July 16
GHANA:
Do you want the Death penalty abolished?
Ghanaians will answer 3 questions during the upcoming referendum expected to be
held later this year as part of the amendment processes of the existing
Republican Constitution.
The 2 questions to be posed are whether or not the Death Penalty in the
Constitution should be abolished while the 2nd question will be whether or not
the citizens agree to the proposed amendment of some of the entrenched
provisions in the supreme law of the land.
Addressing a well attended forum in Kumasi, the Chairman of the Constitution
Review Implementation Committee, Professor Emmanuel Victor Dankwah explained
that the decision for the electorate to answer 2 questions during the
referendum has been necessitated by the 2 strong views expressed by the people
on the death penalty.
Residents in the Ashanti region are upbeat about the proposed referendum later
this year to amend portions of the existing Republican Constitution.
All the people whose views were sampled by Radio Ghana after a forum in Kumasi
on the proposed Constitutional amendment expressed satisfaction with the
processes involved in the amendment so far.
They were also happy about most of the issues raised in line with the scheduled
referendum.
Opinions were however sharply divided about whether or not the death penalty
should be abolished.
The Ashanti Regional Chairman of the Ghana Journalists Association, Listowel
Yesu Bukarson was happy that eventually, the National Media Commission would
have the capacity to instill decorum within the media landscape.
According to Mr. Bukarson, media practitioners and their organizations have had
too much room to infringe on the law.
He maintained that if the amendment is implemented, the media industry would be
revolutionized.
(source: gbcghana.com)
NIGERIA:
Group Calls For Abolition Of Death Penalty In Nigeria----International Human
Rights group, Avocats Sans Frontieres, has called on Nigeria to abolish death
penalty in the country's laws.
Addressing a news conference in Abuja, the group's Country Head, Ms Angela
Uwandu, said that Nigeria needs to adopt a restrictive pronouncements on death
penalty since several cases have shown that it has not served as a deterrent to
crimes.
Ms Uwandu disclosed that the goal of the group was to ensure abolition of
capital punishment in the Nigeria.
In pursuit of this goal, over 100 inmates have had their cases reviewed and
ultimately regained freedom following the completion of the Save Lives Project
by the Avocats Sans Fronti???res.
Former death row inmate, Calistus Ike, was one of the freed inmates. He spent
23 years of his life in prison, first, he was on the list of inmates awaiting
trial for 7 years and thereafter, he was placed on death row for another 16
years. He was said to have gone through all these for a crime he did not
commit.
According to the human rights group, the case of Calistus Ike was similar to
that of many inmates in the Nigerian prison system. In worse cases, some of
them are awaiting trial for crimes that should not attract death penalty.
This has been the argument of the opponents of death penalty in Nigeria,
according to Ms Uwandu, as the debate over whether death penalty should be
abolished or not continues to be in public discourse in Nigeria.
However, miscarriage of justice remains a problem in criminal justice in many
countries around the world.
(source: channelstv.com)
UNITED KINGDOM/INDONESIA:
Ruling In Sandiford Funding Appeal
The UK's highest court rules today on an appeal by a woman on death row in
Indonesia over the lawfulness of a government policy not to provide funding for
legal representation to Britons facing capital charges abroad.M
5 Supreme Court justices in London were told at a hearing last month that the
situation of grandmother Lindsay Sandiford, 57, from Cheltenham, Gloucester -
who was convicted last year of trafficking drugs into the resort island of Bali
- is that she is effectively without legal representation in Indonesia to allow
her to pursue a further hearing of her case, and has "no access to any further
private funding". Her QC Aidan O'Neill said that previously Sandiford had been
able to fund her legal fight against the death sentence in the Indonesian
courts through the "kindness of strangers".
But he told Lords Mance, Clarke, Sumption, Carnwath and Toulson: "The current
situation of the appellant is that she has one last chance of seeking review or
appeal through the courts against the death penalty being carried out on her -
by way of application for judicial review to the Indonesian Supreme Court. This
requires a detailed knowledge of Indonesian law."
