July 4
INDIA:
Why Bombay High Court order on death penalty for repeat rape offenders is
unsatisfactory----The death penalty presents a unique kind of threat to
individual rights – and for this reason, the court should have engaged in
stricter scrutiny than it did
The Bombay High Court last month handed down a judgment upholding the
constitutional validity of Section 376E of the Indian Penal Code, which allows
for courts to impose the death penalty on repeat offenders in cases of rape. It
was argued by the petitioners that imposing the death penalty in non-homicidal
cases was a disproportionate sentence, and, therefore, violated the
constitutional guarantees against arbitrariness, and to the right to life. The
high court rejected this argument on 2 grounds, considering, 1st, the nature of
rape, and, 2nd, the deterrent function served by the punishment.
In doing so, however, the court missed an important opportunity to critically
interrogate the recent trend, where high-profile crimes, which lead to public
outrage, are immediately met with harsher legal punishments, and an extension
of the death penalty to an ever-proliferating set of new circumstances.
To understand why the court’s analysis was unsatisfactory, it is important to
understand why the death penalty is a unique form of punishment, and why that
matters. Our existing laws themselves recognise the singular character of the
death penalty. Statutorily, judgments imposing the death penalty are bound to
provide reasons for why that form of punishment has been chosen.
Doctrinally, the Supreme Court has made clear that the death penalty is only to
be imposed in the “rarest of rare cases”, where the alternative option is
“unquestionably foreclosed.” The reason for this is straightforward: alone
among all forms of punishment, the death penalty is final. No legal system can
ensure the absence of error; and with all other forms of punishment, mistakes
can, to some extent, be rectified, if they surface later. Jailed people can be
set free, and compensated for the time they have spent in prison. Dead people,
however, cannot be brought back to life. The death penalty, therefore, presumes
infallibility on part of our legal system that does not exist – in fact, the
number of lower court decisions that are reversed on appeal shows that it is
not even close to existing.
Therefore, when the possibility of error is non-trivial, and when, as studies
show, errors disproportionately impact the poorest and most vulnerable in
society, who lack access to good legal representation – any extension of the
death penalty should be treated with particular caution and circumspection. It
is here that the high court’s judgment comes up short. The court observed
repeatedly that it would defer to the legislature’s view on the proportionality
of sentencing, on the basis that the legislature reflected the “will of the
people.” This statement is true enough in its own right, but the function of
the courts is also to protect the rights of individuals.
For the reasons discussed above, the death penalty presents a unique kind of
threat to individual rights – and for this reason, the court should have
engaged in stricter scrutiny than it did. For example, the court noted that
there was a recent rise in rape cases, and that, therefore, the death penalty
was needed as a means of deterrence. However, far from providing evidence for
the causal link between enhancing the quantum of the sentence, and deterring
crimes, the court did not even ask if the State had considered this question,
or had analysed any evidence for the link. While the principle of deference
would require the court not to second guess the State’s opinion on this issue
beyond a point, it was certainly the court’s job to ensure that the State’s
opinion was based on adequate material and sound reasoning.
Similarly, in noting that rape was as grave a crime as murder – and, therefore,
the death penalty was appropriate – the court made a number of assertions about
the rape destroying a woman’s “soul”, that were not only unsupported by
evidence, but also played into disturbing gendered stereotypes about how rape
is not a crime against the body, but in some sense, a crime against “honour.”
In other words, the court seemed unable to distinguish between rape and other
crimes of serious physical assault (for which there is no death penalty)
without relying on controversial and criticised cultural assumptions.
The recent legislative trend of indiscriminately extending the death penalty as
a way of solving problems of crime needs urgent debate, especially in the
judicial forum. It is to be hoped the future judgments will accomplish what the
Bombay High Court could not.
(source: Gautam Bhatia is an advocate in the Supreme Court----Hindustan Times)
SRI LANKA:
Appeal Court hears Prisons Commissioner's stance on death penalty
The Prisons Commissioner General had taken steps to re-introduce the death
penalty since it was part of his duties and not as per his personal
undertaking, the Appeal Court heard today (Jul 4).
