Oct. 21 INDIA: Security for judge who signed Afzal's execution warrant Security has been provided to the judge who signed the warrant of execution for Jaish-e-Mohammed militant Mohammed Afzal Guru, sentenced to death for involvement in the 2001 attack on Parliament. Sources in security agencies said Additional Sessions Judge Ravinder Kaur has been given "Y" category security and provided 2 personal security officers round the clock. One of the PSOs will be armed with fully automatic weapons, they said. Kaur had on September 26 signed the warrant of execution for Guru's hanging on October 20, which now stands deferred as President A P J Abdul Kalam is yet to decide on a mercy plea submitted by his family. Round-the-clock security has also been provided at Kaur's residence amid reports that militant groups might target her. Delhi High Court Judge S N Dhingra was earlier provided protection after dealing with various cases involving militants. Dhingra, during his tenure as additional sessions judge, had sentenced Guru, Delhi University teacher S A R Geelani and Shaukat Hussain Guru to death, and given Shaukat's wife Afsan Guru a 5-year prison term. However, the Delhi High Court acquitted Geelani and Afsan while confirming the death sentence of Afzal and Shaukat. The Supreme Court confirmed the death sentence given to Afzal while Shaukat's punishment was commuted to a 10-year prison term. (source: Zee News) MALAWI: UK lawyers join death penalty case 4 lawyers from United Kingdoms capital punishment project are supporting a team of lawyers who are challenging the constitutionality of the death penalty on behalf of 6 murder convicts. Barristers Keir Starmer, Joe Middleton from Doughty Street Chamber and Solicitors Parvais Jabbar and Saul Lehrfreud from Simons Muirhead and Burton attended what was supposed to be hearing for the case, which was adjourned Thursday morning for observations. "They have been supplying us with resources to beef up the application and they are here to observe the proceedings," explained Malawi Human Right Commission's Director of Legal services, Redson Kapindu, soon after the adjournment. Hearing of the case was adjourned to October 30 and 31st because the state had not yet submitted its arguments. The state's counsel, Janet Kayuni, told the court that the Attorney General got to know about the issue recently hence the state had not filed its arguments. Speaking in behalf of the plaintiffs, Ralph Kasambara, one of the lawyers said the matter had been in court for a long time and needed urgent attention as it was dealing with peoples lives. "We understand that the office of Attorney General is understaffed but there are cases where the office has hired lawyers outside public office. The delays are very expensive for the plaintiff some of who are travelling all the way from United Kingdom," he said. The panel of judges comprising Justice Frank Kapanda and Justice McLean Kamwambi ordered the state to have its arguments submitted to the court within 7 days. The 6 convicts, Francis Kafantayeni, Edson Khwalala, Faison Maomba Gama, Richard Chipoka, Tony Thobowa and Aaron John are challenging that the mandatory death penalty in section 209 of the penal Code violates section 42 of the constitution and contravenes section 19 of the constitution. They also argue that the penalty violates the constitution's principle of separation of powers; therefore seeking a declaration that the mandatory death sentence is unconstitutional. Apart from MHRC and Kasambara, the plaintiffs are also being represented by lawyers Noel Chalamanda and Gift Makhwawa. (source: The Nation) RWANDA: Kigali Campaigns for the Abolition of Death Penalty The Rwandan Ministry of Justice gave the kickstart on Tuesday to a campaign for the abolition of death penalty for all crimes, including the crime of genocide. This decision was made during a meeting with all district mayors and province governors, an official source declared this Wednesday. During the council of ministers of the past week, the minister of Justice had been asked to open consultations on the issue. Reached by phone in Kigali by Hirondelle, Tharcisse Karugarama, the Minister of Justice, declared "Debates started yesterday (Tuesday) in Kigali. We have talked with the district mayors and the province governors and reached a consensus on the topic of death penalty." "What we aim for is not unanimity but a consensus," the minister stressed, hoping that the consultations will be over before the end of the year, after which the "legislative proceedings can begin." These consultations will give rise to a bill to be presented during the council of ministers and then in the deputy chamber and in the Senate. "We will lead a wide debate," Karugarama continued, underlining that the consultations will be extended to associations of survivors of the genocide, to human rights organizations, to churches, universities, political parties,... "Already, our law prevents certain categories of murderers who have acted during the genocide from facing death penalty; since 10 years or so, death penalty exists only in legal texts , the minister explained. Though Rwandan prisons hold over 600 death row convicts, the last executions date back to April 1998. The minister also highlighted the necessity to answer the demands of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) which is set to transfer some of its accused to Rwanda upon condition, notably, that death penalty will not be applied. He finally stated that the enforcement of death penalty is contrary to the respect of life." The main association of genocide survivors, Ibuka (Remember in the Rwandan tongue) has not spoken out yet. Many onlookers consider however that the outcome of this campaign will be no surprise considering that the party in place, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (FPR) which controls all the decision-making bodies involved in the process of adoption and of reform of laws, pushes for the abolition. (source: Hirondelle News Agency) **************** Party Forum Endorses Death Penalty Abolition The Forum for Political parties has unanimously approved the scraping of the death penalty from the country's penal code, The New Times has learnt. In what they called 'serving the interest of the Rwandan society and giving true meaning to life', the party leaders lent a hand to the government's ongoing debate concerning scrapping the death penalty. The Political Parties' position follows a similar stand by the grassroots leaders and governors in their recent meeting with the Head of State, who also unanimously seconded the removal of capital punishment from Rwanda's penal code. The Chairman of the Forum for political parties; Francisco Ngarambe, flanked by the Minister of Justice Tharcisse Karugarama, argued that the current government has to be part of the global initiative to promote respect for life in all circumstances by adhering to the principles of good governance and respect for human rights, among others. Speaking to The New Times, Ngarambe