And while Williams says he has suggested to the Wade's the best avenue to address the issue, the criticism against the Commissioner is that he has been a part of enabling sons of UDP Ministers.
This evening, the National Evangelical Association Of Belize issued a statement referring to, quote, "the increasing pattern of Government Minister's sons out of control, and seemingly above the law and exempt of consequences." End quote.
The statement goes on to allege that police showed, quote, "blatant favouritism" in dealing with the domestic abuse complaint against Kenzel Hulse. They add, quote, "Any "ordinary" citizen, according to our laws, would have automatically been remanded to prison! The laws of Belize should be applied to the fullest extent!" End quote.
And today, Commissioner Williams said they did just that in the case of Kenzel Hulse. Here's his explanation:
Chester Williams, Commissioner of Police
"As it relates to the issue with Mr. Hulse, let and categorically and emphatically state that the decision that the police made in that matter has absolutely nothing to do with who the individual is or with any outside interference. The matter started where it was Mr. Hulse who came to the police station first and he was complaining that the young girl had slapped him 3 times while inside his vehicle. He said that in that process he reacted and he hit her back. While he was making his complaint the young lady showed up at the station to make her complaint as well. So we have what we refer to as a cross complaint. He complain against her, her complaint against him. We arrive at the conclusion that from investigation that we don't believe that the young lady slapped him. We do not have the evidence to support that he pulled a gun on her. The police are here to investigate and to charge based on evidence, not based on what a complainant wants or what the public wants or what a family may want. because the same way how the family of the young lady are upset of the fact that he was not charged for aggravated assault with a firearm, is the same way that the Hulse family was upset that the young lady was not charged for assaulting him and that the police officer who is the young girl father was not charged for threatening Hulse, because according to him, the father also threatened him. We can only charge if it is that we have the evidence to support that charge. We have evidence to support that Mr. Hulse cause harm to the young lady. We do not have evidence to support that she slapped him, neither do we have evidence to support that he use a gun when he assaulted her. So we go based on what we have. There are many licensed firearm holders in this country. The easiest way to get a man in jail is to say he pulled a gun on you and if the police cannot investigate to ensure that we ascertain the truth to those complaints, then every licensed firearm holder could be in prison. Simple as that. Yes, in determining whether or not there is sufficient evidence, that's a matter for the court to decide. But once we have the evidence to charge, we charge. If we don't have the evidence to charge then we are not supposed to charge, even if the public wants us to charge, because we cannot go to the court and say your honor we charge the man because the public wants to charge him."
Our conversation with the commissioner about allegedly enabling UDP sons went a little deeper and we'll have more of that on Monday's news.
Email
Print