These remarks were made by Deputy Solicitor General Nerin Pulle before a
5-member judge bench that has been appointed to hear the fundamental rights
petition against the punishment.
Malinda Seneviratne, a journalist had petitioned against this decision by
citing that it is a violation of fundamental rights. However, the Attorney
General had filed preliminary objections stating that a President's decision
could not be challenged under the law.
In response, the petitioner's lawyer had clarified that his client wishes to
challenge the decision taken by the Prison's Commissioner General to
re-introduce judicial hangings and not the President's decision on the matter.
The petition is being heard before a 5-member judge bench comprising Justices
Yasantha Kodagoda, Arjuna Obeyesekere, Deepali Wijesundera, Janak de Silva, and
Achala Wengappuli.
The Prisons Commissioner General and the Welikada Prisons Superintendent have
been named as respondents to the petition.
During today's hearing, the judge bench announced that the petition would be
postponed until tomorrow.
(source: sundaytimes.lk)
************************
Why is Sri Lanka reinstating death penalty?----Sri Lankan President Maithripala
Sirisena recently announced the reinstatement of capital punishment amid severe
criticism from the international community. DW analyzes the reasons behind his
controversial decision.
Talking to local media last week, Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena
explained the motive behind the reinstatement of the death penalty in the South
Asian country. "I would like to announce today, on the International Day
Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, that I am completely committed to
carrying out capital punishment for drug-related offenses," he said.
A moratorium on the death penalty has been in force in the South Asian country
since 1976.
Samantha Kumara Kithalawaarachchi, the former head of the Presidential Task
Force on Drug Prevention (PTFDP) and the current advisor to Sri Lanka's Drug
Rehabilitation Authority, told DW that soon after coming to power in 2015,
Sirisena took measures to crack down on drug dealers in the country. He formed
an anti-drug task force and appointed officials to work on drug prevention, she
added.
According to Kithalawaarachchi, the anti-drug task force initiated tougher
legal prosecution and empowered police to deal with drug-related cases.
Additionally, thousands of committees were formed in schools and villages to
create awareness about drugs.
"It was these committees that demanded that the government hang hardcore drug
dealers. The president then announced his decisions to implement the death
penalty," Kithalawaarachchi said.
Media reports say that President Sirisena's resolve to punish drug dealers was
further strengthened when he met Rodrigo Duterte, his Philippine counterpart,
in January. Sirisena praised Duterte's controversial war on drugs, and on his
return to Colombo hailed Duterte as a leader who is determined to eradicate the
drug menace.
An electoral ploy?
But N Sathiya Moorthy from the Observer Research Foundation in the southern
Indian city of Chennai believes that the motivation to reinstate capital
punishment could be political.
He told DW that prior to the Easter Day terror attacks in April, Sirisena's
approval ratings were strong and his chances of reelection were high. He was
expected to get votes from both liberal and conservative sections of the
country, Moorthy said.
But the attacks dented his image, with Sri Lankans preferring national and
personal security over other things, the expert added.
But Ranga Jayasuriya from the Institute of National Security Studies Sri Lanka
(INSSSL) is of the view that the death penalty for drug dealers is unlikely to
increase Sirisena's popularity as most people are indifferent to it.
"I don't think it will get him reelected. But it is still premature to say what
impact will the decision have on Sri Lankan politics," the analyst said.
Jayasuriya also said that while the president's initial campaign against drugs
was successful, the government had not invested in a concerted drug
rehabilitation program. With his term ending this year, Sirisena is unlikely to
achieve anything more on this front, he added.
Opposition to the death penalty
Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is at odds with the president on
the death penalty issue. Earlier this week, he said that he would not support
the reinstatment of capital punishment.
Wickremesinghe's opposition to the death penalty has piled more pressure on the
president. Human rights organizations have filed several lawsuits against the
decision and have demanded Sri Lankan authorities to halt the executions.
Activists Laknath Jayakody and Wellage Sudesh Nandimal Silva believe that the
resumption of the death penalty would have far-reaching consequences and would
affect all death row prisoners, including murderers, rapists, kidnappers and
armed robbers.
