RECENT dismissals of the two recent commercial crime cases due to claims of ''dementia'' raise issues of the capacity of the affected persons to serve on the board of directors of a publicly-listed company and the duties he/she owes shareholders. In both cases, the Attorney-General believed that it was in the best interest of justice not to prosecute a person suffering from dementia, whereby he was incapable of understanding the evidence and giving meaningful instructions to his lawyers for thepreparation of his defence. This is not to criticise the Attorney-General nor to doubt the testimonies of the learned Counsels and experts. However, the outcome of the cases must necessarily proclaim that, apart from it being unfair to put a defendant through a trial in which he cannot protect his own interest, he is equally in no position to care for the interests of others. The laws are well settled in that a director occupies a fiduciary relationship to the company and must perform their duties in good faith, in a manner the director believes to be in the best interest of the corporation. A person that is court-certified to be suffering from dementia cannot conceivably be an ordinary, prudent director in the commercial world. Furthermore, the dismissal due to dementia does not equate acquittal. If the same person did not have the mental capacity to meaningfully instruct his own lawyers to help him in the defence of a criminal case, how can anyone expect the same person to make meaningful business decisions in the management of his company's affairs and investors' money. Is it fair, then, to keep that person where his mental capacity, or lack thereof, could affect the interests of innocent third parties? Accordingly, the Companies Registrar should see to it that such directors are removed or caused to be removed from the board of directors of the affected companies. A HUI Kwun Tong