Truth compromised in Coke controversy

The Editor, Sir:

From the bits and pieces of the raging extradition controversy surrounding Christopher Coke I have heard and read, truth has already been compromised and will continue to be compromised. This is especially fascinating for me because the key holders of invaluable information that the public and courts need are mostly lawyers.

Why is this so? Well, all of the lawyers involved subscribe, at least in principle, to the inextricable link between truth and justice in a court of law and they all would uphold the value of the judicial oath as a tool of ascertaining truth in a court of law.

For those unfamiliar with or forgetful of the standard oath here is the essence of it. "I swear that the evidence I shall give to the court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

As anyone familiar with the courts knows, people swear and then proceed to lie and at times even survive skilful cross-examination. Though not an easy or regular feat, lies can be skilfully corroborated in court and truth is conveniently withheld to the detriment of the judicial process at times.

judicial oath

I don't think the average witness in court and the average lawyer or judge in court appreciates the implications of the judicial oath. What do I, a non-lawyer mean by this broadside?

I mean that the oath as executed in court is built on an absolutist ethic which I would submit very few lawyers and judges subscribe to, even in principle, let alone in practice. The oath as worded regards truth-telling as an absolute, meaning one should always speak the truth, regardless of personal, professional or political fallout. Put differently the oath means that as one testifies in court one should never ever declare what one knows to be not true. The oath's approach to truth-telling in court is even more demanding than truth-telling in general life.

The oath demands the truth, not full stop, the whole truth (not just a portion of it), no full stop yet, and nothing but the truth (no embellishments no spins on the truth), now the full stop. Trust me that's ethically very, very demanding.

And by the way, in a court of law or in the court of public opinion, if your integrity is in question and you are in the 'witness box' but sovereignly elect silence, that could be called exercising your right to your own detriment.

It's been ages since I saw "Star Chamber" but I still recall an aphorism from that TV show "someone ambushed justice and hid it in the law".

The people of Jamaica will have to ponder and decide about this disturbing question "which, if any, of the key players in the Coke controversy is committed to speaking the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, regardless of personal, professional or political fallout?"

I am, etc.,

Rev CLINTON CHISHOLM

clintchis@yahoo.com