May 16
SINGAPORE
Grant Clemency to Death Row Inmate ---- Sentencing of Kho Jabing Violated Fair
Trial Rights
Singapore President Tony Tan should urgently grant clemency to death row
prisoner Kho Jabing, who is due to be executed on May 20, Human Rights Watch
said today. Jabing was convicted of the murder of Cao Ruyin in 2007.
On April 5, 2016, the Court of Appeal, Singapore's highest court, dismissed Kho
Jabing's appeal. An Appeals Court panel in January 2015 had reversed, by 3 to
2, a High Court ruling overturning Kho Jabing's death sentence. At dispute was
whether his actions during a botched robbery had been done in "blatant
disregard of human life." At the time of Kho Jabing's conviction, Singapore law
imposed a mandatory death penalty for the offense, thus preventing the court
from considering the full circumstances of the crime.
"President Tan should grant clemency to Kho Jabing in recognition of sentencing
reforms under Singapore law," said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director. "The
death penalty is always cruel, and a man's life should not hinge on a legal
technicality."
Mandatory death sentences are contrary to the rights to a fair trial. As the
United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary
executions, stated in 2005, a mandatory death sentence "makes it impossible
[for the court] to take into account mitigating or extenuating circumstances
and eliminates any individual determination of an appropriate sentence in a
particular case .... The adoption of such a black-and-white approach is
entirely inappropriate where the life of the accused is at stake."
In 2012, Singapore's parliament amended the Penal Code to provide courts with
some discretion in sentencing certain categories of murder, including murder
without intent. Since the change of law was considered retroactive, Kho Jabing
sought a review of his death sentence, stating the murder had not been
pre-meditated, and there had been no "blatant disregard for human life." In
August 2013, the High Court agreed, and re-sentenced Kho Jabing to life
imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. Kho Jabing's accomplice in the crime,
Galing Anak Kujat, had his conviction for murder overturned, and the court
re-sentenced him for committing robbery with hurt, and sentenced him to 18
1/2years in prison, and 19 strokes of the cane.
Singapore is one of few countries that retains the death penalty, claiming
without evidence that capital punishment deters crime. Human Rights Watch
opposes the death penalty in all cases because of its inherent cruelty and
irreversibility.
"Singapore's continued use of the death penalty has no place in a modern
state," Robertson said. "President Tan should cut through the complexities and
controversies of this case and grant Kho Jabing clemency so that he is
imprisoned for life."
(source: Human Rights Watch)
******************
Grant Clemency to Death Row Inmate
Singapore President Tony Tan should urgently grant clemency to death row
prisoner Kho Jabing, who is due to be executed on May 20, Human Rights Watch
said today. Jabing was convicted of the murder of Cao Ruyin in 2007.
On April 5, 2016, the Court of Appeal, Singapore's highest court, dismissed Kho
Jabing's appeal. An Appeals Court panel in January 2015 had reversed, by 3 to
2, a High Court ruling overturning Kho Jabing's death sentence. At dispute was
whether his actions during a botched robbery had been done in "blatant
disregard of human life." At the time of Kho Jabing's conviction, Singapore law
imposed a mandatory death penalty for the offense, thus preventing the court
from considering the full circumstances of the crime.
"President Tan should grant clemency to Kho Jabing in recognition of sentencing
reforms under Singapore law," said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at
Human Rights Watch. "The death penalty is always cruel, and a man's life should
not hinge on a legal technicality."
Mandatory death sentences are contrary to the rights to a fair trial, Human
Rights Watch said. As the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary executions, stated in 2005, a mandatory death sentence
"makes it impossible [for the court]to take into account mitigating or
extenuating circumstances and eliminates any individual determination of an
appropriate sentence in a particular case.... The adoption of such a
black-and-white approach is entirely inappropriate where the life of the
accused is at stake."
In 2012, Singapore's parliament amended the Penal Code to provide courts with
some discretion in sentencing certain categories of murder, including murder
without intent. Since the change of law was considered retroactive, Kho Jabing
sought a review of his death sentence, stating the murder had not been
pre-meditated, and there had been no "blatant disregard for human life."
