Not guilty until pronounced so in Court
Nov 18, 2009
THE death of Maj Gen James Kazini last week during an alleged domestic dispute was as tragic as it was shockingly sad. Many Ugandans are outraged even as they mourn the death of the plain-spoken general.
OPIYO OLOYA
PERSPECTIVE OF A UGANDA IN CANADA
The death of Maj Gen James Kazini last week during an alleged domestic dispute was as tragic as it was shockingly sad. Many Ugandans are outraged even as they mourn the death of the plain-spoken general.
Nobody, general or not, deserves to die in such a manner at such a young age. The incident requires a thorough Police investigation to determine the facts of involvement or not of the alleged killer or killers. For the findings to be credible there is a need for investigators to retain critical objectivity while doing their work.
But thorough investigation begins with the conduct of the Police and how they go about establishing the evidence. Unfortunately, regardless of what the facts in the case may turn out to be, certain actions are already raising troubling questions about the impartiality and objectivity of the investigating officers.
Foremost, it was troubling to see the picture of the accused Lydia Draru handcuffed and thrown onto the floor of the Police pick-up truck where she appeared lodged underneath a steel bench. There was enough room in the back of the pick-up to allow Draru to sit upright. Could it be that through Draru’s shoddy and unethical treatment, the arresting officers were signalling that she was already guilty? Would this not create a bias in the way the Police handle the evidence?
What about the presumption of innocence until found guilty? In fact, the principle of innocence until proven guilty was well demonstrated just a week earlier on November 5, at the US Army town at Fort Hood near Killeen, Texas where a US Army major opened fire on fellow American soldiers, killing 13 and injuring scores of others. The 39-year old suspect American Major Nidal Malik Hasan was eventually shot several times and seriously injured by civilian Police officers who joined the firefight.
What happened next was a classic case of presumption of innocence until found guilty. The incapacitated suspect was rushed to the nearest medical facility where doctors worked furiously to save his life. As of this writing, Major Hasan is talking and, on November 12 was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder with additional charges pending. Understandably many of the first responders to the Fort Hood shootings were angry and felt betrayed by the actions of Major Hasan.
However, instead of letting their emotions get the better of them, they showed professionalism under fire in dealing compassionately with the wounded gunman to ensure that he survived. Major Nidal Malik Hasan likely will face the death penalty for his alleged crimes, but that will be decided in the proper judicial venue at the appropriate time.
By comparison, the element of investigative impartiality seemed to be missing in the wake of General Kazini’s killing last Tuesday. For instance, Draru allegedly confessed that she acted in self-defence because the late general pulled a gun on her. Before long some official leaked the information to the media that a gun was found inside the late general’s car rather than beside the body. The implication for the investigation being that the location where the gun was found did not fit the alleged confession by Draru that she acted in self-defence. In other words, Draru was lying about what happened and how it happened. The problem again is the need not to jump to any conclusion before establishing all the facts. One could for instance point out that numerous pictures and evidence from neighbours suggest that the scene of the killing was not secured at all.
That morning hordes of curious civilian onlookers, a throng of military Police, civil Police and army officers were photographed milling around like cattle in a kraal. The problem here is evidence tampering. Could investigators, for example, conclusively rule out the possibility that the gun found in Kazini’s car had been inside the vehicle all along? Could investigators conclusively determine that someone did not walk away with important evidence before Police arrived? Could investigators determine whether there was a second gun? The point here is that this was a serious crime scene involving a very high-ranking officer, and a well known public figure. Yet the scene of his death quickly became a zoo with many people coming and going without obvious attempts to limit access and ensure that crucial evidence was not tampered with. The carnival-like atmosphere neither respected the rule of investigation nor the dignity that General Kazini deserved in death.
In essence, despite Draru’s alleged confession of the killing, investigators should continue to amass evidence, look at all possibilities and not rule out additional players in the general’s death.
To put it another way, had the shoe been on the other foot, and a high-ranking officer was accused of killing a civilian, there would have been many voices urging further investigation. The officer in such a case would not have been handcuffed and tossed onto the floor of the Police pick-up truck. He or she would have been treated humanely with respect. Draru deserves no less respect.
