THE OTHER SIDE OF LAW
During his time, Benjamin Franklin, the classic overachiever and one of America’s founding fathers was known for his strong views about the importance of separating religion from politics or call it the state.
Indeed he went ahead to state ; “when a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, it's a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”
However Franklin’s philosophy seized to apply when religion was commercialized and became a multi million dollar industry. The same philosophy became irrelevant once criminal activity started to manifest in the church.
In American there is what now they call pastor -entrepreneurship. Churches are now fully-fledged business entities complete with human resource management departments. They employ business planners , skilled labour to do all sorts of work including auditing of accounts. We are talking about big money here.
With an estimated 20,000 Pentecostal churches in Uganda its difficult to determine the extent of religious investments and business operations. There is no readily available data about the properties of these churches that are exempted from Tax.
The Uganda Revenue Authority Act exempts the Pentecostal churches from paying tax because there are erroneously (emphasis mine) considered to be Non Government Organisations NGOs involved in voluntary work and charity.
Far from the truth. The Pentecostal movement in cohort with its American partners has turned into a huge commercial enterprise. The case for taxing religious property today is stronger than ever. The financial power of religious organizations has grown astronomically.
The economic growth of religious organizations today is limited only by the financial acumen and commercial skills of its managers (read pastors).Religion, in other words, has become big business.
With tax exemptions, the churches have developed funds that multiply through investments which unfortunately because of the sole ownership nature of their promoters don’t bear any benefit to the community.
The reasoning that religious tax exemptions are essential because churches relieve government of the burden of providing needed social services does not apply in the Ugandan context. The majority of the born again churches have no demonstrable benefit for society let alone their followers. It’s a case of milking a cow without feeding it.
And because there is no law to regulate these churches its difficult even to determine which of these groups are legitimately religious and which are not. To continue with the policy of religious tax exemptions, the government must either: undertake the "Big Brother" task of investigating all groups to determine which are "sincerely" religious.
There is currently a proliferation of phony churches as a tax dodge
Clearly, a tax levied against only religious organizations would not protect religious freedom as provided for in our constitution.. But if churches are subjected to the same taxes as all other groups such as newspapers (who also enjoy the constitutional freedom of press and speech) it is obvious that there could be no infringement of our constitution.
In fact, in a 1936 U.S. Supreme Court case (Grosjean v. American Press Co.), the Court stated that newspapers are not immune from any of the ordinary forms of taxation, despite the First Amendment requirement that freedom of the press not be infringed upon.
There is no good reason why wealthy churches and a certain amount of property of their leaders (pastors) should be exempted from taxation, while every poor widow in the land, struggling to feed, cloth, and educate a family of children, must be taxed on the narrow lot and humble home.
Adherents of particular faiths and individual churches frequently take strong positions on public issues including advocacy of legal or constitutional positions. In the last presidential elections these same churches took sides to support particular political parties. Of course, churches as much as secular bodies and private citizens have that right.
The legislative purpose of a property tax is to afford government the much needed revenues to provide social services especially to the less privileged. Churches and their leaders should be taxed just like any other business enterprises or employee/employer.
Our tax laws should reflect equity.
Next week: Sodomy victims can recover damages from their tormentors.
The writer is a Journalist and Advocate
msserwanga@gmail.com
msserwanga.blogspot.com
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Accesories to crime in ‘church’
Accesories to crime in ‘church’
July 17, 2007
The Pentecostal movement has lately been embroiled in scandals bringing to the fore the exploitative tendencies in the emerging evangelical churches.
The harrowing tales of Mr. Julius Lukyamuzi alias Kitaka, who is now suffering from damaged anal anatomy and goes around padded, following repeated homosexual assault epitomises the criminal character of your modern day miracle preachers.
These self proclaimed men/women of God have learned their conning trade very well; they preach the exploitative, coercive gospel of ‘giving back to God’ woven around the imaginary powers to perform miracles that excites their gullible audiences. They selfishly enrich themselves while impoverishing hundred of thousands of their followers.