In August 2013, the High Court agreed, and re-sentenced Kho Jabing to life
imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane. Kho Jabing's accomplice in the crime,
Galing Anak Kujat, had his conviction for murder overturned, and the court
re-sentenced him for committing robbery with hurt, and sentenced him to 18 1/2
years in prison, and 19 strokes of the cane.
Singapore is 1 of few countries that retains the death penalty, claiming
without evidence that capital punishment deters crime. Human Rights Watch
opposes the death penalty in all cases because of its inherent cruelty and
irreversibility.
"Singapore's continued use of the death penalty has no place in a modern
state," Robertson said. "President Tan should cut through the complexities and
controversies of this case and grant Kho Jabing clemency so that he is
imprisoned for life."
(source: theonlinecitizen.com)
*****************
Death sentence is a lazy form of penalty that does not prevent crimes
Death sentence in recent time has been an issue of contention of whether it is
an effective mean to deter crime and whether it is a crime against humanity for
taking a life from another.
Of course, some would argue that its an eye for an eye and the person deserve
the penalty, the victim's family too would desire the person to be put to
death. In cases of drug trafficking, people would then argue that the drug
mules need to be taken to task for causing families to break up due to the drug
addiction, never mind the fact that drug lords are never taken to task.
First, I would like to do a test with the reader on where he or she stands on
the death penalty.
Say a murderer who killed 7 kids in cold blood, is on the loose after a trial
and found guilty of his offence. A passer-by manages to catch the murderer
sleeping on a bench, recognises the person from the media reports and then
proceeds to stab the murderer in his sleep over thirty over times, causing the
murderer to die from his injuries.
Should the passer-by be charged for murder?
The purpose of this test is to ask the reader to judge for themselves, where
they stand on death penalty, due justice or just vengeance.
In my opinion, death sentence does nothing to change what has happened and
relinquish the responsibility of the law enforcement agency and relevant
agencies to reduce the possibility of such an offence to happen again.
Take an actual case for an example, Mr Chia Kee Chen murdered Mr Dexmon Chua in
December 2013 due to an affair that Chua had with Chia's wife. Just 5 months
prior to the murder, the police was notified by the deceased in July, of a dark
purple Hyundai car had been parked below his block, and its driver staring at
his flat. It is said that the car belongs to Chia's nephew but Chia often
borrowed it.
When TOC wrote to the police to ask what actions did the police take in
response to Chua's police report on the stalking, the police declined to
respond, saying that such details are confidential.
While it is not to say that the police could have prevented the murder of Mr
Chua if they had found out that it was Mr Chia who is stalking him and gave him
a warning which would deter him from carrying out his deed of murder. But
regardless, there still should be a review on what could have been done more.
The common idea is to have death penalty as a way of coming to terms for the
victim's family, I beg to differ, I feel it is a way of come to terms for
society at large for their inability and helplessness to prevent such a crime
from happening.
I do feel that some people deserve to die for the atrocities that they commit
on others but if you take out the emotional aspect away from the issue, a death
sentence is just a lazy way to end a criminal case that has no bearing on
future cases that have yet take place. The public will just move on with life
after a criminal has been sentenced to death, but what about measures to
prevent such an incident from happening?
In the horrific killing of a 4-year-old Taiwanese girl, Taiwanese
president-elect Tsai Ing-Wen did not call for the death of the killer but
instead, she penned this statement for the deceased. "Little lightbulb
(nickname for the 4-year-old girl), auntie (referring to herself) will not let
your sacrifice go to waste, this society has a lot of broken holes, I will use
all my effort to patch them up."
Let us not kid ourselves further with the myth that by imposing death penalty,
one will not commit the said crime. It might hold true for offences such as
drug trafficking and possession of firearms.
Jeffrey Fagan, a professor of law at Columbia University in the US is quoted to
have said that he believed that there was no evidence that showed the death
penalty deterred.
He said, "Even when executions are frequent and well-publicised, there are no
observable changes in crime. Executions serve only to satisfy the urge for
vengeance. Any retributive value is short-lived, lasting only until the next
crime."