Human rights organization Amnesty International (AI) says the death penalty
does not deter crime. "Countries who execute commonly cite the death penalty as
a way to deter people from committing crime. This claim has been repeatedly
discredited, and there is no evidence that the death penalty is any more
effective in reducing crime than life imprisonment," according to AI.
(source: Deutsche Welle)
MALAYSIA:
As Malaysia eyes death penalty repeal, Al Jazeera documentary explores dilemma
of capital punishment
In prisons across the country, more than 1,200 prisoners are on death row,
according to an upcoming Al Jazeera documentary.
For them, their families and civil society, news that the government will be
tabling a Bill to abolish the death penalty on 11 serious offences provides
fresh new hope and optimism.
However, the announcement has also sparked a fierce backlash among many
Malaysians, including families of crime victims, who insist capital punishment
is the only way to deliver justice.
Rita Soesilawati, whose mother Datuk Sosilawati Lawiya, disappeared on a
business trip in 2010 and was believed to have been killed and her body burned,
is one of those adamant that capital punishment should be imposed.
“If someone’s in my shoes, they’ll also ask an eye for an eye,” Rita said in
the upcoming Malaysia: On Death Row documentary, adding that she wants the
government to know how her family is suffering.
3 people have been sentenced to death for the death of her mother, the founder
of a Malaysian cosmetics company.
“I thought, ‘You should know what I feel, what the family feels. What happened
to us. How we grieve,” she said.
The documentary explores whether Malaysia is ready to abolish the death penalty
by speaking to people on either side of this life-and-death debate.
“This is such a highly charged issue that really gets to the heart of some of
the biggest issues facing society — justice, retribution, second chances,” says
filmmaker Lynn Lee.
“The people we spoke to, both those who have relatives on death row as well as
the families of murder victims, did not hold back in revealing the most
painful, tragic part of their lives. It was a deeply moving experience to hear
their stories, their heartache and despair.”
Human rights activists have been calling to an end to the death penalty,
describing it as a cruel, inhumane punishment akin to state-sanctioned killing.
Family of death row inmates, like Siti Zebedah, whose son Razali Ahmad, has
been on death row for 12 years are praying that the bill, expected to be tabled
next week, passes.
Razali was found guilty of trafficking 858 grams of cannabis in 2007 and
sentenced to death but Siti is still holding on to every hope.
“Let him come back...let him take me to the mosque. I want to hold him,” she
said in the emotional interview.
Malaysia: On Death Row premieres on Al Jazeera English at 6.30am on July 5,
2019, on 101 East, Al Jazeera’s award-winning weekly current affairs programme
focusing on a diverse range of stories across Asia and the Pacific.
After it airs, the documentary will be available on the Al Jazeera website and
YouTube.
(source: Malay Mail)
*****************************
Govt to table bill abolishing death penalty next week
The bill to abolish the mandatory death penalty on 11 serious offences is
expected to be tabled next week, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department
Liew Vui Keong said.
“Papers for Cabinet consideration have been finalised. We hope to table the
bill in Parliament sometime next week, ” he told reporters at the Parliament
lobby today.
He said changes proposed included removal of the word “mandatory” with regard
to the death sentence for 11 serious offences.
Once passed, he said, judges would have the discretion to impose 30 years
imprisonment or life imprisonment, instead of the death sentence.
9 offences fall under the Penal Code and two under the Firearms (Increased
Penalties) Act 1971.
However, Liew said the proposed changes in the bill did not include the death
sentence under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, which would be
looked at separately.
Asked if the new law would be retrospective, Liew said they were still
considering the matter.
He said this was because there was a moratorium on the death sentence being
imposed upon conviction, including the appeal process to the Pardons Board.
Liew added the move to abolish the mandatory death sentence was in line with
the Pakatan Harapan election manifesto.
(source: Free Malaysia Today)
VIETNAM:
4 Vietnamese drug traffickers get death sentence
4 Vietnamese people on Wednesday were sentenced to death and 2 others got jail
terms of 18 years and 20 years respectively for trafficking over 3.4 kg of
heroin.
