THE EDITOR: I write this letter not out any specialised knowledge of the tenets of the law, but more so out of simple common sense and a sense of fair play and rightness as we have come to know it. For looking at how the law seems to work in this country and elsewhere, it seems more about the exercise of power springing out of the politics and less about justice.

And since power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, according to Lord Acton, British historian, and as much as politics is about manipulation and deceit, with both in unison, one can well imagine the lethal combination such is against true justice and fair play.

Which is why the law is often deemed an a-- in its contradiction, as with the current US legal system which is alleged to be weaponised against the enemies of the political establishment, with government-appointed lawmakers such as Letitia James, Fani Willis, Alvin Bragg et al bent on taking down the chief contender in the 2024 presidential election, Donald Trump.

The latter is by no means an angel, but, of course, the pro-government Democrats would be all too eager to counter these allegations which is what we have become the world over: partisan to a fault with little consideration to use the law for what it is intended, guilt or innocence, right or wrong. And not only in the US.

Elsewhere in the world the law as an instrument of justice is not as sacrosanct as it used to be with the scales teetering one way or another as the lady struggles to maintain the balance.

And this preamble is the backdrop to the current imbroglio between parties over the 'understated" public accounts of 2023, with politics and power threatening to subdue the legitimate queries of the contender by all means available, first insisting that it was a mere 'systems' glitch, easily rectifiable, which when disallowed was followed up with an investigation with all the possible negative implications for the officer daring not to comply.

And as an aside, one can understand the officer's refusal to treat with the statement as a mere 'systems glitch' with the sheer mind-boggling discrepancies in the statement of accounts of 2023 as outlined in a Sunday newspaper of May 26 under the heading, 'Lack of supporting documents for millions spent.'

But to return to the efforts of the establishment to stymie the efforts of the contender. Not surprisingly the latter would attempt to halt this investigation which may prove detrimental and which brings us to the issue in the preamble earlier of the law being applied to the detriment of one but not to the disadvantage of the other.

How can you rationalise the decision to defer judgement on whether there should be an investigation or not until June 1, but allow the investigation under review to continue? Where is the equality before the law where the contender (plaintiff) is still subject to the 'findings' of the investigation which, in the first instance, she had filed an injunction against? Would it not have been legally 'proper' for the entire investi