And according to a 2009 survey of members of the American Criminology Society,
who were asked to limit their answers to their understanding of the empirical
research and to exclude their personal opinions. That study found that over 88
% of the criminologists did not believe the death penalty deterred murderers.
The study concluded by saying, "In short, the consensus among criminologists is
that the death penalty does not add any significant deterrent effect above that
of long-term imprisonment."
For advocates of death penalty, I have 2 questions to ask.
1 - What if the person is later proven to be innocent?
I was speaking to a police inspector at Jurong Police Division after filing a
police report, he was lamenting on how many cases he has to take up a day, 4 a
day and if he doesn't clear them, the cases will just pile up. So on judging on
this anecdotal point, how much time and effort can one afford to put on a case?
How much of a legal defence can an accused put up against the state prosecutors
who believe that they have a case?
Prominent criminal lawyer, Mr Subhas Anandan in his book, "It's easy to cry",
wrote "We need to get DPPs who are experienced enough, who have seen the world
and who understand the complexity of human nature to come to the right
decisions. Instead, we have a lot of what we. at the Defence Bar, call "scholar
nerds" - These are people who don't understand anything except that it is the
law and this is how it goes. They do not know how to exercise discretion."
If one is sentenced to life imprisonment, there is still a chance to redress
any possible misjudgement but a death sentence is a just sorry too late. There
are just too many real life stories of people wrongly convicted of their crimes
to take chances.
2 - Why limit the use of death penalty on penal codes?
If the death penalty is really such an effective tool in stopping murders and
loss of life. Why not impose death penalty on driving under the influence of
drink or drug that results in loss of life?
In 2013, a driver overdosed on a tranquilising and sedative drug and killed 4
persons.
Under the current law, for those convicted of causing death by reckless or
dangerous driving is liable for imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.
And for driving under the influence of drink or drugs, 1 is liable on
conviction to a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000 or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months and, in the case of a 2nd or
subsequent conviction, to a fine of not less than $3,000 and not more than
$10,000 and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months.
So given that it why not impose death penalty for such drivers? If they knew
the penalty that awaits them, wouldn't they have reconsidered their actions?
How fair is it to the motorists and pedestrians who had to die due to their
wanton action. Would you agree on this? And do the Member of Parliaments who
strongly support the use of death penalty on drug offences, agree on this as
well?
If death penalty is really so efficient and useful, why are countries around
the world dropping this penalty from their penal code? But are their murder
rates rising through the roof? Just google and see if there is any evidence
that shows this. On the contrary, studies have shown that murder rates are
lower in countries that have abolished death penalty.
I quote from Kate Allen's write-up on the death penalty that was published in
the Guardian,
"The argument that capital punishment is a deterrent against people committing
murder is one of the most stubborn myths about the death penalty. Global
research by the United Nations and numerous academics has repeatedly shown this
to be untrue. It's also very hard to square a belief in the "deterrence effect"
with the fact that in the US, for example, death penalty-using states such as
Texas have significantly higher homicide rates than states where the death
penalty has been abolished.
There is no unique deterrent effect in having a hangman's noose in a justice
system, and a large proportion of murders are in any case rush-of-blood
killings with little premeditation. What is unique about capital punishment is
its chilling finality. Once carried out there is no turning back. A wrongly
jailed prisoner can be released, pardoned, and given damages. A wrongly
executed one becomes a judicial tragedy."
Is Singapore going to hold on to a myth that if death penalty is removed,
people will say, "Oh, it is just life imprisonment, no worries, let's go and
kill some people." or "Let's traffic some arms, since its only life
imprisonment"?
Does death penalty advance the society in seeking new solutions to issues of
crime or simply put a full stop on the questions by the death of the
perpetrator?
Just like the story of the fishing village to metropolis, this should be one of
the myths that Singaporeans have to ask themselves if they want to face the
facts upfront and confront the issue as a country or to live happily ever
after, knowing that someone just have to die under the death penalty so to give
an impression of a safe country for their families.
(source: Terry Xu, theonlinecitizen.com)
*********************
Boo Junfeng's Singapore death penalty film stirs emotions in Cannes
Before he made his new film about the death penalty, Boo Junfeng sat down to
tea with some of Singapore's retired hangmen.
