August 24
PAKISTAN:
Death sentence should not be abolished
Pakistan's Punjab additional advocate-general Mohammad Hanif Khatana today
said death sentence should not be abolished, saying it is a must for a
civilised society.
Interacting with the media here, Mr Khatana, heading an 18-member
delegation of law officers from Lahore Bar Council, said if capital
punishment is abolished, law-abiding citizens can not lead a civilised
living.
While stating that legal systems in both India and Pakistan were a legacy
of the 1935 British Penal Code, Mr Khatana called for amending it in view
of the changed socio-economic scenario. Both the nations required changing
their laws in view the rapidly changing crime scenario, particularly the
cyber crime. He called for regular interaction between law officers of the
two countries, adding they have come to study the legal system in India to
benefit from its experience.
The delegation, who earlier paid obesiance at Rouza Sharif here, hailed
the ongoing process of people-to-people contact between 2 nations, saying
it would help improve bilateral relations.
(source: UNI)
NIGERIA:
Death Penalty Abolition And Missing Fundamentals
Human rights work ought to fall within the compass of corporate social
responsibility.
In a recent death penalty abolition forum, I observed a crack in the
abolitionists' camp. A journalist, a supposed death penalty abolition
crusader, spoke up and stunned participants. Drawing curious distinction
between her person as a journalist, who writes in favour of abolition, and
her person as an individual, a concerned Nigerian, the journalist raised
serious doubts about the utilitarianism of abolishing capital sentence in
a country like Nigeria.
Put briefly, her thesis was that Nigeria is not yet ripe for such a
radical step, which will in fact; impede safety, security and development.
Illustrating her position with copious references to her recent encounter
with violent criminals, my journalist friend concluded that we should
discard the struggle for death penalty abolition or moratorium and
concentrate energies on other issues like, deepening democracy, increasing
well-being and minimising ill-being.
When she was done, it was clear that "retentionists", that is, those in
support of retention of capital sentence, have infiltrated the
abolitionists' camp. But, I saw beyond that. It came across to me strongly
that a thin line divides "abolitionists" and "retentionists" and anyone
who fails to mind the gap can easily stumble to the other side. It also
struck me that those who clamour for abolition have failed over the years
to identify the missing implement in their toolkit of engagement, let
alone taking any decisive steps to supply the missing fundamentals.
As an unrepentant abolitionist, I feel called upon to lead discussion in
evaluating the abolitionist movement so far, particularly in calling
attention to where the "banana peels are carefully hidden". I do this
because this is a struggle we cannot afford to fail. This is because if we
fail, Africa fails, and the current global march towards abrogation of
this inhuman and unusual punishment, will be stunted, because
globalisation, no matter how conceived, will be a sham without Africa.
The first problem we face in the abolitionists' camp is in the realm of
conceptual clarification, worsened by absence of supporting statistics.
The second area of concern borders on issues of co-ordination among
stakeholders. This is compounded by the Nigerian mentality of 'everyone
must be the boss'. In an earlier reflection, I called this mentality, the
'big man's culture' which I identified as the 'black man's burden.'
Building coalition has become problematic and the scramble for floating
NGOs can today equal that for setting up miracle centres. We dissipate
energies and we fail to gather enough force to push for reform.
The third gap is a follow up to the earlier ones and that is funding. No
serious reform campaign can be undertaken in the absence of funds. Local
and international grants to push for issues like this come in trickles.
Absence of funds is exacerbated by lack of political will. Government
seems to be speaking from both sides of its mouth. No one can say for
sure, whether government, at all levels, are in support of abolition or
retention or whether it is standing on the fence, which in fact, implies
standing nowhere. We will now examine the issues seriatim.
Although we may not agree with the journalist who spoke as an individual,
that abolition of capital sentence will impede safety, security and
growth, it is indeed painful to observe that she may be speaking the minds
of over 60 per cent of Nigerians. Many Nigerians are getting frustrated
about the current increase in violent crimes. In an answer to the enigma
of crime, many are clamouring for the heads of violent offenders.
Some have even gone a step further to constitute themselves into
prosecutors, defendants and judges, and that's why people have been
stripped naked and burnt to ashes for stealing paltry sums of money or
household items, like tooth paste, in a country like this where billions
of naira are stolen, armed with a pen. In criminal science, this is known
as "pen robbery" but criminal law, is painfully lost on the issue. Under
the criminal law operational in Nigeria, pen robbery is no crime. The
principle is nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. But criminal science is
a larger thing than criminal law.
Abolitionists' trip
The abolitionists who should face the angry people in the streets with
superior arguments that decimation of violent offenders is not the answer,
regrettably, are bereft of statistics. Hence, we lack the means to lead
our society through a thorough self-examination, like, why are they
criminals? Were they born criminals? Could it be that environmental
factors, like failing governance, have pushed them to crimes? Some of us,
in the abolitionist camp do not seem to believe in the stuff they package
for sale, since they easily trip to the other side, once violent offenders
confront them. We all know how boring it could be to listen to a preacher
that does not believe in what he preaches.
Our advocacy strategy is further weakened by resort to religious
argumentation, like "Life is sacred. It belongs to God and should not be
taken for any cause" This line of argument often infuriates the hardened
"retentionists", as they equally retort "What of the victim's life in a
murder case? Is that not sacred too? And we are back to square one.
The abolitionist foot soldiers are in the battlefield with broken focus
and broken rank. We lack co-ordination because everyone wants to go solo.
