He is accused of killing a man outside his yard, but the case of Chayben Abou-Nehra goes much deeper than just innocence or guilt. It has had a polarizing effect on the community, galvanizing the doubts of many who feel that a well connected, well-heeled man is not likely to be convicted for killing a poor man with no friends in high places.

And in the middle of what some say is a miscarriage of justice is the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That office blazed into the headlines a week ago when it was forced to enter a “nolle pros” in the Abou-Nehra (Bou Nahra) case. That’s after the prosecutor was basically disqualified from appearing for the crown. It was one more gaffe in a case that has seen many: beginning with the police’s refusal to charge Abou-Nehra for murder, followed by his extended absence from arrest because of what was explained as an illness, punctuated by the disappearance of key evidence from the file.

But today the DPP defended his office and its performance in what he conceded has been a very irregular case. Here’s what he had to say today.

Lutchman Sooknandan, Director of Public Prosecutions
“100% certain that this case will be reinstated again in the Supreme Court. Once it is done properly, once this case has reached the court and all the players are fairly treated, I feel that the office has done its work. I don’t treat it as special; murder is murder is murder.”

Jules Vasquez,
But it’s not murder, its manslaughter.

Lutchman Sooknandan,
“And manslaughter is manslaughter is manslaughter.”

Jules Vasquez,
Critics have said that in fact your office should have sent someone senior to try such a high profile case; someone such as perhaps Miss Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt, your deputy who has been extensively on the case. In a memorandum, which has now been brought into the public, she wrote to the CIB saying that the charge should have been murder. Why was not a senior officer such as that put on the prosecution?

Lutchman Sooknandan,
“Miss Taitt wrote the first memorandum, advising that it should be a charge of murder. Subsequently, certain things happened to that file, this a matter of investigation, hence the charge had to be lowered to manslaughter. Miss Taitt said openly she would not want to deal with that file anymore.”

Jules Vasquez,
You would agree though that a lot of unusual things have happened with this case. First of all, we have the exceptional case where the former DPP gives a directive and the police refused to follow that directive, simply saying, ‘we will not charge for murder.’ Then the second thing that happens is the caution statement disappears from the file. This has been reported in the Reporter Newspaper months ago.

Lutchman Sooknandan,
“Since you make mention of that, that caution statement has been missing. I would like to point out that when Miss Taitt wrote her opinion, her memorandum to the police, she had that caution statement in that file. When I got the file that caution statement was not there. I personally asked the police to investigate and write a report and to trace what happened to it. To date, the file has returned to me without that caution statement. Hence the reason that case, that charge was reduced from murder to manslaughter. Also, I have personally launched an investigation all around because I want to get to the truth. I want that statement.”

Jules Vasquez,
Do you think it was a mistake or do you think it was some intentional act of sabotage?

Lutchman Sooknandan,
“I don’t think in the least that it was a mistake. I think that this statement disappeared when this file was with the police. I will be so bold to say that because I don’t intend to...”

Jules Vasquez,
It was deliberate?

Lutchman Sooknandan,
“I want to believe so.”

Jules Vasquez,
It was a deliberate act?

Lutchman Sooknandan,
“I don’t know but I want to believe so.”

Jules Vasquez,
But you can see when the case comes out in a nolle pros that in many people’s minds, it fulfills the inevitable conclusion that it has been one setup, one setback after another, and that it ends as it began with deliberate ineptitude and a specific type of mishandling which indicates that it is a setup. You can see how the public could conclude that.

Lutchman Sooknandan,
“I can see that. I am very much aware of that.”

Jules Vasquez,
There is a racial dimension, there are class dimensions, all of these elements factor into this case. Earlier you said that justice in a democracy has to be served but also justice must also be seen to be served.

Lutchman Sooknandan,
“And I will add further, there must be a semblance of propriety in what we do here. This has no impact on what we do in terms of this being a rich person and the person being a poor black person. Justice must be for all. The day that I cannot do that, I will resign. I will walk away from this office. The day that I’m being told otherwise, I will resign.”

Jules Vasquez,
What would you say to the average person out there who feels that Shawn Copious’ death through deliberate acts of your office and the Police Department, through deliberate acts, Shawn Copious’ death, many believe, will not be honored with a just trial. What would you say to that person?

Lutchman Sooknandan,
“I can tell the public, all those who are listening, that have faith in the judicial system. This trial will have its full course in the Supreme Court and each witness will be heard and this case, as I said, will be heard to the fullest extent. I take that assurance and I stand by it to the public.”

Jules Vasquez,
The file is missing a critical document. Are you confident that there is enough in there for a conviction?

Lutchman Sooknandan,
“Yes I am convinced that there is enough for a conviction. I have heard other things being spoken by defense counsels. I do not agree with them. I heard the comments made by Mr. Bradley on the day when this case was nolle prosequi. I do not agree with him at all. I beg to differ but I will leave that until the case is properly heard and the Copious’ family will have their day.”

And while he defended his case, Sooknandan deplored the actions of Lois Young Barrow who on KREM’s W.U.B. this morning read a memorandum from Cheryl Lynn Branker-Taitt to the former boss of CIB, Chester Williams explaining why the charge should be murder.