This is in response to Dana Seetahal's letter in the Express of December 18 in which she complains about the opinions in the media on the case involving Machel Montano, her client.
She may be right that the matter is sub judice but she should also take issue with those who put their feet in their mouths, clamouring for leniency because of Machel's musical talent.
Ms Seetahal should recognise that the public is very aware of Machel's every action and he has obviously not lived up to the iconic status he has been afforded.
The simple fact that this case has taken five years to be resolved is another example of "different strokes for different folks". What is the "small man" to think if after five years justice appears not to have been done?