The Ho Chi Minh City People's Court passed the sentences on the 6 defendants,
including t3 men and 3 women, who were members of a ring which transported
heroin from northern Nam Dinh province to southern Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
News Agency reported on Wednesday.
The ringleader, a 42-year-old man, received death sentence for the charge of
drug trafficking, and a jail term of 2 years for illegally possessing a
military weapon.
According to the Vietnamese law, those convicted of smuggling over 600 grams of
heroin or more than 2.5 kg of methamphetamine are punishable by death. Making
or trading 100 grams of heroin or 300 grams of other illegal drugs also faces
death penalty.
(source: xinhuanet.com)
**************************
Lao drug mules caught with meth, heroin near borders
5 Laotians were caught red-handed while bringing drugs into Vietnam on
Wednesday.
2 men Duong Kon Tum, 23, and Thao Mip, 22, were caught bringing 2 kilograms of
methamphetamine into the Central Highlands province of Kon Tum. They had the
drugs wrapped in a plastic bag on their motorbike.
After crossing the Vietnam-Lao-Cambodia border, they had traveled some 500
meters when they were stopped by soldiers and local police.
On the same day, border guards in the northern Son La Province at the Laos
border also arrested 2 women and a man from Laos for smuggling more than 2.5
kilograms of heroin and 30,000 ecstasy pills.
They are all in custody pending investigation.
Vietnam has become a key trafficking hub for narcotics from the Golden
Triangle, an intersection of Laos, Thailand and Myanmar, the world's second
largest drug producing area after the Golden Crescent in South Asia.
In Vietnam, those convicted of possessing or smuggling more than 600 grams of
heroin or cocaine or more than 2.5 kg of methamphetamine can receive the death
penalty. The production or sale of 100 grams of heroin or 300 grams of other
illegal narcotics is also punishable by death.
(source: vnexpress.net)
PHILIPPINES:
Senate expected to discuss proposal to reimpose death penalty in 18th
Congress----Zubiri says approval won’t be easy
The Senate is expected to debate on the controversial proposal to reimpose
death penalty in the Philippines during the 18th Congress.
But Senate Majority Leader Juan Miguel Zubiri said its approval won’t be as
easy, even as the proposal is gaining support from new and returning senators
especially those allied with the Duterte administration.
? “We all know that many of the senators that won in the platform of
President…are pro-death penalty senators. So the chances that it would be taken
up in this Senate are of course, a very big one,” Zubiri told Senate reporters
in an interview Wednesday afternoon.
Proposals to reinstate capital punishment for heinous crimes languished in
Senate, with at least nine bills shelved by the end of the 17th Congress.
As the 18th Congress opens this month, some of its proponents are reviving the
measure, hoping that it will hurdle the chamber this time.
Sen. Christopher “Bong” Go on Tuesday included in his priority bills the death
penalty for cases of illegal drugs and plunder.
On Wednesday, Sen. Manny Pacquiao filed his version against heinous crimes,
which also included illegal drugs.
Senate President Vicente Sotto III also reiterated his proposal to impose death
penalty for high-level drug trafficking, which he said, will “stand a better
chance” in Senate.
Zubiri, however, said several senators both from the majority and the minority
blocs are also opposed to death penalty, including him.
“As a Red Cross humanitarian, we feel that all life is sacred, even the life of
a criminal is sacred, and basic human right be given to these particular
individuals,” he said, noting that he has been a Red Cross member for 20 years.
Zubiri said he is also looking into studies and figures that will prove that
death penalty will be a deterrent to crimes.
Sen. Richard Gordon, who chairs the Senate Committee on Justice and Human
Rights which handled the death penalty proposal, is also known to be against
it.
Zubiri said Gordon is willing to relinquish anew his sponsorship of the measure
to those are “passionate about it”.
Last Congress, Gordon passed on the sponsorship of the bill to Pacquiao.
Despite his reservations, the Majority Leader assured that he will give the
proponents “all the opportunities and due process to be able to hear and
prioritize specific measures, whatever it is.”
