Dear Editor,

I find Mr Alfred Sasako's letter to the editor (concerning Parliament's
decision to pass a motion on Sir Allan's membership of Parliament) difficult to follow, and even misleading.

The motion does not in any way pre-empt Sir Allan's appeal, nor is the Legislature interfering with the work of the Judiciary. The motion does not set Parliament up to hear the appeal; the appeal will still be heard by the Court.

Even if Parliament had not moved to pass this motion, the door (as Mr Sasako puts it) would still be "left ajar for compensatory claims" if Sir Allan succeeded in his appeal. If indeed Sir Allan won his appeal, compensation would in my view be justified.

It matters not whether Mr Sasako (or I) agree with the principle of presumption of innocence. This is a fundamental tenet of the legal system that we have inherited from the UK. What is disconcerting to me is Mr Sasako thinking that this principle should be applied selectively. i.e. that it should apply to everyone but Sir Allan.

Let us not sensationalise this issue by saying that our country "is now on the verge of applying a dual legal system for its citizens: one for the ordinary people and the other for elected officials." Clearly this is not the case.

We are truly most fortunate to have a judiciary that is free of corruption. I have every confidence that the Court will dutifully hear this case fairly and objectively.