations shape it. Every high-profile case that appears to end without meaningful accountability reinforces a growing belief that influence can buy favourable outcomes. Every unexplained delay, every procedural error, every failed prosecution feeds the narrative that ordinary people face a justice system far harsher than those with financial means.

That perception has dangerous consequences.

When people lose confidence in the justice system, they do not simply become frustrated. They begin to disengage. They lose faith that reporting crimes matters. They question whether cooperating with investigators is worthwhile. Witnesses become reluctant to come forward. Victims become hesitant to pursue justice. Citizens begin believing that outcomes are predetermined by status rather than evidence.

Ultimately, respect for the rule of law weakens.

This is precisely why institutions responsible for administering justice carry an enormous responsibility. Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. Transparency, consistency, competence, and professionalism are not optional ideals—they are essential ingredients for maintaining public trust.

Among those institutions, the Department of Public Prosecutions occupies a particularly critical position.

The DPP cannot afford complacency. Half-baked cases should not be presented. Its responsibility extends beyond securing convictions. It must inspire confidence that every prosecution is conducted independently, fairly, professionally, and thoroughly. Every file presented before the courts reflects not only on the individual prosecutor but on the credibility of the justice system itself.

Emotions should not determine what cases are presented.

That is why it is deeply disheartening whenever cases appear ill-prepared. Perhaps nothing is more damaging than watching a matter of significant public interest collapse because investigations were incomplete, evidence poorly organised, witnesses inadequately prepared, or procedural requirements overlooked.

When such failures occur, they invite speculation that prosecutors were either incompetent or unwilling to pursue the matter with the seriousness it deserved. Neither explanation strengthens public confidence.

The frustration becomes even greater when cases drag on for years without conclusion.

Justice delayed has long been recognised as justice denied. Endless adjournments, procedural disputes, repeated postponements, and slow-moving investigations leave the public wondering whether anyone truly controls the process. Victims are forced to relive their trauma repeatedly. Defendants remain under prolonged uncertainty. Witnesses struggle to recall events years later. Evidence becomes increasingly difficult to preserve.

Meanwhile, public confidence steadily declines.

Some members of the public believe they already know what happened. Information circulates widely through traditional media, social media, public documents, and community discussion. Citizens conclude that the evidence is “clear as day”. Yet years later, prosecutions remain incomplete or ultimately fail altogether.

Public perception and legal proof are not the same thing. Prosecutors cannot and should not rely on rumours, public opinion, or media commentary. Courts require admissible evidence that satisfies a very high legal standard. That burden exists for good reason. Every accused person deserves a fair trial, regardless of popularity or public outrage.

However, recognising this legal reality does not excuse poor preparation.

If prosecutors know that cases involving influential individuals will receive intense scrutiny, then those matters should receive extraordinary attention before they ever reach a courtroom. Every witness should be thoroughly prepared. Every document carefully reviewed. Every investigative gap identified and addressed. Every legal argument anticipated. No stone should be left unturned before charges are pursued.

The public deserves nothing less.

Professionalism within the DPP’s office cannot simply mean appearing in court on time or complying with procedural requirements. It must reflect a culture of excellence. Every prosecution should demonstrate meticulous preparation, careful legal analysis, and unwavering commitment to fairness.

Competence matters because every failed prosecution carries consequences beyond the immediate case.

Each collapse reinforces existing public doubts. Each avoidable mistake strengthens the belief that influential defendants enjoy advantages ordinary citizens do not. Each poorly managed matter becomes another example cited whenever discussions arise about inequality before the law.

Eventually, those examples accumulate into a broader crisis of confidence.

This is not about demanding convictions at all costs. Prosecutors are ministers of justice, not merely advocates seeking wins. They have a duty to pursue the truth wherever it leads, even if that means discontinuing cases that cannot fairly proceed.

But there is an enormous difference between losing a well-prepared case after presenting the strongest available evidence and losing because preventable mistakes undermined the prosecution from the outset.

The public understands the difference.

Citizens are generally willing to accept acquittals when they believe the process was fair, thorough, and professionally conducted. They may disagree with the outcome, but they respect the process’s integrity. What they struggle to accept are avoidable failures—cases weakened by poor preparation, inadequate investigations, or unnecessary delays.

Trust is not maintained by winning every case. It is maintained by demonstrating competence in every case.

The justice system must also recognise that equality before the law extends beyond courtroom procedures. Access to experienced legal representation inevitably differs according to financial means. Wealthy defendants can afford teams of lawyers, expert witnesses, forensic specialists, and investigators. Ordinary citizens often cannot. That imbalance is an unavoidable reality within many legal systems.

Public institutions, therefore, should not eliminate every inequality but ensure these disparities do not determine outcomes. Strong investigations, impartial prosecutions, judicial independence, and rigorous adherence to legal standards are the safeguards that preserve fairness despite differences in resources.

Those safeguards must never weaken.

The credibility of a justice system is measured not by how it treats the powerless, but by how it treats the powerful.

Anyone can prosecute someone without influence. The real test comes when the accused possesses wealth, political connections, business influence, or social prominence. That is when institutions must demonstrate both courage and independence. That is when the public watches most closely.

Every decision prosecutors make in these cases sends a message.

It tells citizens whether justice remains impartial or whether influence quietly shapes outcomes behind closed doors. It either strengthens belief in democratic institutions or deepens public suspicion that some people truly operate above the law.

The Department of Public Prosecutions cannot control every judicial outcome. It cannot determine how judges interpret evidence or how defence attorneys present their cases. But it can control its own standards. It can insist upon thorough investigations. It can refuse to proceed until cases are trial-ready. It can demand professionalism from every prosecutor entrusted with the public’s confidence.

Above all, it can remember that every prosecution serves a larger purpose than securing a verdict.

Each case becomes a public demonstration of whether justice is administered equally.

The rule of law survives only as long as citizens believe it belongs to everyone. The moment people conclude that justice is reserved for those who can afford it, the very foundation of democracy begins to crack. Respect for institutions diminishes. Confidence in accountability fades. Cynicism replaces civic trust.

A nation cannot build lasting prosperity or stability upon a justice system that large segments of its population no longer believe in.

Facing reality, the law must never become a privilege purchased by wealth or protected by influence. It must remain the common inheritance of every citizen, equally accessible, equally enforceable, and equally respected. The Department of Public Prosecutions has an indispensable role in protecting that principle—not merely through words or promises, but through painstaking preparation, uncompromising professionalism, and an unwavering commitment to justice.

Only then can the public truly believe that no one is above the law—not because it is written on paper, but because they see it consistently reflected in practice.