There was also the possibility of her submitting a petition for clemency to the
Indonesian government, which also "requires a close knowledge of the Indonesian
judicial and political situation and environment".
He added: "The appellant is, however, effectively without legal representation
in Indonesia to allow her to pursue this line of judicial review, and she has
no access to any further private funding which might otherwise allow her to
instruct a suitably qualified lawyer."
In April last year, 3 Court of Appeal judges in London ruled that the UK
Government's policy of not providing funding for legal representation to any
British national who faced criminal proceedings abroad - even in death penalty
cases - was not unlawful.
That decision followed an earlier High Court ruling that the Government was not
legally obliged to pay for "an adequate lawyer" to represent Sandiford, who was
sentenced to death by firing squad after being found with cocaine worth an
estimated 1.6 million pounds as she arrived in Bali on a flight from Bangkok,
Thailand, in May 2012.
Appeal judges heard at the time of the hearing before them last year that she
needed around 8,000 pounds for her legal fight against the sentence.
Following those proceedings she received donations covering the sum needed.
Dismissing her challenge at the Court of Appeal, Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson
said the question was not whether the Foreign Secretary could produce a
different policy "which many would regard as fairer and more reasonable and
humane than the present policy", but whether the policy he had produced was
"irrational".
He concluded: "I am in no doubt that the policy is not irrational.
"It is based on reasoning which is coherent and which is neither arbitrary nor
perverse."
Sandiford, originally from Redcar, Teesside - who claimed she was forced to
transport the drugs to protect her children, whose safety was at stake - was
sentenced to death in January 2013 by judges of the District Court of Denpasar
in Bali.
She appealed but her case was rejected by the High Court of Denpasar.
Last August, a 3-judge panel at the Indonesian Supreme Court in Jakarta also
rejected her appeal.
In written submissions opposing Sandiford's appeal at the UK's Supreme Court,
Martin Chamberlain QC, for the Foreign Secretary, said: "The death penalty is
among the punishments to which the Government is opposed in all circumstances
as a matter of principle."
It supported initiatives designed to encourage states which retained the death
penalty to change their position and makes grants to charities such as
Reprieve, which assisted individuals who were charged with capital offences.
In "appropriate cases" it also made "state to state representations".
Mr Chamberlain said the statutory legal aid scheme extended only to legal
proceedings in the UK, and the Government "has not established an analogous
scheme to cover legal expenses for British nationals involved in criminal
proceedings abroad, even where the proceedings may result in the imposition of
punishments to which it is strongly opposed".
He told the judges that the policy did not allow funding to be given, even in
exceptional circumstances, but added: "However, that does not mean that the
appellant's individual circumstances have been ignored."
Specific consideration was given to the question whether the policy should be
changed in the light of those circumstances.
"The conclusion was that the appellant's case could not be regarded as more
compelling than many others and that the policy should not be changed to allow
payments in this case," he said.
(source: Daily Mail)
MALAYSIA:
Those who leave Islam in Malaysia face fines, whippings and death
sentence----In the South Asian nation of Malaysia, those who wish to leave
Islam - or no longer wish to be associated with Islam - can go to court to have
their status changed. There is a catch: Malaysians must make their cases known
in courts where Sharia law is in effect - and face prison, fines, whippings and
even a death sentence for doing so.
The Department of Syariah Judiciary Malaysia, or JKSM in a recent newspaper
interview said that the Islamic courts are the only place according to current
laws for Malaysians seeking to be no longer known as Muslim.
The department identified 2 types of applications at the Sharia courts. One is
to renounce Islam, and secondly for a declaration that one is no longer Muslim.
For the former, practicing Muslims - regardless of ethnicity who want to
renounce Islam and convert to other faiths, could not be found for the
department.
For the 2nd type of application, JKSM puts these applicants into 3 categories:
The 1st subgroup are those mistakenly listed as Muslims because of naming
conventions, typically involving residents of Sabah and Sarawak.
