Once again, yet another communicator accuses the police of all kinds of malpractices and dismisses the need to observe the cardinal principle that the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty.

I must ask Mr Hinds, do criminals have more rights than police? He posits, "we have to recognise that even criminals have rights and must be accorded due process". Have the police been accorded due process needs to be answered.

Could political ignorance and political arrogance be capable of adopting political expediency, as is being touted by Mr Hinds, this sort of illogical position is assumed throughout the long letter from Mr Hinds. What happens may I ask when the electorate exercises their franchise, are they not involved in decision-making?

I wish also to ask on the question of power sharing whether it is anticipated that there will be an opposition or is it that this much-vaunted new system, in the final analysis will leave us with a one party state? I am also suspicious about the real reason behind his call for power sharing, seeking it as a devious means of getting into power.

Not because our present system of government did not work for twenty-eight years it cannot be worked successfully. Do we not have to dispassionately compare the performances of the two parties? It is equally important to question the bona fides and nationalism of the opposition.

Together we have to ensure that our present system works until such time that together an alternative is agreed upon.
NICHOlAS MOHAMED