Dear Editor,
The recent withdrawal of charges against Canadian national Roselynee Crisostomo, 48, has left many Antiguans deeply disturbed and raising difficult questions about fairness and equality before the law. According to Antigua.news, the case has sparked widespread public concern over whether the justice system applies its standards consistently.
Crisostomo was allegedly caught arriving at V.C. Bird International Airport carrying 61 vacuum-sealed packages of cannabis weighing more than 67 pounds and valued at over EC$536,000. From the outset, the matter was treated with the utmost seriousness. She was denied bail, remanded to prison, and prosecutors argued she posed a flight risk given her lack of ties to Antigua and Barbuda. The volume of the alleged haul even prompted authorities to fast-track the case.
Now, all charges have been withdrawn — for what have been described only as "medical reasons."
What exactly were those medical reasons? Was documentation presented to the court? Did the accused hold any official declaration papers, prescriptions, or legal authorisation supporting the claim that such a substantial quantity of cannabis was intended for medicinal use? If legitimate medical documentation existed from the outset, one must ask why she was ever arrested and charged with trafficking in the first place.
Two suitcases packed with 67 pounds of cannabis for "medical reasons" is a difficult proposition for the average citizen to accept.
Many Antiguans know individuals who have faced harsh penalties, criminal records, remand time, and years of court appearances over quantities nowhere near this size. Some young men in this country have had their lives permanently altered over a few ounces or far less. Others continue to appear before the courts fighting charges involving much smaller amounts — with no special consideration, no swift withdrawal, and certainly no last-minute medical explanation.
The question, then, is plain: what makes this case different?
The Director of Public Prosecutions owes the public a clear and thorough explanation. The DPP's office carries enormous responsibility and authority, and decisions of this magnitude cannot be allowed to appear selective or inconsistent. Citizens must be assured that justice is applied equally — not shaped by nationality, influence, status, or connections.
What message does this outcome send to those currently before the courts on smaller cannabis-related charges? What does it say to families whose loved ones are serving prison sentences or carrying criminal convictions for far lesser offences? Are they now to conclude that two separate systems of justice exist — one for ordinary Antiguans and another for those whose circumstances differ?
Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done.
Right now, many citizens are not seeing justice. They are seeing confusion, contradiction, and what appears to be a troubling inconsistency in the application of the law.
The public deserves transparency. It deserves consistency. And above all, it deserves confidence that the justice system treats every individual fairly, regardless of where they come from.
Sincerely, A Concerned Citizen
