Guilty until proven innocent!

THE EDITOR, Sir;

I'm writing to appeal to a sense of justice and for the sake of brotherhood to which we as a nation pledge allegiance as part of our mores and standards of behaviour.

Imagine with me, if you will, this debacle: an allegation of sexual innuendo was levelled against a male teacher/coach by a female student. The teacher was subsequently remanded by officers of CISOCA without conducting a question-and-answer session or even retrieving a statement from the gentleman.

After being in lock-up for five days, he was brought before the courts for the case to be mentioned, at which point a request for bail was made. The presiding judge denied bail saying she does not grant bail for such cases.

Is the fate of a law-abiding citizen dependent ONLY on the personal discomfort, prejudice, liking or preference of a judge?

Isn't there a standard procedure for such matters? If so, why is this judge presiding over cases for which she obviously has feelings of apprehension in handling? Wouldn't the appropriate decision to have been taken in this scenario be for the case to be referred to another judge who has the competence, skills and wherewithal to deal with the matter?

Where is the justice in this? Whatever happened to the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, which state that a person is innocent until proven guilty? Or the provision in the law which gives an accused the right to bail?

CONCERNED CITIZEN