He also talked to the priests and imams who helped condemned prisoners make
their last walk to the gallows.
And most difficult of all, the young film-maker spent years trying to reach
through the curtain of shame to families who had lost fathers and sons to the
hangman's rope.
But it was only after Boo, whose film premieres at the Cannes Film Festival on
Monday, met one particularly "humane" executioner that he had an epiphany.
He realised that no movie has ever dealt with the whole horrible business from
the perspective of the man who pulls the lever.
"I had already started to write (the film) but after I met the 1st hangman I
couldn't write for 3 months. What completely threw me was how much I enjoyed
his company," said Boo.
"He was not like I thought. He was likeable, charismatic, grandfatherly jocular
and open about what he did. He took pride in the almost caring way he looked
after the prisoners trying to make it as humane as he could, and I realised how
difficult that was.
"He really shook up my ideas and forced me to rethink everything."
So Boo took his film - which he toiled over for 5 years - 1 step further.
Apprentice has a shocking twist. It is the story of a young man who ended up
learning the executioner's trade from the man who opened the trapdoor on his
own father.
More surprising still is the intensity of the almost father-son relationship
that develops between the young prison guard and the hangman.
"He is in some ways searching for his father," Boo said. "And in doing that he
finds this man. What I was going for was human truth. I didn't want to make it
an activist film."
The death penalty is nevertheless a hot political issue in Singapore and in
neighbouring Indonesia, particularly when foreigners have fallen foul of strict
anti-drug smuggling laws.
The execution of 7 foreigners in Bali last year - including 2 Australians and a
mentally ill Brazilian - sparked an international outcry, and several others,
including a British woman and a Frenchman, are still on death row there.
Boo said he began his research with the book Once A Jolly Hangman, which
features Darshan Singh, Singapore's chief executioner for nearly 50 years who
once executed 18 men in 1 day.
Its British author Alan Shadrake was arrested the morning after the book's
Singapore launch in 2010 and was held for a month in Changi prison for
insulting the country's judiciary.
He had criticised the way he claimed the death penalty was disproportionately
applied to the poor, while well-connected criminals and wealthy foreigners
escaped the noose.
Boo shot the prison scenes in disused prisons in Australia to avoid controversy
in the tiny city state, where an estimated 95 % of the population still support
the death penalty.
"It would have been easy to make a film about the death penalty itself, but
it's much bigger than that. I learned so much about the value of human life"
from making the movie.
Boo, 32, one of a new wave of talented Singapore film-makers, said his friends
who are against the death penalty "may be disappointed by the film", which is
showing in the Certain Regard section at Cannes.
"I took myself out of the comfort zone to address the issue from a different
point of view. I don't have a view myself. Because the humanity behind the
issue is so much more complex," said Boo, whose semi-autobiographical first
feature Sandcastle was a hit at the French festival in 2009.
"Apprentice took so long because I had so much to learn, so many things were
beyond my experience and very few people really knew (about this world)... And
unfortunately almost of them are not around" to tell the tale.
(source: Agence france-Presse)
PHILIPPINES:
Philippine bishops tell Duterte not to play God ---- Lipa archbishop says he
will offer himself to be executed in place of those the government will hang
Several Philippine Catholic church leaders are tamping down the plan of
President-elect Rodrigo Duterte to revive the death penalty once he assumes
office on June 30.
"Only God has power over life. God gives life and God takes life. No one should
play God," said Bishop Ruperto Santos of Balanga.
The prelate, who heads the Episcopal Commission for the Pastoral Care of
Migrants and Itinerant People, said life is sacred and should be "promoted,
respected, and protected."
In his 1st press conference since election day, Duterte said he will ask
Congress to pass a law that will restore the death penalty for certain crimes.
"What I would do is to urge Congress to restore the death penalty by hanging,"
said Duterte.
He said death by hanging will instill fear among criminals and is "virtually
painless (because) once the spine is ripped off inside it's over, just like
putting off a light."
The former mayor of Davao, who has been dubbed "The Punisher" for his tough
stance on crime, said criminals involved in illegal drugs, gun-for-hire
syndicates, and those who commit "heinous crimes" will have to face the death
sentence.