Zubiri said he expects a “good and healthy discussion” on the issue when it is
calendared for plenary debates.
(source: Manila Bulletin)
CHINA:
Chinese father is sentenced to death for killing his baby's doctor in hospital
in a revenge attack after the girl died of an illness at 3 days old
--Man slashed paediatrician 13 times in the head with a machete in 2016 in
China
--He prevented others from saving the seriously wounded victim after the attack
--His newborn baby had died in the hospital due to an illness 9 month earlier
--The People's High Court of Shandong handed out the capital punishment today
A Chinese man has been sentenced to death for killing a doctor in the hospital
in a revenge attack after his 3-day-old daughter died of an illness.
Chen Jianli, a farmer from eastern China's Shandong Province, slashed
paediatrician Li Baohua in the head 13 times after breaking into the hospital
armed with a machete in October, 2016, a high court said.
The man, said to be 36 years old, also prevented Li's colleagues from saving
the 35-year-old medic as he lay in a pool of blood.
Chen was handed the capital punishment today by the People's High Court of
Shandong after appealing against a previous death sentence ruled by an
intermediate court last July.
The 2nd trial took place in May.
According to the court, Chen's daughter was born in the Hospital Affiliated to
Laiwu Steel Corporation on January 19, 2016.
The newborn started to have fever the next day and was transferred to the
hospital's paediatric department one day later. She died on the same day after
treatment failed.
Chen believed the hospital was responsible for his child's death and demanded
financial compensation, which the hospital refused to give, the court said.
He also prevented the hospital from carrying out an autopsy on the baby because
he said he hoped the girl to have a full corpse.
Chen carried out the crime at around 8am on October 3, 2016.
He bought a machete on the way to the hospital and located victim Li in the
doctor's restroom on the 4th floor.
He attacked Li with the weapon when Li was on the phone.
Li was pronounced dead at the scene.
The People's High Court of Shandong today condemned Chen's criminal behaviour,
calling it 'particularly cruel'.
The court said the case had caused particularly serious consequences and
extremely bad social influences.
Though Chen turned himself into the police, the gesture could not justify a
lighter sentence, the court added.
The ruling is being confirmed by China's Supreme People's Court.
(source: dailymail.co.uk)
NORTH KOREA:
Bootleg Liquor, Fake Drugs Punishable by Death in N.Korea
North Korea recently issued warnings against making bootleg liquor and drugs
and said such offenses are punishable by death.
The warning was issued by the state security agency on June 11, saying people
who aid bootleg liquor and drug makers and those who sell them face the death
penalty. The North also warned that relatives of offenders will be banished.
The warning accuses bootleggers of being "anti-party and anti-North Korean,"
and warned that offenders' money and equipment will be confiscated. It called
on supervisory agencies to "ruthlessly stamp out" such illegal practices.
One source said authorities issued the warning because problems associated with
bootleg liquor and drugs are taking on epidemic proportions.
(source: english.chosun.com)
JAPAN:
Japan Top Court Backs Indefinite Term for Killer of Girl
Japan's Supreme Court has upheld a high court ruling for an indefinite prison
term given to a man who killed a 6-year-old girl in Kobe, the capital of Hyogo
Prefecture, western Japan, in 2014.
The top court's First Petty Bench made the decision on Monday, turning down an
appeal by public prosecutors who demanded capital punishment for the man,
Yasuhiro Kimino, 52. The ruling is thus set to be finalized.
In March 2017, Osaka High Court overrode the death sentence issued in March
2016 against the man in a lay judge trial at Kobe District Court, and instead
gave him an indefinite prison term.
This is the 4th case in which the Supreme Court has upheld a high court ruling
that overturned a death sentence handed down in a citizen judge trial at a
district court.
The 5 justices at the First Petty Bench agreed that it cannot be said that a
death penalty is unavoidable for Kimino in light of prudence and fairness,
noting that the murder was not well planned and that Kimino had not committed a
similar crime before.
(source: nippon.com)
SUDAN:
A Child's Death Sentence Highlights the Fight Over Sudan's Legal System
In both the courtrooms and on the streets, activists are calling for Sudan's
legal system to uphold human rights.