They lure the newcomers into a false sense of goodness and prosperity without necessarily working hard for it. Their preaching is quite similar to that of the Jihad gangsters who impose an extreme interpretation to Islamic teachings.
There are now an estimated 20,000 Pentecostal churches in Uganda which are largely un-regulated. Practically, anyone, anywhere, can set up a church and acquire the ‘Godly’ title of pastor. Before you know it all a pastor who was as poor as a church mouse the
previous day – is now a swaggering millionaire(ss). Their riches (the pastors’) come that cheap.
You do not have to go to school. You do not have to work hard. Just cram a few verses from the Bible, set up a church, crusade in the neighbourhood for the numbers games and you will be a millionaire in a matter of days. There is no legal regime to set the parameters for one to become a pastor or for one to start a church anywhere.
This can perhaps explain why pastors are now riding on the constitutional right to freedom of worship to engage in criminal activity. And the worrying rise in criminality and the dilemma in the church can only cement a growing sense of certainty that things will only get worse.
You have heard about pastors who have forced HIV patients to stop taking ARVs and effectively left them for the dead. Others coerce the unsuspecting followers to surrender personal belongs in exchange for imaginary “blessings”. There are those who have made the lives of married couples hell by poaching on people’s wives and husbands, a practice which hitherto was the preserve of your typical witch doctor.
Sex in the church (condoms are found in some churches) after overnight ‘prayers’, the wired pastors and now sodomy! This is the nightmare obtaining in the Pentecostal movement.
It is heard to understand how an elected government can allow such collective conning of the people to go on for so long without subjecting the culprits to the strict terms of the law.
Why has it taken the police all this long to investigate and prosecute Lukyamuzi’s tormentors? Why should the police wait for those who are wronged to run to the media before they follow up cases?
In the Lukyamuzi sodomy case there are a number of pastors who are named as having tried to cover-up. Under our criminal law any person who helps an offender to escape punishment becomes an accessory to the offence and can suffer imprisonment for three years. But has the police interrogated all the named suspects implicated in the Lukyamuzi sodomy matter.
This is what they call selective justice and it should not be allowed to take root in our society. While the traditional churches are governed under the Trustees Incorporation Act, which imposes a strict regime of accountability, just a handful of pastors have set up trusts to manage the property and affairs of their respective churches in trust for their congregations.
The law provides that the trustees of public associations or organiaations such as churches are responsible for the property that comes into their hands and are answerable and accountable for their own acts, receipts, neglects and defaults. A trustee must never favour one beneficiary at the expense of others. It is his duty to act impartially and to hold the scales evenly between all.
But this is not the case with many of the Pentecostal churches that are a one-man show business. There is no accountability at all. And because such churches are not registered under any law it becomes very difficult to sue them for any civil breaches. In other words they are not recognised as legal entities. Government should enact a law to regulate Pentecostal churches.
NEXT WEEK: The relationship between the state and the church and why churches should pay tax.
The writer is a Journalist/Advocate
msserwanga@gmail.com
msserwanga.blogspot.com
0772 43 46 77
July 17, 2007
The Pentecostal movement has lately been embroiled in scandals bringing to the fore the exploitative tendencies in the emerging evangelical churches.
The harrowing tales of Mr. Julius Lukyamuzi alias Kitaka, who is now suffering from damaged anal anatomy and goes around padded, following repeated homosexual assault epitomises the criminal character of your modern day miracle preachers.
These self proclaimed men/women of God have learned their conning trade very well; they preach the exploitative, coercive gospel of ‘giving back to God’ woven around the imaginary powers to perform miracles that excites their gullible audiences. They selfishly enrich themselves while impoverishing hundred of thousands of their followers.
They lure the newcomers into a false sense of goodness and prosperity without necessarily working hard for it. Their preaching is quite similar to that of the Jihad gangsters who impose an extreme interpretation to Islamic teachings.