The Catholic Church has been against reviving capital punishment.
Bishop Santos said instead of reviving the death penalty, Duterte should
instead initiate prison reforms and review the country's justice system.
Archbishop Ramon Arguelles of Lipa said he will volunteer himself to be
executed in place of those the government will hang.
"Didn't Christ do that?" Archbishop Arguelles asked, adding that if the new
administration revives capital punishment "Catholic Philippines will be
merciless in the Year of Mercy."
The Philippines placed a moratorium on capital punishment in 2001 and 5 years
later downgraded the sentences of 1,230 death-row inmates to life imprisonment
in what Amnesty International described as the "largest ever commutation of
death sentences."
(source: ucanews.com)
EGYPT:
Egypt sentences 6 inmates for beating jailed Frenchman to death
An Egyptian court on Sunday handed down 7-year prison sentences to 6 men
convicted of beating to death a jailed Frenchman in 2013, while his family and
the defence have blamed the authorities.
49-year-old Eric Lang, who taught French in Cairo, died after a beating in a
cell on September 13, after spending 6 days in a Cairo police station.
Lang had been stopped on the street because he was not carrying identification
and was then detained because his visa was not valid.
Lang had remained in detention although the prosecution had ordered his release
a day after his arrest, family lawyer Raphael Kempf had said.
According to the prosecution's case, 6 inmates in his cell had beaten him to
death. They were convicted on Sunday of "assault leading to death," according
to the verdict read by a court official in Cairo.
Several of the defendants' lawyers had called into question the prosecution's
case, arguing the autopsy showed he had been beaten for more than six hours
with a rod, according to one of the lawyers, suggesting police involvement.
Lang's mother and sister had also cast doubts on the official account, and
filed complaints against two police officials and the interior minister over
the failure to rescue him.
"He was arrested, tortured, killed for nothing, and France did not help in
releasing him when he should have been extradited," Nicole Prost, Lang's
mother, said at an April 13 news conference in Paris.
The French government called for justice at the time.
"France is mobilized, in Paris like in Cairo, for the truth of this tragedy to
be uncovered, and to request that Egyptian authorities ensure us there would
not be impunity and that those responsible face justice," said a foreign
ministry spokesman.
Lang had been detained during a tense time in Cairo, when police and the
military had been out in force to quash protests by Islamist supporters of
deposed president Mohamed Morsi.
International and domestic rights organizations say the police regularly
torture and kill detainees and prisoners while in custody, something the
interior ministry denies.
The verdict on Sunday comes as Egypt fends off accusations of police
involvement in the death of Italian student Giulio Regeni, whose badly
mutilated body as found after he disappeared in Cairo in January.
Egypt has denied police were involved in Regeni's death, and its interior
ministry had suggested a criminal gang was behind his death, a theory ridiculed
in Italy.
Italy recalled its ambassador to Egypt, after accusing Cairo of not providing
all the information it needed to investigate Regeni's death.
(source: al-monitor.com)
NIGERIA:
Death penalty may not deter kidnapping - Yusuf Ali, other SANs
Some members of the National Assembly have recently proposed a bill seeking to
prescribe death penalty for kidnappers in the country just as lawyers argued
that the recipe for kidnapping is beyond the law writes WALE IGBINTADE.
The issue of capital punishment in Nigeria has generated lots of controversies.
This method of punishment which includes hanging, shooting and stoning is
imposed on those found guilty of committing crimes ranging from murder,
terrorism-related offenses, rape, robbery, kidnapping, treason, and mutiny.
Just recently the Senate resolved to add to the list by enacting a bill that
would make provisions for death penalty as the punishment for anyone caught in
the act of kidnapping. The resolution followed the adoption of a report by the
Joint Committee on Police Affairs and National Security and Intelligence
presented by its Chairman, Senator Abu Ibrahim. The Senate had on November 19,
2015, asked the committee to engage the Inspector General of Police (IG),
Solomon Arase, and Director-General of Department of State Services (DSS),
Mamman Daura, on recurrent cases of kidnapping and hostage taking, and
recommend its findings to the chamber. In his contribution, Senate Minority
Leader, Godswill Akpabio, noted that kidnapping became popular after former
Anambra State Governor and incumbent Minister of Labour and Employment, Dr.