That is not to say she is guilty or innocent, just that she must be tried by a properly convened court of law using properly obtained evidence. Only then can justice be seen to be done in the untimely death of General Kazini.
Opiyo.oloya@sympatico.ca
PERSPECTIVE OF A UGANDA IN CANADA
The death of Maj Gen James Kazini last week during an alleged domestic dispute was as tragic as it was shockingly sad. Many Ugandans are outraged even as they mourn the death of the plain-spoken general.
Nobody, general or not, deserves to die in such a manner at such a young age. The incident requires a thorough Police investigation to determine the facts of involvement or not of the alleged killer or killers. For the findings to be credible there is a need for investigators to retain critical objectivity while doing their work.
But thorough investigation begins with the conduct of the Police and how they go about establishing the evidence. Unfortunately, regardless of what the facts in the case may turn out to be, certain actions are already raising troubling questions about the impartiality and objectivity of the investigating officers.
Foremost, it was troubling to see the picture of the accused Lydia Draru handcuffed and thrown onto the floor of the Police pick-up truck where she appeared lodged underneath a steel bench. There was enough room in the back of the pick-up to allow Draru to sit upright. Could it be that through Draru’s shoddy and unethical treatment, the arresting officers were signalling that she was already guilty? Would this not create a bias in the way the Police handle the evidence?
What about the presumption of innocence until found guilty? In fact, the principle of innocence until proven guilty was well demonstrated just a week earlier on November 5, at the US Army town at Fort Hood near Killeen, Texas where a US Army major opened fire on fellow American soldiers, killing 13 and injuring scores of others. The 39-year old suspect American Major Nidal Malik Hasan was eventually shot several times and seriously injured by civilian Police officers who joined the firefight.
What happened next was a classic case of presumption of innocence until found guilty. The incapacitated suspect was rushed to the nearest medical facility where doctors worked furiously to save his life. As of this writing, Major Hasan is talking and, on November 12 was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder with additional charges pending. Understandably many of the first responders to the Fort Hood shootings were angry and felt betrayed by the actions of Major Hasan.
However, instead of letting their emotions get the better of them, they showed professionalism under fire in dealing compassionately with the wounded gunman to ensure that he survived. Major Nidal Malik Hasan likely will face the death penalty for his alleged crimes, but that will be decided in the proper judicial venue at the appropriate time.
By comparison, the element of investigative impartiality seemed to be missing in the wake of General Kazini’s killing last Tuesday. For instance, Draru allegedly confessed that she acted in self-defence because the late general pulled a gun on her. Before long some official leaked the information to the media that a gun was found inside the late general’s car rather than beside the body. The implication for the investigation being that the location where the gun was found did not fit the alleged confession by Draru that she acted in self-defence. In other words, Draru was lying about what happened and how it happened. The problem again is the need not to jump to any conclusion before establishing all the facts. One could for instance point out that numerous pictures and evidence from neighbours suggest that the scene of the killing was not secured at all.
That morning hordes of curious civilian onlookers, a throng of military Police, civil Police and army officers were photographed milling around like cattle in a kraal. The problem here is evidence tampering. Could investigators, for example, conclusively rule out the possibility that the gun found in Kazini’s car had been inside the vehicle all along? Could investigators conclusively determine that someone did not walk away with important evidence before Police arrived? Could investigators determine whether there was a second gun? The point here is that this was a serious crime scene involving a very high-ranking officer, and a well known public figure. Yet the scene of his death quickly became a zoo with many people coming and going without obvious attempts to limit access and ensure that crucial evidence was not tampered with. The carnival-like atmosphere neither respected the rule of investigation nor the dignity that General Kazini deserved in death.
In essence, despite Draru’s alleged confession of the killing, investigators should continue to amass evidence, look at all possibilities and not rule out additional players in the general’s death.
To put it another way, had the shoe been on the other foot, and a high-ranking officer was accused of killing a civilian, there would have been many voices urging further investigation. The officer in such a case would not have been handcuffed and tossed onto the floor of the Police pick-up truck. He or she would have been treated humanely with respect. Draru deserves no less respect.
That is not to say she is guilty or innocent, just that she must be tried by a properly convened court of law using properly obtained evidence. Only then can justice be seen to be done in the untimely death of General Kazini.
Opiyo.oloya@sympatico.ca