On 27 August, 2013, two boys lost their lives. Abas Muhammad Noor and Abdallah
al-Ameen were playing football when a fight broke out between them. Abas, then
15 years old, stabbed and killed 17-year-old Abdallah. Some accounts state that
a bystander passed Abas the knife. Abdallah's life was taken from him that day
in an episode of tragic violence. Abas' life would soon also be forfeited at
the hands of the state.
Abas was arrested. Since there was no argument that he acted in self-defence or
there were other mitigating circumstances, he was charged with intentional
murder. Aged 15, he was tried as a minor under Sudan's 2010 Child Act. He was
sentenced on 7 January 2014 to three years of juvenile detention and five
additional years of adult detention.
Sadly, this was not the end of the story.
Sudan's Court of Appeal denied that Abas should be tried as a child and
overturned the ruling.
It asked the lower court to issue a new sentence. It decided on capital
punishment. A further appeal brought momentary relief for Abas, but a
subsequent review of this appeal reinstated the death sentence. Finally, the
Constitutional Court heard the case. On 14 May 2019, that court upheld the
sentence, condemning Abas to death by execution.
A contradictory legal system
The erratic back and forth in Abas' case arises from an old debate that
troubles the very foundations of the Sudanese state, including its legal
system. Today, as the revolution continues in Sudan, this debate has resurfaced
with vigour.
Sudan's current legal system has been shaped over 30 years of state repression.
During this period, former President Omar al-Bashir used and manipulated the
law to suppress dissent, surveil the population, and infiltrate people's
private lives.
The ease with which he was able to do this was no accident. Al-Bashir, who was
removed on 11 April 2019 following months of protests, inherited the system
from his predecessor. President Jaafar Nimeiry had established a highly
centralised and authoritarian legal system in response to growing opposition.
In 1983, he declared nation-wide Sharia law and rapidly constructed special
courts to implement a single state-sanctioned form of Islam. These came to be
known as the September Laws.
Perhaps most famously, this system allowed for the execution of opposition
figure Ustaz Mahmoud Mohammed Taha on charges of apostasy in 1985. The Islamic
Republican defended himself in court using arguments also based on
interpretations of Sharia, but his deviation from the accepted political line
was deemed a religious crime.
Under al-Bashir and Nimeiry, religious justification and centralised state
power have made the law a powerful instrument for the ruling regime. However,
Sudanese law is not completely co-opted by Islamist politics. Activists have
ensured that the country's constitution enshrines various human rights, and
Sudan is a signatory to several international legal conventions.
This has led to some contradictions at the heart of Sudan's legal system. The
2005 Interim Constitution includes both "Islamic Sharia" and international
human rights conventions as sources of law. Similarly, while the 1991 Criminal
Act says adulthood begins at visible puberty, in line with some interpretations
of Sharia, the 2010 Child Act puts the age of adulthood at 18.
It is these inconsistencies that account for Abas' differing treatment in the
courts. Some judges deem that he should be treated with the "status and
dignity" of a child, ruling out capital punishment. Others say he should be
sentenced as an adult and therefore be eligible for execution under the Islamic
concept of qisas or retribution. In 2007, Constitutional Court judges refused
capital punishment on a similar case. Yet lawyers worry that the judgment in
Abas' case, which argued that the Sharia must prevail, marks a turn away from
human rights.
Human rights vs. religion?
As Abas' lawyers push for a human rights-based conception of law in their
client's case, a similar struggle is occurring on the streets. One of the
rallying cries of the revolution is for the country's legal system to be
totally reformed. The Declaration of Freedom and Change, signed by opposition
groups on 1 January 2019, includes a demand for "an independent judicial
system... based on a constitution, protection of human rights and the rule of
law". Protesters argue that putting human rights rather than religion at the
centre of governance better serves the whole Sudanese nation, which is far more
diverse than the Arab- and Islam- centric ruling ideology has admitted, or
permitted.