Chris Ngige, was kidnapped in 2002. Speaking on the bill, Yusuf Ali SAN said
"the solution to kidnapping is more than just the law. There are socio-
economic issues that must be addressed. From experience, armed robbery has been
attracting death penalty from the 70s, yet we still have armed robbers.
So, we need to address our socio- economic problems, such as unemployment,
inequity, the gap between the rich and the poor these are serious issues we
must address. In his opinion, Chief Yemi Okulaja SAN, said "in America they
still kill and in China they still kill. All our laws are taken from the Holy
Books, you can always trace the origin of all the laws we have from the Bible.
So, if you kill you should be able to pay the penalty. You have deprived a man
of his life, so why should your life be saved? But, over time, we have had
human rights activists and they have been the ones coming out with all these
modifications. In America, it is a State by State basis, if you go to a State
like Texas, once you commit a crime and you are sentenced and on the death
roll, you will eventually be killed. I believe death penalty should be allowed
to stay because this punishment is to serve as a deterrent so that when you
know that you stand the risk of losing your life you will sit-up. Especially in
our country where impunity has been institutionalised, I believe death penalty
should still be part of our law. Justice is not a one- way traffic. If a man
kills and human rights activists are saying he should not be killed. We should
look at justice to the victims too. Mr. Norrison Quakers, SAN said "my take on
this is that we should go beyond just kidnapping and include official
corruption and criminal breach of trust incorporating politically exposed
persons, who loot and plunder our common wealth and inheritance by virtue of
their political off. The irony of our situation is that some of the legislators
are former chief executive officers of states. Can these persons enact a law
that will prejudice their interest?
Ponder on this. In his view the Chairman, League of Human Rights Lawyers
(LHRL), Jiti Ogunye, said "have capital punishment stopped armed robbery? It
has not. It is wrong to assume that severity of punishment including the
ultimate penalty, will act as deterrent to commission of crimes. It has no
historical foundation, it has no jurisprudential foundation, it has no
foundation in real life. So, in our jurisdiction, since the end of the Civil
war and the promulgation of the Robbery and Firearms Decree and the
establishment of the Robbery and Firearm have not stopped armed robbery.
"Tribunal throughout the entire military period before that tribunal were
abolished went civil rule returned to Nigeria and the execution of armed
robbers at bar CONTINUED FROM PAGE 33 beach in various places all over the
country, armed robbery has not stopped. The toughening of law against
kidnapping alone will not dissuade prospective kidnappers from kidnapping.
Those who commit crime believe that they can escape. So, curtailing crimes is
not just a crime and punishment issue it is more important the law and order
issue and a socio- economic justice issue. If you want to check kidnapping you
need to check the rate of unemployment, and equip the law enforcement agencies.
In his view, Mr. Wale Adesokan said "my own view is that, it not the severity
of the penalty to an offence that curbs the offence but the mere certainty of
been caught.
So, it is more important for us to look at our criminal justice system, equip
our law enforcement agencies with equipment and right orientation. So that when
someone commits an offence he knows that the possibility of been caught is very
high. When the Criminal Justice procedure is set in motion, it is possible to
quickly conclude criminal matters. He delay in concluding criminal matters is a
major clog in the discouragement of criminal activities. If it is such that
will reform our criminal justice and ensure that criminal matters are concluded
between 9 months and 1 year, things will improve drastically. "So it is a
combination of improving the law enforcement capacity so those criminals are
caught when they commit criminal acts and also when they are taken to court,
the law are reformed such that can be concluded within one year. Those are the
2 things that will curb any criminal activity including kidnapping and not the
severity of the punishment. No matter the severity of the punishment if people
think they can get away with it they will continue".
(source: National Mirror)
PAKISTAN:
Who are we hanging?
