Opinion
Analysis
Transparency is essential in
war against AIDS
The war against the spread of HIV/AIDS last week took a new turn as South
African Former President Nelson Mandela’s eldest son, a 54-year-old Makgatho
Mandela, succumbed to the disease.
Certainly Mandela’s gesture is worth commenting and it is here that other
leaders should also follow suit bearing in mind the gravity of the situation. It
is true that among African countries which have been hit hard by the scourge is
South Africa. Aids activists say almost 5 million people have been infected and
still the disease takes its highest toll.
Mr Mandela urged for renewed efforts to fight Aids, challenging the taboo that
surrounds the disease in most African countries. It is certainly no longer
worthwhile embracing traditions which are of detrimental to us.
To most Africans, who still continue of turn blind eyes to problems which cause
havoc to the society, might find the stance of Mr Mandela rather strange and
probably unacceptable.
But the popular thought of most people is contrary to the reality and we should
see the reality and adhere to it. AIDS threatens the well being of humankind
therefore it should be fought by hooks or crooks.
It is quite evident that HIV/AIDS continues to ravage most people in South
Africa. The country is in precarious situation. The mergence plans need be in
place to avert the situation. It now estimated that over 30 million people from
across the continent have already been infected.
Joint effort among people irrespective of nationalities should make these
scaring statistics decrease rather than increasing.
In Tanzania AIDS is also threatening social and economic well being of people,
thanks to the government for declaring it national disaster and embarked on
unprecedented awareness campaigns aimed at preventing new infections.
Despite all these efforts to sensitise the society, transparency among people on
dangers posed by the scourge is still minimal. At household level for instance
people are not that transparent especially when it comes to death caused by AIDS
related diseases.
It is almost certain that the war against HIV/AIDS is a double edged one, as we
care for people who are already affected as well as preventing new infections.
Africans should see sustainable peace
The prevailing stand- of between Rwanda and the
Democratic Republic of Congo is the reminiscence of bitter memories that people
of the Great Lakes Region have been through for decades.
The history for the countries which are endowed with abundant natural resources
has not been good at all. Civilians of the respective countries have not had a
chance to enjoy the fruits of wealth they poses because of blood shed, the
future still does not provide a light in the foreseeable future.
African leaders have had sleepless nights discussing sustainable peace for these
troubled nations. The late Mwalimu Julius Nyerere and the former South African
President Nelson Mandela actually played crucial role in restoring peace of
these nations so as President Mkapa and Thabo Mbeki.
However despite all these efforts there is still little hope, as there are still
elements of hatred and vengeance among some tribal group as a result spoiling
the whole efforts.
In November last year African leaders gathered in Dar es Salaam for a big summit
for peace ever to be held, it was the expectations of many people that there
would be peace as mountain of grievances would no longer pile up.
The outcome of that summit of course was setting a blue print of sustainable
peace in the Great Lakes Region.
It is hardly months since the declaration dubbed “Dar es salaam Declaration”
then the violence erupted between Rwanda and DRC. This is a big blow to the
continent as a whole.
On Monday President Benjamin Mkapa expressed his dismay at the escalation of
hostilities between the two countries in his speech he delivered at the African
Union Peace and Security Council Summit in Libreville, Gabon.
The President said he had believed that leaders of the region had finally
reached that change of heart, and that level of courage, that turned chapters of
history of nations from darkness to light.
He also expressed his disappointment at the level of presence, mandate and
engagement by the international community despite their renewed commitment to
back efforts towards peace in the region.
As the President underscored firm, adequate and sustainable support of the
international community in peacemaking, peacekeeping, international construction
and development is essential.
Needed: Reforms in the legal system
By Evarist Kagaruki
Last week we mentioned that the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) is
empowered under Section 91 (1) of the Penal code to withdraw charges against any
accused person in court. We said that he may do so by entering a “none prosequi”
and that he is not legally bound to explain why he has dropped a case. He leaves
the people to make their own guesses and conclusion.
We also suggested that people who understand the functions of the DPP would have
no problem with the nolle prosequi in principle. The problem arises, however,
when certain charges are withdrawn by the DPP under suspicious circumstances
like those in which the case against the two Britons, Nigel David and Brett
Richard, accused of murdering a Dar es Salaam grid, was dropped.
The public also have a problem, with the fact that the DPP is not obliged to
explain why he has withdrawn charges in court. The problem here is that
transparency is lacking! And this is the era of democracy, the rule of law and
transparency are the fundamental ingredients of good governance.
There is legitimate public interest in transparency in our judicial system as a
whole. And I suppose nowhere in the domain of public affairs is the question of
transparency more sensitive than in the system concerned with the administration
of justice. People are naturally interested in how justice is dispensed in our
society. This is essentially because the overall framework of justice
dispensation reflects the way in which the country’s major legal and social
institutions distribute fundamental rights and obligations.
When the DPP enters a nolle prosequi in serious cases like murder or corruption
or “economic sabotage”, it becomes a matter of great public interest and
concern. People get suspicious and start asking: why? We saw this recently
reflected in the questions raised over the withdrawal of the case against the
afore-mentioned two Britons.
At the rest of the problem in this issue is the question of the DPP’s action
under the nolle prosequi not being open to public scrutiny. The widely held view
is that such jurisdiction is not in the best interest of the public; that it
distorts the essence of transparency in the process of dispensing justice; and
that it leaves a lot of room for the DPP to questionably terminate proceedings
against the accused, which he would otherwise hesitate to drop were he legally
was bound to explain the reasons behind his decision to the public.
I am not a lawyer myself, and therefore my views do not encapsulate the legal
technicalities of the issue. In that sense, I wouldn’t say how and to what
extent such jurisdiction of the DPP affects the administration of justice. But
commonsense directs that it does not serve the public good. Indeed, it does not
enhance the democratic process, since people have no room to question what they
might perceive as “unjustifiable” termination of a case in court by the DPP!
The very essence of democracy consists in the right of citizens to participate
in the decision-making process.
But “participation” entails also the freedom to question the decisions and
actions of the state institutions. That is why when the DPP drops certain
charges in court, the public become anxious and inquisitive to know why. People
would want to know whether the applications of the nolle prosequi were genuine
or were influenced by outside forces such a prominent members of the government
for example.
Transparency in this regard would remove suspicisions of corruption which often
many people tend to associate with wrong decisions in government, even when such
decisions are due to human error. It would also restrain the Executive from
interfering in the due process indirectly via the nolle prosequi at the
expediency of politics or whatever.