Another group covers those who embraced Islam but now wish to revert to being
non-Muslims, which includes applicants who had converted when marrying a Muslim
but want out of the religion after the marriage fails.
The last includes non-practicing Muslims who want to be recognized as
non-Muslims. This 3rd group cuts across ethnicity. This designation includes
those who were born as Muslims and "by virtue of the documents are Muslims, but
never practice the religion of Islam," it said.
Children from an initial non-Muslim marriage who were unilaterally converted by
one of the parents who had converted to Islam also fall within this 3rd group.
These children may apply personally to be recognized as non-Muslims once they
are 18 years old.
Sharia Courts have reportedly only approved a total of 135 out of 686
applications by Muslims seeking to change their religious status for the
2000-2010 period.
There is "no penalty" and no mandatory counseling session if the Sharia court
rejects the application, while applicants also have the right to appeal, - JKSM
said.
However - 5 states in Malaysia have laws that prohibit apostasy or attempted
apostasy. "Apostasy" in a Muslim nation means choosing to embrace a different
religious faith.
Those found guilty of attempted apostasy will be detained in Islamic
Rehabilitation Centers until they repent or for up to 36 months, while those in
Malacca would face up to 6 months of detention in such centers.
Those who were raised in a professing Muslim family and choose to convert to
Christianity face horrid opposition. So much for religious freedom in Muslim
Nations.
(source: Catholic.org)
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES:
Family of Indian on death row seeks verdict repeal----Indian driver faces death
squad for running over an 8-year-old Sudanese boy; lawyers file review petition
An Indian family has approached the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Delhi and
the Indian embassy in Abu Dhabi seeking help to repeal a death penalty handed
to their kin by the Appeals Court in Abu Dhabi.
Charavattayi Krishnan Becks, 37, has been sentenced to face the firing squad on
charges of pre-meditated murder of an 8-year-old Sudanese boy.
As per the case file, Becks who works as a driver, was playing on his laptop
sitting in his car near a kerb close to his house in Mussafah on September 14,
2012. Some children who were playing in the area kept disturbing him by
knocking on the window. They also threw stones and paper at the accused when he
rolled down the window. An irate Becks drove off to a parking lot a few metres
away where he ran over the victim.
The public prosecutor who appeared for the victim's family had argued that the
accused was chasing the boys in a fit of rage and drove his car over the boy
with the intention of killing him.
Beck's lawyer defended him arguing it was an accident caused when the victim
jumped across the vehicle from behind a transformer.
Court verdict
But the Court of First Instance found Becks guilty and sentenced him to 15
years in prison. The court also ordered the culprit to pay the boy's family
Dh200,000 as blood money.
When the case was brought before the Appeals Court, it upheld the verdict. The
victim's family approached the Court of Cassation, which again referred the
case back to the Appeals Court for retrial. Becks was sentenced to death by
firing squad at the retrial by the Appeals Court, which was once again upheld
by the Court of Cassation.
Lawyers representing Becks told XPRESS they have filed a review petition of the
death penalty on the grounds that the second verdict by the Appeals Court was
given by the same panel of judges who gave the 1st verdict.
"As per the UAE laws, a different panel of judges should hear the review
petition when it is referred for a second time to the Appeals Court," said the
legal source.
Krishnan Binson, brother of the accused, told XPRESS that their family in India
does not know Becks has been awarded death penalty. "I cannot tell his wife and
his 4-year-old son. We are just hopeful because my brother is not a murderer,"
said Binson, who works in a shipping company in Abu Dhabi.
An Indian embassy official said the petition submitted by the family has been
forwarded to the UAE authorities. "The role of the embassy is to forward the
petition to the local authorities. We do not interfere in the judicial
procedures of the host country. Nor do we judge the merits or demerits of the
case," said the embassy official.
(source: Gulf News)
_______________________________________________
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A free service of WashLaw
http://washlaw.edu
(785)670.1088
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
