“To please the public”, a cautionary indictment was made against the entrepreneur.

The law and the fight against corruption in our country, must be applied with no distinction whatsoever, however, it must be done so with objectivity and respect to due process, stated the attorney and legal analyst Raúl Pineda Alvarado, when referring to the trials that are being put in motion by the Public Ministry, in the cases linked to Social Security and the entrepreneur Schucry Kafie.

Pineda pointed out that the felony of which Kafie is being accused “does not require preventive incarceration” and that the judicial entities have lost their objectivity and are acting biased in order to “please the big public.”

“The prevailing situation in our country, motivated by the marches of different sectors has pushed the Public Ministry to execute different measures to combat corruption,” however, it must act with more objectivity.

He recommended that not only in this case but also in others that the Public Ministry “must be very objective in its actions and understand that it must act swiftly because the topic of corruption has been plaguing our society for over 200 years and it must be resolved so that the law may be applied without any distinctions.”

In that sense, as evidence of lacking objectivity, he pointed out the case of entrepreneur Kafie, because he presented bail within the boundaries established by article 93 and the judge denied it due to “an obsequious agenda, to please the great public.”

He also acknowledged the fact that these are unheard of situations and that nobody expected these, considering the trajectory that impunity has had in our country, but that they must be executed within the framework and respect of the law. Pineda considered COHEP’s (Honduran Council for Private Businesses) position on businessman Schucry Kafie rather positive as this organization always reacts when “its interests are threatened or it feels abused.”

“COHEP’s claim is fair,” states Pineda, when referring to the statement submitted regarding Kafie, “because the felony he is being accused of does not require preventive incarceration and if bail is set or a conciliatory agreement is made with the State the accused does not have to relinquish his freedom, not until a sentence is given.”

Although COHEP’s reaction is deemed as “tardy”, it must be evaluated with respect to the law, because “the law is a safety system for all and when the law is broken it affects the security of all citizens, some more so than others,” stated the attorney and analyst.

About the street marches, he said it to be an interesting phenomenon, linked to a reinvestment in policy which claims without violence, and that the government must take into consideration.

Attorney-at-law and Congressman Oswaldo Ramos Soto, stated that entrepreneur Schucry Kafie must defend himself in freedom, because he has proven deep attachments in the country, therefore is not a flight risk, moreover, he presented himself voluntarily unto our nation’s penal courts, as he was abroad, and he answered the subpoena received.

“The District Attorney’s office made accusations at Kafie, but enough attachment has proven that he is not a flight risk, he actually came from abroad and presented himself voluntarily. He must be heard without incarceration.”

“Because here it’s not a case of he who stole a chicken goes to jail, and this one doesn’t. In this case it is about a family who owns several businesses and he must tend to them.”

“He should be granted precautionary measures, but this is a personal opinion. The judge has the ability to qualify and determine the situation.”

He recalled that in Schucry Kafie’s case, he was an associate in an enterprise that signed a contract with Social Security, after participating in an international contest.

This offer was approved and granted by the board of directors of Social Security, as our Constitution establishes, because it is a contract that  lasts longer than four years, it passed through National Congress and when it reached the legislative branch, it then went to an ordinary health commission and afterwards Congress approved the contract. After this, the executive branch approved it and published its approval in La Gaceta. (Official newspaper of the country)

Analyst Olban Valladares, considered that entrepreneur Schucry Kafie should be favored with a presumption of innocence, as the laws that have been emitted should favor everybody with no distinctions whatsoever.

Case in point, he exemplified, that some judges have been lenient with defense attorneys and have easily granted precautionary measures in known cases of bigger felonies, but entrepreneur Kafie was not given these.

“The fact that a chicken is stolen or a million is stolen should not be relevant in the application of justice. If the law allows that entrepreneur Kafie or anybody else for that matter, follow due process without incarceration, it is because the case states that a presumption of innocence should be made and incarceration should then be given once the sentence has been issued. He should be able to enjoy that as any other citizen would.”

“It is the perception that the government or the system needs to assuage the clamor in the streets with political, entrepreneurial, and managerial figures. All people should be given their rights.”

“It befuddles me that in the cases of entrepreneurs linked to Social Security, defense lawyers’ petitions are granted for people who have committed graver felonies and precautionary measures have been granted easily. The purpose of reforming the law is that the accused be presumed innocent until proven guilty, not like before when you were presumed guilty, placed in jail, until proven innocent.”