Opposition has the right to challenge DPP’s extension

THE EDITOR, Madam:

Social media is the best; it is where you’ll get news and views within seconds. The Gleaner reported that ‘State attorney slams PNP objection of DPP’s tenure’, referencing the recent extension of Paula Llewellyn’s term in office as director of public prosecutions for another two years. The state lawyers described the People’s National Party’s (PNP’s) legal objection as ‘unreasonable’, opposing the view that this would make her the subject of political interference. I don’t think anyone is surprised by the statement from lawyers representing the Government.

The public response online was swift following the news article. I share some from Instagram, taken in sequence:

“PNP’s submission is very admissible. Our lawmakers should not have the autonomy to arbitrarily amend the Constitution to appease their friends. Call it a stretch of reality, but it carries a lot of weight.”

“Preparations should have been made to replace her. JLP is always reactive instead of proactive and abuse power to fix tings.”

“Hello state attorneys, can you please ‘slam’ the House Speaker for trying to shield the ‘illicit six?’ Thanks in advance.”

“Gov’t want to change the law for their own convenience. It’s a shame.”

“Wah hear about the illicit six, please.”

“JLP and friends are a mess.”

“Pressure cooker effect is inevitable.”

“Where [are the] six MP, bro?”

“It’s pure politics because she needs to step aside. The law says that.”

Sometimes it is best to listen to the people; a government that fails to listen will inevitably feel their reaction. The voice of the people, collectively, is never far off when it comes to logic and reasoning. The best response is usually the people’s response.

P. CHIN

chin_p@yahoo.com