Reports in our normally very reliable newspapers indicate that a few of our high and mighty lords of politics have retained legal counsel fearing ICC indictments may be handed down against them. Further reports also indicate that some of our erstwhile human rights heroes and heroines object strongly to these men (and women) of influence retaining legal counsel. What I wish to know from the (conscientious?) objectors is whether they preach human rights for the alleged victims alone or not. In Kenya, theoretically, one is innocent until convicted by a court of law. I have no problem with the likes of Uhuru Kenyatta, George Saitoti, Franklin Bett and their fellow-travelers diverting significant amounts of their personal wealth to protecting their rather thin hides from the attentions of prosecutors, whether here in Kenya or thousands of kilometres away in The Hague. It is what the rule of law would demand of and for them. I would have no problem in them deploying their lawyers to preempt any attempt to extradite them to The Hague. I would take strong pains to champion their right to legal counsel at all costs.
However, if their intention is to defeat the course of justice using the power of their political office, then all bets would be off and I would advocate taking matters into wananchi's hands, violently or otherwise. What I would also take great exception to is the position adopted by our human rights champions: one simply cannot deny another Kenyan the right to take all legal steps to protect himself. The ones who have retained legal counsel must at the very least have faith in our judiciary. The ones who would like to organise kangaroo courts to obtain the judgments they believe these suspects richly deserve are doing our country a great disservice.
It is no longer moot to suggest that Kenya has the most dysfunctional judiciary in the world, second only to Afghanistan and Somalia. The Hague as a venue for determining the guilt or otherwise of the so-called perpetrators of the post-election violence seems like the most viable option, especially for those who bear the greatest responsibility. It would be remiss of us to deny them the right to counsel, the right to prevent their dirty laundry being aired in a court of law, even if it is thousands of kilometres away in a foreign land. Ms. Jaoko and her fellow campaigners are placing this country in jeopardy by denying their fellow Kenyans legal rights conferred upon them by our constitution, flawed as it is.
The rationale behind a judicial process is that it removes the right to retribution from individuals to a body that has credibility. Even judges are subject to it. Hasn't Justice GBM Kariuki undergone a judicial process that acquitted him of serious charges? The suspects in the violence that led to the deaths of thousands, the loss of private and public property worth billions and the displacement of hundreds of thousands must be given the opportunity to prove their innocence in a court of law. They cannot do this without the services of highly paid advocates. It is their right. Ni haki yao!
However, if their intention is to defeat the course of justice using the power of their political office, then all bets would be off and I would advocate taking matters into wananchi's hands, violently or otherwise. What I would also take great exception to is the position adopted by our human rights champions: one simply cannot deny another Kenyan the right to take all legal steps to protect himself. The ones who have retained legal counsel must at the very least have faith in our judiciary. The ones who would like to organise kangaroo courts to obtain the judgments they believe these suspects richly deserve are doing our country a great disservice.
It is no longer moot to suggest that Kenya has the most dysfunctional judiciary in the world, second only to Afghanistan and Somalia. The Hague as a venue for determining the guilt or otherwise of the so-called perpetrators of the post-election violence seems like the most viable option, especially for those who bear the greatest responsibility. It would be remiss of us to deny them the right to counsel, the right to prevent their dirty laundry being aired in a court of law, even if it is thousands of kilometres away in a foreign land. Ms. Jaoko and her fellow campaigners are placing this country in jeopardy by denying their fellow Kenyans legal rights conferred upon them by our constitution, flawed as it is.
The rationale behind a judicial process is that it removes the right to retribution from individuals to a body that has credibility. Even judges are subject to it. Hasn't Justice GBM Kariuki undergone a judicial process that acquitted him of serious charges? The suspects in the violence that led to the deaths of thousands, the loss of private and public property worth billions and the displacement of hundreds of thousands must be given the opportunity to prove their innocence in a court of law. They cannot do this without the services of highly paid advocates. It is their right. Ni haki yao!
No comments:
Post a Comment