expressed his satisfaction at the general consensus by all members of the forum to have it scrapped for the benefit of the country and uphold the country's good governance program. However, during the heated debate which yielded to the unanimous vote, political party stalwarts had expressed concern about the issue of reparations and the repercussions of having the capital punishment written off from Rwanda's books of law, as it would lead to increased crime rates. But the Minister of Justice Tharcisse Karugarama downplayed their fears stressing that capital punishment itself has never been a deterrent to commit crime. "So far all the sectors we have consulted on this matter including media practitioners are very supportive of the idea to have the death penalty scrapped," Karugarama said. "Of course, we have not always had a unanimous approval from day one, but atleast there has been a general consensus by the different groups we have consulted to abolish the death penalty," he added. Pushed a fortnight ago; during the RPF political bureau meeting that was chaired by President Paul Kagame, the abolition of the death penalty has received different publicity by media houses, but genocide survivors associations in the country have remained tightlipped on the matter pending consultations. The Executive Secretary of IBUKA association of genocide survivors Benit Kaboyi says the group plans to hold a crucial general assembly before it declares its position on the matter. (source: The New Times) SOUTH AFRICA: Public Debate Over Restoring South Africa Death Penalty In South Africa, there's renewed debate over whether the country should reinstitute the death penalty. Theres been no death sentences carried out in South Africa since 1989. VOA reporter Delia Robertson is following the story. From Johannesburg, she spoke with VOA English to Africa Service reporter Joe De Capua about the debate over capital punishment. "The crime rate has spiked this year after a number of years of declining levels of crime. And while there could be various reasons for the spike this year and it may not be a permanent increase it has created a lot of debate in South Africa and a sense of people being quite tense and feeling unsafe," she says. South Africa did have a death penalty, but Robertson says, "In 1989, then- president F-W de Klerk put a moratorium on executions in this country. And that moratorium remained in place until the Constitutional Court Addressed the matter of the death penalty following the establishment of our new constitution in 1996and declared at the time that the death penalty went counter to South Africas constitution and therefore had to be done away with." Robertson says calls for reinstituting the death penalty are coming from many groups, but the issue took center stage recently when a judge said there should be a referendum on the matter. She says unless the constitution is changed, theres little if any chance for a referendum on the death penalty. (source: Voice of America News) **************** Judges should not call for the death penalty The claim that the Constitution contains a criminal's bill of rights has been often made by the "law and order" lobby. These spokespeople emphasise order above law, as if the denial of due process to accused persons will curb the crime wave. There is a nostalgia in the land for a return to the jackboot of apartheid policing: assault an accused, extract the confession and procure a conviction. Its so simple. This approach may increase conviction rates and help the national mood in the short run. I am not defending police incompetence or government inaction, but reminding readers that a return to a brutal past will not curb crime. Better policing, the proper deployment of modern forensic techniques by the police service, a determined campaign to make townships liveable residential areas, public works programmes and economic policy that takes the poor as the priority (rather then adheres to the trickle-down approach of Gear), among others, are more viable options that should be pursued. It is understandable if victims demand retribution. It is to be expected that some politicians and those citizens who still hanker for the past would argue in favour of the repeal of constitutional provisions that may appear to run counter to law and order. But it is of far greater concern when judges enter the fray. A judge presiding in yet another tragic murder of a small child (that of Makgabo Matlala) suggested that a referendum on the death penalty should be held. It is understandable that a judge who presided over so tragic a loss of life would ponder the death penalty as an option. But when judges muse in public about changes to the Constitution, which they have taken an oath to uphold, do they not overstep the mark? Judges should not fuel populist fires. As then chief justice Arthur Chaskalson said in State v Makwanyane, in which the Constitutional Court unanimously declared the death penalty to be unconstitutional, "the very reason for establishing the new legal order was to protect the rights of minorities and others who cannot protect their rights adequately." Constitutions place controversial issues above the transient hue and cry of the public. Judges, of all people, should not undermine the essential purpose of the Constitution. Judge Gerhardus Hattingh makes a ponderous case for a referendum on the death penalty. The judge was not seized with a difficult case, but undertook the remarkable step of calling publicly for a reconsideration of the Constitution as interpreted by the Constitutional Court. If a member of the public or a politician wishes to so act, that is his or her democratic right. But judges should be very reluctant to call for referendums on a constitutional question of this kind. By contrast, a number of judges, including distinguished members of the Constitutional Court, have engaged recently in explaining the Constitution to the public. That is a welcome development since judges are appointed to protect and develop the Constitution. When they make their institution and the Constitution accessible to the public, they move beyond the ivory tower that characterised the apartheid Bench, which in true colonial fashion upheld the whim of the minority ruler. But encouraging judges to defend and indeed expound on the Constitution and explain their role to the public is different to judges calling for constitutional change in response to a popular climate. For this columnist, the death penalty is arguably a viable punitive option. But when judges seek, by way of a call for a referendum, to prompt a change to the Constitution, they undermine the very idea behind a constitution -- that some moral issues are placed beyond the reach of a majority of public opinion as constituted at a fleeting point in the nations history. (source: Comment, Mail & Guardian)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news:----worldwide
Rick Halperin Sat, 21 Oct 2006 01:53:24 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
