Flawed interpretation

Dear Editor,
Regarding Attorney Eusi Anderson citing Article 144 of the Constitution of Guyana as a constitutional protection of self-incrimination, and that Carolyn Duncan, Shefern February and Denise Babb-Cummings ought not to be made answerable for their alleged criminal conduct as employees of the Guyana Elections Commission, be it noted that Mr. Anderson’s take on the matter is flawed for the following reasons:
First, it is a universally well-known doctrine that a charge alleging criminal conduct does not in itself pre-determine guilt.
Secondly, by saying that mere attendance before a court of enquiry is a violation of someone’s constitutional right does not in itself frustrate the right of the authority to subpoena them to appear before a lawfully constituted tribunal, namely the Commission of Enquiry. Personal attendance per se does not in itself impute self-incrimination. It is only when an accused is intimidated or coerced in an investigated milieu.
Editor, it may be instructive to note the maxim held by the court of public opinion that “silence is tantamount of guilt.”

Yours truly,
Albert Khan