trial are justified.

The fact that Magistrate Archie Warner would state in open court that "somewhere along this process somebody tried to interfere with this process'' is grounds alone for an inquiry; such a statement would not be made lightly.

And it does appear that the course of justice has not run smoothly.

Mr. Smith was charged with assault, pleaded not guilty and a trial date of December 1 was set down.

Later, it would appear that Mr. Smith had discussions with someone in the Attorney General's Chambers and agreed to be bound over under section 64 of the Criminal Code, which means that the accused accepts the facts of the case, but no conviction will be recorded provided that no further offences take place within the next 12 months.

The case was set down to be heard on Monday at 9 a.m. -- an unusual time for a case, of which the public would not normally be aware.

Mr. Smith claims he was told by someone in the Attorney General's chambers that he should be at court at that time when the matter would be "dispensed with''.

But Crown counsel Leighton Rochester said his instructions from Acting Director of Public Prosecutions William Pearce were to have the case "delisted'' and put down for trial on December 1.

Mr. Pearce, who was in the court, did not contradict Mr. Rochester.

Twenty-four hours later, Crown counsel Larry Mussenden appeared in court, Mr.

Smith pleaded not guilty but was convicted and was bound over.

As Mr. Warner noted, given the relatively minor nature of the assault, binding Mr. Smith over was a reasonable sentence. But that does not explain why the case had to be pushed forward, or why members of the Attorney General's chambers said they knew nothing of how the case was to be disposed of.

It has been claimed by informed sources that Khamisi Tokunbo, currently the principal Crown counsel of the civil law section in the Attorney General's chambers, but widely expected to be the first permanent Director of Public Prosecutions, made the agreement with Mr. Smith but then had difficulties finding a Crown counsel to take the case. These claims have been denied, but no-one seems willing to say who Mr. Smith discussed his case with.

And there are other unanswered questions about the case. Mr. Rochester said in court that he was told by Mr. Pearce on Sunday night to take the case to trial. Mr. Pearce said nothing to contradict that on Monday.

But on Tuesday, Mr. Pearce told the media that he had looked at the file last Thursday and had decided that if Mr. Smith pleaded guilty, the Crown would not oppose a request for him to be bound over -- a position Mr. Smith was advised of.

Yet Mr. Pearce never made this statement in court when he had the opportunity.

Nor does it explain why Mr. Smith was called to court at 9 a.m. on Monday morning -- The Royal Gazette would not have known about the case, but for an anonymous tip. But given the political sensitivity of the case, it is possible that it was intended to enable Mr. Smith to avoid publicity.

If Mr. Tokunbo had no involvement in the case, he deserves to have his name cleared; an independent and open inquiry is now the only way in which that can be done.