I’ve never seen a set of people rally so to shield one man who did not need their protection.
And in the end what happened? The media got blamed for not wanting to highlight a legitimate news story that ended up generating public discourse to this day.
From the moment the word got out that there had been an incident at the court involving a judge and a prominent attorney THE NATION sought to get the details. People muttered here and there but no one wanted to be on record for fear of reprisal. Reprisal? From whom, from where? I wondered.
It could not be from the court since the judiciary should be acting fairly in all circumstances and any public comment should not influence the court one way or the other. It couldn’t be from the attorney since his powers over cases is even more limited than the court’s. The most he can do is frustrate a case with delays but at some point that has got to end.
But up went the refrain “don’t quote me”, in response to the discreet calls.
The result was that without anyone willing to go on record THE NATION, out of an overriding sense of responsibility, carried the story without naming the two parties at the centre of the incident.
That was, of course, to protect the company in case of a lawsuit since in this instance no one was willing to stand up and be counted. We can preach about journalism and social responsibility all we want but at the end of the day THE NATION is also a business with operating expenses. Too many lawsuits or a large enough one could wipe out a business, so care must be taken.
While we do not shy away from stories, there are certain principles that must be applied because our integrity must be protected. We are loathed to carry stories without names; it is a standard to which we adhere for the most part. We might depart from this rule if the story is of great national interest and we have it on good authority. Then we will go ahead and publish without a name on record.
But that should never have been the case with the recent outburst.
How could anyone witness such a display and not be outraged enough to speak up? How could anyone who heard about the incident not publicly condemn the behaviour? Is there no stench so offensive in this society that it would make some break the status quo of elitism?
Alair Shepherd is known in the legal circle as a lawyer of some repute. To the public he is regarded as the fearless activist who challenged the system and prevailing public sentiment that supported attempts to resume the death penalty.
Back in the late 1980s and in the 1990s, with his black robe flying behind him, he would be up and down the stairs of the Magistrates’ Court and the Supreme Courts at Coleridge Street where he successfully fought to have death sentences of some men commuted to life.
He was not known to back down from a situation. Shepherd’s actions of holding up his robe, backing Justice Dr Sonia Richards and bending over while uttering a profanity have overtaken all of that.
Shepherd spoke up, owning up to his offensive behaviour. He needed no one to guard him.
Prior to Shepherd’s owning up, comments on the social media and other quarters were directed at this newspaper not wanting to carry the story because he was white. Had it been a black man, his name would have appeared, they claimed. Folly!
The same rules would have applied.
Amazingly, some of the comments were from lawyers who spoke all around the issue and never named or condemned Shepherd.
What about those close to the situation who were not willing to speak up? Shouldn’t their silence also be condemned?
In the end, the media named names and carried public opinion on the matter.
In addition, I am waiting to see if at some point any other leaders are going to publicly comment on the behaviour.
• Antoinette Connell is the DAILY NATION Editor.