WATCH: ‘A him gi me my first US$20′ – Gaza City resident disheartened by Privy Council ruling
ST CATHERINE, Jamaica – While the majority of residents in dancehall star Adidja ‘Vybz Kartel’ Palmer’s Gaza City in Waterford, Portmore, St Catherine, are pleased with the Privy Council’s decision to overturn the artiste and his three co-accused’s murder conviction and send the matter back to the Appeal Court to determine if a retrial is needed, one resident is feeling disheartened by the ruling.
Twenty-six-year-old Alliyah, reacting to the ruling by the UK-based Privy Council on Thursday, expressed her disappointment, saying, “Mi nuh feel good ‘bout it, right now the place tense”.
Aaliyah believes Vybz Kartel should be back with his family and free from the shackles of prison.
“Him deserve fi come on the road [and get] freedom… why a retrial?” Alliyah said, adding that the deejay was the first person to give her US$20 when she was younger.
Palmer and his three co-accused, entertainer Shawn ‘Shawn Storm’ Campbell, Kahira Jones, and Andre St John, were sentenced to life imprisonment for their involvement in the murder of Clive ‘Lizard’ Williams in 2014.
However, the residents believe that he will eventually be freed from his conviction when the matter is brought to court in Jamaica.
Many argue that significant portions of the 64-day trial of the four men violated their constitutional rights, resulting in an unjust trial. Despite their appeal to the Court of Appeal three years later, their convictions were upheld. However, they were later granted permission to present their case before the Privy Council, the highest judicial body in the Jamaican legal system.
The appellants, on February 14 and 15, presented arguments questioning whether trial judge Lennox Campbell should have admitted telecommunication evidence, obtained in a manner allegedly violating Palmer’s constitutional right to privacy, into the trial. Another ground for appeal was the judge’s refusal to dismiss the jury or the accused juror following allegations of attempted bribery.
The appellants also asserted that the jury experienced unwarranted pressure to reach a verdict, despite the forewoman previously informing the judge on the same day of their inability to achieve unanimity.