We carry no brief for Kern Spencer, with whom we expect the law to deal justly.

But justice must not only be done, but seen to be done - in its fullest sense. Which is why we find peculiar the statements by Energy Minister Clive Mullings, and Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn over the treatment of information that might be mitigating to Spencer.

Spencer was the junior minister for energy and technology in the former administration. He oversaw a project under which millions of energy-saving light bulbs were donated by Cuba to Jamaica for free distribution.

When Mullings came to office, he discovered that the project had been shambolically managed. There appears to have been evidence of cronyism and a lack of accountability surrounding the project. A lot of the nastier stuff seemed to have led to the door of Mr Kern Spencer.

Indeed, a probe by Contractor General Greg Christie into the so-called Cuban light-bulb affair concluded that Spencer might have been engaged in corruption and called for a police probe.

Arrested

Spencer, an assistant, the grandmother of his child, and a supposed independent business contractor to whom the junior minister steered business were subsequently arrested for fraud and money laundering. The whole thing played out very publicly. Kern Spencer remained for several days in a police lock-up without bail.

This newspaper's position was, and remains: let the chips fall where they may.

We are disturbed, however, that information from the Cubans that several thousand of the bulbs never arrived in Jamaica appeared to have been suppressed. The information only came to light last week because one of Spencer's political colleagues, Michael Peart, raised it in Parliament.

No bearing

This piece of information may have no bearing whatsoever on Spencer's guilt or innocence. Indeed, while the full range of charges he may eventually face remains unclear, the final rap sheet will include more than failing to account for the shortfall in bulbs. So, Mullings' claim that he would not want to introduce the information for fear that might "prejudice the case" is really disingenuous bunkum.

Perhaps he means that it will not be as politically expedient and valuable as when he was trotting out the juicier stuff earlier in the piece.

The specifics of case in relation to a full and robust public discussion may be sub judice, but public access to a piece of information, especially in the context of what has gone before, could hardly be claimed to raise to the sub judice threshold. It can't be that Ms Llewellyn has so little faith in Jamaicans and the judicial process that public access, and even discussion, could influence a magistrate's determination of whether Spencer, et al, has cases to answer in that or a higher court.

After all, the apparently relatively small bit of detail can hardly be any more 'juicy' than what is in the contractor general's very public report.

Christie may not have been privy to the information, so he may find it useful to provide an addendum to the document - in the interest of fairness, that is.