This biblical adage sums up the sentiments of some of the masses with respect to the magistrate's decision to find Machel Montano et al guilty of the offences for which he was brought before the Court arising out of the fracas outside the Zen nightclub in 2007.
What I find very disturbing is that some members of the public seem to want blood from a national icon, an individual who has put Trinidad and Tobago on the international music map and has perennially showcased our culture to the wider world in a magnificent and enjoyable way.
Machel, like all other individuals, is not an infallible being. The due process of law has determined that he was responsible for the incidents that transpired outside said nightclub. What we as a people must determine, however, is the contribution Machel has made and continues to make to culture and music in our society.
For a span of roughly three decades, Machel has graduated from being "too young to soca" to now being an integral and invaluable asset of our Carnival and our culture. This has been recognised by the State. Moreso, within this period, Machel has always performed as the consummate professional and his work ethic is one that the younger generation should readily embrace and emulate.
I firmly believe, given Machel's record which is void of any convictions or any pending matters before the Courts, that no conviction should be recorded against him. Which person in our society, in his or her younger days, has not committed similar acts of folly?
I humbly submit that a custodial sentence in this instance will be too draconian. Interestingly Section 71 (1) of the Summary Courts Act provides that, "Where a person is charged before a Court with an offence punishable by the Court and the Court thinks that the charge is proved, but is of the opinion that having regard to the character, antecedents, age, health, or mental condition of the person charged.......it is inexpedient to inflict any punishment or any other than a nominal sentence, the Court may, without proceeding to conviction, make an order either:
(a) Dismissing the complaint or charge or;
(b) Discharging the offender conditionally on his entering into a recognizance, with or without sureties, to be of good behaviour and to appear for conviction and sentence when called on at any time during such period, not exceeding three years, as may be specified in the order.
I end by stating that it is under this same Section 71 that Ravi B, the chutney soca star who was found guilty for inciting a crowd, was not imprisoned. Let Machel be afforded the good sense of Section 71 and let him know that much more exemplary behaviour is expected of him.
This plea must not be interpreted as condoning Machel's behaviour on that fateful night. He ought to have known better but let us not condemn him. He has much more to offer Trinidad and Tobago and the world with his music and his energetic stage performances. Let us all chip in to save him.
Joseph Toney & Co
Attorneys-at-Law