Of course the question of rights vs. religion is not straightforward, and
debates within the protest movement show how widely Sudanese opinion varies on
the issue. For instance, the controversy over "Columbia", an area of the sit-in
protest in which drugs and alcohol were said to be available, showed both how
eager many people are to exercise freedom and how deeply contested the idea of
freedom beyond a single vision of Islam still is to others.
Critics of human rights also remind us that the international rights framework
comes with its own problems and its own worrisome ideologies and history.
Meanwhile, some Sudanese scholars and jurists - such as Abdul-Rauf Mallasy and
Saniya al-Rashid - argue that there is no need to choose between Islam and
human rights. The two systems can complement and even reinforce each other.
These are crucial debates which the Sudanese people are being prevented from
having on a national stage, as the Transitional Military Council continues to
use violence to block the formation of a democratic civilian government. The
work to dismantle this system continues on the streets and in the courtrooms.
As for Abas, now 21, his only remaining hope within the Sudanese legal system
lies in a still unscheduled constitutional review that could happen any day
now. After that, his team of lawyers will be forced to try the African
Commission of Human and Peoples' Rights. They are eager to raise awareness
about Abas' case - including through the hashtag #SaveAbas - in the hope of
pushing the court to change its decision on review.
(source: allafrica.com)
NIGERIA:
83-year-old Nigerian father, son and cousin released after 14 years on death
row for murder they didn’t commit
For 14 years, an innocent family of three including an 86-year-old man had to
wait in uncertainty and fear as they served a life sentence for a crime they
never committed.
Azubuije Ehirio, 86; his son, Ehiodo Azubuije, 33; and cousin, Ngozi Onyekwere
were sentenced to death in 2005 but the Nigeria Presidential Committee on
Prisons Reform and Decongestion found them no longer guilty of murder that was
levelled against them.
Another interesting detail is the revelation that, had this Committee not been
instituted, they would have languished in prison for life especially because
the family lacked the adequate financial muscle to appeal the sentence slapped
on them by an Abia State High Court.
The prisoners are to be released unconditionally following their incarceration
at the Enugu Maximum Prisons.
In his order, the Chairman of the Committee, Justice Ishaq Bello said after
reviewing the circumstances that led to their incarceration and subsequent
conviction, the committee was convinced that they needed to be set free.
When their case was called, the octogenarian Azubuije Ehirio told the court
that they were unjustly convicted by the court and could not appeal the case
because they did not have the money to do so.
Ehirio had had a dispute with a member of his community who had attempted to
take his ancestral land from him. Later, an armed robbery on the house of the
man he had the disputed with led to the killing of the man’s son.
It was this incident that prompted the man, who only gave his name as Emeka, to
accuse him and subsequently have him arrested.
“My son, who was living in Port Harcourt at the time, heard that I was arrested
by the police and came back. The man also called for the arrest of my son,
along with my cousin,” Ehirio stated.
Justice Bello, in reading his release judgment, told Ehirio: “You should be
grateful to God and remain of good behavior and never engage in any form of
dispute again.”
Also, the Committee gave each of the former inmates N10,000 as transport fare
to their community.
Although the law still exists, the death sentence is not often carried out in
Nigeria and other parts of Africa with rights groups like Amnesty International
still campaigning for the death penalty to be abolished.
However, Nigeria executed 7 people who were on death row between 2007 and 2017.
(source: face2faceafrica.com)
IRAN:
Iran Threatens to Accelerate Executions Amidst Tensions With the West
On Tuesday, it was reported that the Iranian judiciary was threatening to
execute dozens of prisoners on accusations of spying for the United States.
This comes roughly 2 weeks after one prisoner, Jamal Haji-Zavareh, was executed
on that same pretense, although authorities provided no apparent evidence to
substantiate the accusation, apart from a confession that was elicited under
torture. It is not clear whether authorities are prepared to provide clearer
justification for the potentially forthcoming executions, and the Islamic
Republic has a long history of detaining and giving harsh sentences to dual
nationals and persons with connections to the West.
The newly expanded threat of executions may have been motivated in whole or in
part by escalating tensions between the US and Iran, following the removal of
sanctions waivers and the addition of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to
the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations. Iran has
already responded to that situation by targeting commercial tankers with limpet
mines, shooting down a US drone near the Strait of Hormuz, and accelerating
support for regional attacks by proxy groups like Yemen’s Houthi rebels.
