Dear Editor,
What I find most interesting in the recent public discourse in Guyana is that some have not paid attention to – or frankly may have chosen not to notice – an irony that should not be overlooked.
Those who most forcefully accuse others of corruption without first presenting verifiable facts and evidence should themselves recognise that the principles of accountability and due process apply equally to every public official and political leader, irrespective of office or party affiliation.
A democracy cannot credibly demand one evidentiary standard for political opponents while embracing a different and lower standard for oneself.
Where a public figure has been the subject of official sanctions, investigations, or legal actions by competent authorities, whether domestic or international, those matters, like all others, should be assessed on the basis of official records, admissible evidence, and the rule of law, rather than selective political narratives.
Consistency is indispensable to the credibility of democratic leadership. One cannot insist that allegations alone should condemn a political adversary while simultaneously arguing that due process and evidentiary standards should apply in one’s own circumstances.
The rule of law is not a partisan instrument; it is a constitutional principle that must be applied uniformly.
That is precisely why every allegation against every individual must ultimately stand or fall on the strength of the facts and evidence presented before the appropriate legal institutions and not on the volume of political rhetoric or the passions of the moment.
Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.
The burden of proof is on the accuser; whoever makes a claim must provide sufficient evidence to support it. The defending party is presumed innocent or in the right until that burden is met.