Coalition building in Nigeria has become problematic. Vain issues like
money, power and influence often intrude to misbalance worthy coalition
building efforts.
In my several years of working within the human rights movement in
Nigeria, I have had cause to attend several meetings where coalitions are
built. Most of these efforts collapse curiously as a result of "human
rights abuse." I use "human rights abuse" advisedly to refer to the
blatant refusal by the "power blocks", that is, those behind the
coalition, to share information and to allow coalition members to
participate. This "gate-keeping" mechanism raises serious questions of
accountability and intent. As a result of this, tongues are wagging as to
what actually drives human rights work in Nigeria.
People have asked whether we are actually working for the poor or using
the poor as a ladder to wealth. It needs to be stated clearly, that the
primary motivation for human rights work is to "give voice to human
suffering, to make it visible and find a way of pushing governmental
policies towards amelioration." If we agree on this, then, we must be able
to build strong coalition and work where our strength lies. It is on this
note that we should applaud the efforts of the Human Rights Law Service,
(HURILAWS) for its consistency on issues of death penalty abolition.
The case of Onuoha Kalu Vs State, which the organisation fought, is a
locus classicus on the issue of constitutionality of death penalty. It
could safely be said that just as one cannot discuss death penalty
abolition in the United States without Furman and Georgia, one cannot also
discuss the abolition movement in Nigeria without Onuoha Kalu Vs State. In
the same way, it will be pretty difficult to talk of Police reform in
Nigeria without CLEEN. If we identify individual strengths like these,
coalition building around core strengths becomes easier.
Corporate funding
Funding is the next critical gap that has raised the stake higher in human
rights work. It seems that international grant agencies are becoming
extra-careful in dishing out funds. No one should actually blame them, for
the simple reason that some have "fed fat on international grants, only to
defecate on the feet of grantors". We cannot run away from issues of
transparency and accountability. For quite some time now, Nigeria has
continued to occupy a frontline position in the international corruption
index. There are allegations that some have secured funding and failed to
apply it properly. There is an Igbo proverb that when one finger is soiled
with oil, other fingers ultimately get soiled. But that proverb is at
poles with my notion of justice.
The fact remains that there are many pro-poor/ development organisations
that are doing very well and needs to be supported. I feel strongly that
death penalty and justice reform issues are sexy areas that ought to
attract funding. I see an interconnection between a virile justice system
and economic growth. It is obvious therefore that NEEDS/SEEDS and other
development paradigms will not pan out if we fail to rebuild the justice
substratum. On issues of funding, it should further be noted that it is
high time we looked inward and mapped out strategies for raising funds
locally. I am yet to understand why we have not been able to get the
private sectors interested in human rights/development work. I feel
strongly that human rights work ought to fall within the compass of
corporate social responsibility.
reform, is where to draw the line between theory and practice. For
instance, on the issue of death penalty, I have heard top government
officials say that it should be abolished in line with international
movement towards abolition.
I am aware of the commendable efforts of the Attorney General of the
Federation on issues of Justice reform, incorporating death penalty. I am
equally aware that the AG's study Group will soon come up with its report,
but I am worried however on issue of implementation. I cannot say for sure
whether a Bill to abolish or institute a moratorium regime would sail
through. My worries are further compounded by absence of strong
co-ordination among civil society groups and the weak interface with
government's efforts. We are however hoping that the recent coalition
building efforts will pan out results.
In conclusion, I would like to suggest that abolitionists and
retentionists compare notes and fashion out common grounds. It seems to me
that there are several common grounds, on which we can build a consensus.
For instance, we all agree that crimes are serious problems and proven
offenders should be punished. We agree that innocent people should not be
punished. We also agree that Nigerian criminal justice system faces
serious problems at various fronts. For instance, we agree that the
present method of apprehension and investigation by police is not in the
best of shape. We agree that there is a likelihood of corruption and
miscarriage of justice, and so on. If we compare notes and agree on all
those, our task may be easier. We will now be considering whether
punishment should fit the crime or be adequate for the offender's
rehabilitation and reclamation.
We may think of analyzing the trend at international level. For instance,
Nigeria has ratified the International Criminal Court Treaty, otherwise
referred to as the Rome Statute. Article 5 of the ICC Treaty provides for
offences within the jurisdiction of the ICC. The offences listed are as
follows: The crime of Genocide, Crimes against humanity, war crimes and
the crime of aggression. Article 6 to 8 clearly defines some of these
crimes. From the definitions, these are terrible crimes often committed as
part of widespread attack directed against any civilian population.
They are in form of multiple murders, serial rape and sexual slavery etc.
In Article 76 bothering on issues of sentencing, we find that the severest
punishment that could be meted out is in fact life imprisonment. I feel
comparison like the above could help us. I think what has happened is that
society is now looking beyond the criminal. The criminal may deserve
death, but the society, standing on a higher pedestal than the depraved
offender, will refuse to kill him, but rather seek to recapture him to
become a useful member of the society.
Let me say this finally, with all due respect for the "retentionists": I
feel strongly that the days of death penalty in Nigeria are numbered.
Soon, very soon, Nigerian public will be better informed about the complex
issues involved, and I foresee a massive deflection to the abolitionists'
camp. Issues like, why are they criminals and what has government done to
discourage criminality, will soon be receiving greater emphasis than the
hurried decimation of a generation our youths on the basis of a
backward-looking notion of "an eye for an eye".
(source: Opinion, Willy Mamah, a death penalty abolitionist enthusiast
practices law in Abuja; The Vanguard)