While these actions serve to project an image of foreign strength, the
prospective hangings could function as a warning against domestic expressions
of sympathy with the American position. Tehran may have good reason to expect
such expressions, given that some of the past year’s large-scale
anti-government protests coincided with the re-imposition of US sanctions that
had previously been suspended under the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. The judiciary’s
threat also coincides with Iran’s first major violation of that deal, as the
regime attempts to put pressure on the European Union to provide additional
financial incentives for returning to compliance.
The threat of mass executions is unlikely to help Iran’s case. Even though the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is narrowly focused on Iran’s nuclear
program, the nations of Europe have variously expressed concern about Iran’s
regional activities, ballistic missile development, and other malign
activities, thereby putting extra strain on an agreement that the Iranian
regime appeared reluctant to adopt in the first place.
At the same time, at least one of the European signatories to that deal is
engaged in efforts to secure the release of one of its citizens from Iranian
custody. This in turn focuses further attention upon the plight of Iranian
political prisoners and on Iran’s human rights record more generally. And while
the Iranian-British woman in question, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, is not under
any apparent threat of execution, it is not a foregone conclusion that she will
survive her 10-year term of imprisonment.
This is largely because of growing concerns over her health, which have been
exacerbated by a recent hunger strike that she undertook along with her
husband, Richard Ratcliffe, who continues to advocate for her release from
their home in the United Kingdom. To a great extent, the protest was motivated
by Iranian authorities’ prior refusal to allow Nazanin access to medical
treatment for preexisting ailments. Such denial have been used as a form of
extrajudicial punishment for a number of political prisoners, sometimes
resulting in permanent health effects or even death.
Recently, human rights groups have expressed extreme concern about Arash
Sadeghi, an imprisoned civil activist who has been diagnosed with cancer and is
now suffering from a post-operative infection as a result of authorities
returning him to his cell soon after the procedure, despite doctors’ warnings
about the risk. Previously, his health problems were made worse by a hunger
strike that went largely ignored by prison officials for a period of 70 days in
2016. The demonstration did, however, garner the attention of Iran’s domestic
activist community, leading to solidarity demonstrations and additional
pressure on the judiciary.
The partial success of that demonstration underscores the contempt with which
the judiciary and prison staff tend to view activism within the prison
population. This too can result in extrajudicial punishment, sometimes with
fatal consequences. In recent weeks, the judiciary has come under fire for the
murder of Alireza Shir-Mohammad-Ali, a political prisoner who had carried out a
hunger strike and other demonstration in protest over prison conditions and the
authorities’ failure to adhere to laws concerning the separation of prisoners
according to the nature of their crimes.
Shir-Mohammad-Ali was killed at the hands of 2 hardened criminals who were
being held in close proximity to him, and it has been widely alleged that
prison officials either turned a blind eye to the attack or actively
incentivized the perpetrators. Whatever the case may be, these and other
apparent instances of death by extrajudicial punishment are not counted among
the Iranian prisoners who are executed outright each year. That number declined
last year following changes to the law concerning sentencing of non-violent
drug offenders, but Iran nonetheless retained its status as the nation with the
world’s highest rate of executions per capita.
Furthermore, the number of executions increased significantly in the 1st half
of this year, compared to the same period last year. Between January and June
of 2018, at least 98 people had been put to death, and between January and June
of 2019 the figure was 110. Among the latter group, only 37 of the executions
were formally announced, and this familiar secrecy underscores the fact that
the total number could still rise as human rights groups investigate further
reports of hangings.
In any event, if the judiciary follows through on its threat to carry out
dozens of additional executions based on vague accusations of spying, the
overall rate is almost certain to increase once again in the latter half of the
year. At the same time, the circumstances surrounding those executions would
likely shine additional light upon Tehran’s tendency to use both formal and
informal capital punishment for the purpose of political intimidation.
(source: irannewsupdate.com)
_______________________________________________
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
