Seeing the pictures of the MRC President – Omar Mwamnaudzi
took me aback. Many Kenyans who want the MRC menace dealt with by the 'strong arm of the government' accuse the media of displaying the images in order to evoke public sympathy for their cause.
Some questions however come to my mind. Remember the days of the struggle for multiparty democracy when
people were brought to court very early morning or very late in the evening to
take plea and answer to charges ranging from being in possession of seditious
material to treason? Remember those men barely able walk, some on stretchers
and wheel chairs, some supported by police officers and others too traumatized
to even speak? Now think of the questions that have been raised by the Vetting
of Judges and Magistrates Board when interviewing some of the judicial officers
who condoned that system.
The Constitution is very clear on due process guarantees
accorded to accused persons. The criminal justice process begins at the point
of arrest. The judicial officers who presided over those
trials cared little about whether the accused persons could even take plea. Carrying
out their duties as a mere formality, many of them merely passed through the
processes and convicted persons – some of who had no idea why they were being arraigned in court.
Seeing the alleged MRC President brought to court with a
swollen bloody face unable to even stand on his feet brought back some of these
memories. He allegedly belongs to (and leads) an outlawed group. The government
insists on the group being outlawed yet a High Court decision bars the
government from gazzetting the group as outlawed.
We have certainly come a long way, and in the wake of a new
constitutional dispensation and a judiciary keen on ensuring reforms internally and in all other offices that transact with it, it would be unfortunate if
the judicial officer presiding over the case of the accused persons’ alleged possession
of firearms and other offensive weapons did not notice the state of the accused
person and raised questions about his or their ability to take plea. A judicial
officer conscious and aware about the protection of fundamental rights freedoms
as part of the due process guarantees ought to question the prosecution about
the reasons why the accused is in such a weak state.
The police want the group outlawed. It is unfortunate if
those tasked with internal security are stuck in the archaic thinking that outlawing
a group gives the government the green light to ‘work’ on the group –
effectively denying them of any rights that are inherent and indivisible, and
which are guaranteed by the constitution.
We can only hope that the current goings-on will not stain
the ongoing judicial and police reforms.
Comments
Post a Comment