Abdul Basit's story is the perfect representation of the worst flaws of the
legal and prison system in the country. The progression of his case and its
inherent injustices read like a script of the criminal justice system's
inability to protect the rights of the most vulnerable, the poor and the
disabled. Abdul Basit is a paraplegic prisoner in Pakistan's 6000 strong death
row. Despite being paralysed from the waist-down, the Government of Pakistan
has come within hours of executing him 3 times. The Government's conveyer belt
of executions since the lifting of the moratorium in December 2014 has claimed
the lives of 374 prisoners - only 1 in every 10 of who were charged with
offences related to terrorism. Last week, the Government informed the Superior
Courts of Pakistan that clemency has not been granted to even a single prisoner
on death row and over 444 mercy petitions for clemency have been rejected since
December 2014. It is, therefore, evident that the Government's execution policy
against its citizens has no room for any mercy, not even for a paralysed man.
Abdul Basit's case, like those of many others on death row, was defined by
collusion between the police and the influential relatives of the man he was
accused of murdering. Abdul Basit maintained his innocence till the very end of
his trial. However, both his appeals were rejected by the Superior Courts, and
he was awarded the death sentence.During his time in Faisalabad Central Jail,
Abdul Basit's health began deteriorating rapidly. Despite repeatedly
complaining of severe headaches and high fever, he was permanently ignored by
the staff at Faisalabad jail. His mother reported that her once able son would
scream in pain and bang his head against the wall. The jail authorities were
well aware that Basit was displaying symptoms of Tuberculosis Meningitis (TB),
having dealt with similar outbreaks in the past. However, they refused to take
any steps despite constant pleas from his family. To avoid his spreading the
disease to other inmates, jail authorities rather than getting him the
necessary treatment confined him to a solitary cell. It was only when Basit
lost consciousness from the severe pain, that he was transferred to the
District Head Quarter Hospital of Faisalabad.
Abdul Basit fell into coma for a duration of 3 weeks. His mother was finally
called by the jail authorities and was informed that her son had contracted
Tuberculosis Meningitis (TB). Sheer negligence by those in charge of regulating
the prisoners had caused him permanent damage. His medical records revealed
that he had become paralyzed from the waist down and would suffer life-long
repercussions of the decline in effectiveness of his spinal cord. It was also
learnt that he will never be able to walk again.Initially, several medical
practitioners classified his chances of recovery as 'minimal'. The Medical
Board that assembled to examine his condition on the 29th of July 2015
unequivocally concluded that he was likely to remain bed-ridden for the
remainder of his life. However, his latest medical report stating the final
opinion of another Medical Board convened at Faisalabad Jail on the 24th of
December, 2015, that chances for future recovery cannot be ruled out.
Abdul Basit's legal team at Justice Project Pakistan has repeatedly made the
legal assertion that his life cannot be taken away if heed is to be paid to the
Pakistan Prison Rules, which has even been acknowledged by the Superior Courts.
It is no secret that Rule 107(iv) of the Prison Rules 1978 grants mercy from
execution in cases of ill-health. Such an execution, if it materializes, would
be nothing but a bungled travesty. Even Basit's mother has painfully asserted
the gloomy notion that her son is now only half human since half of his body is
already paralyzed and non-functional. The Government has thrice attempted to
send him to the gallows in the past year, with the last execution being halted
by no less of an office than the presidency.
Abdul Basit's mother has repeatedly said that the years her son has spent in
jail are no less than death for him and his family. Abdul Basit entered prison
a free and able man. Since then he has lost his independence and his ability to
walk. He spends his days lying on the floor of a prison cell - dependent on
jail staff for basic functions like going to the bathroom. Does Basit really
deserve to be executed? The state that is legally and morally responsible for
the rights of all of its citizens needs to ask itself whether these measures
and their adverse repercussions are truly achieving the publically claimed
objective of fighting terrorism. Article 45 of the Constitution of Pakistan
grants the President of Pakistan the power to grant mercy to prisoners facing
execution. Basit's family, lawyers and the international and local human rights
community has repeatedly written to the President asking him to exercise this
power, but to no avail. The Government of Pakistan by this exercise of mercy
needs to demonstrate to its people that it is the true repository of their
fundamental rights and welfare.
(source: Azam Tarar; The writer is an Advocate of the Supreme Court of
Pakistan)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
