Intent is enough

Kindly allow me space in your column to make some observations on how civil and criminal complaints are handled by police and other constitutional bodies like the Ombudsman Commission and their willingness to act or not to act on the prima facie or merits of each complaint.
If there is evidence of an intent to commit an indictable offence by breaching any applicable laws of this land, it is not the role of police or any other bodies to play the role of judge and jury. Their job is to put the matter in court before a magistrate or judge whose job it is to judge such matters.
Many public complaints tend to be swept under the carpet and that is why we see many culprits walking free.
Take, for example, the case of someone attempting to commit a crime or actually committing a crime. It is still the same. If a bullet fired from a gun hits someone or misses the target does not matter, it is still attempted murder. Likewise, if someone in authority authorises the processing of a payment which he or she knows is fraudulent, it doesn’t matter if that money is cashed or deposited in a bank account there is still an intent to defraud.
When these things happen, only a court of law can rightfully determine if the parties involved are guilty or innocent.
There is no need to go from A-Z to complete a file because when you do that you allow the alleged offender to go free to commit a similar crime again.
Food for thought.

Observer, Via email NCD