There are now an estimated 20,000 Pentecostal churches in Uganda which are largely un-regulated. Practically, anyone, anywhere, can set up a church and acquire the ‘Godly’ title of pastor. Before you know it all a pastor who was as poor as a church mouse the
previous day – is now a swaggering millionaire(ss). Their riches (the pastors’) come that cheap.
You do not have to go to school. You do not have to work hard. Just cram a few verses from the Bible, set up a church, crusade in the neighbourhood for the numbers games and you will be a millionaire in a matter of days. There is no legal regime to set the parameters for one to become a pastor or for one to start a church anywhere.
This can perhaps explain why pastors are now riding on the constitutional right to freedom of worship to engage in criminal activity. And the worrying rise in criminality and the dilemma in the church can only cement a growing sense of certainty that things will only get worse.
You have heard about pastors who have forced HIV patients to stop taking ARVs and effectively left them for the dead. Others coerce the unsuspecting followers to surrender personal belongs in exchange for imaginary “blessings”. There are those who have made the lives of married couples hell by poaching on people’s wives and husbands, a practice which hitherto was the preserve of your typical witch doctor.
Sex in the church (condoms are found in some churches) after overnight ‘prayers’, the wired pastors and now sodomy! This is the nightmare obtaining in the Pentecostal movement.
It is heard to understand how an elected government can allow such collective conning of the people to go on for so long without subjecting the culprits to the strict terms of the law.
Why has it taken the police all this long to investigate and prosecute Lukyamuzi’s tormentors? Why should the police wait for those who are wronged to run to the media before they follow up cases?
In the Lukyamuzi sodomy case there are a number of pastors who are named as having tried to cover-up. Under our criminal law any person who helps an offender to escape punishment becomes an accessory to the offence and can suffer imprisonment for three years. But has the police interrogated all the named suspects implicated in the Lukyamuzi sodomy matter.
This is what they call selective justice and it should not be allowed to take root in our society. While the traditional churches are governed under the Trustees Incorporation Act, which imposes a strict regime of accountability, just a handful of pastors have set up trusts to manage the property and affairs of their respective churches in trust for their congregations.
The law provides that the trustees of public associations or organiaations such as churches are responsible for the property that comes into their hands and are answerable and accountable for their own acts, receipts, neglects and defaults. A trustee must never favour one beneficiary at the expense of others. It is his duty to act impartially and to hold the scales evenly between all.
But this is not the case with many of the Pentecostal churches that are a one-man show business. There is no accountability at all. And because such churches are not registered under any law it becomes very difficult to sue them for any civil breaches. In other words they are not recognised as legal entities. Government should enact a law to regulate Pentecostal churches.
NEXT WEEK: The relationship between the state and the church and why churches should pay tax.
The writer is a Journalist/Advocate
msserwanga@gmail.com
msserwanga.blogspot.com
0772 43 46 77
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Evict the unruly herd from parks
Evict the unruly herd from parks
July 10, 2007
Our Kenyan neighbours have once again led by example, this time round by successfully mounting a spirited fight for the ban in ivory trade to protect the country’s tourism industry.
Wildlife conservation is the backbone of Kenya’s vibrant tourism industry whose flagship species, the elephants, were being targeted by poachers. The Kenya government is smart and knows the hand that feeds its economy.
It could not allow poachers who cash-in on the lucrative trade in ivory to have their way. The Kenya government engaged delegates from 171 member countries of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild flora and fauna (Cites) and managed to win a nine-year ban in ivory trade. This was at the 14th conference of parties on the African elephant and ivory trade that sat in The Hague, Netherlands last month.
Unfortunately, back home in Uganda all is not rosy for our ecotourism with a growing population of marauding pastoralists encroaching on the country’s national parks which are the natural habitats of wildlife.
Queen Elizabeth National park, one of the country’s largest national parks, has come under attack from Basongora encroachers putting the lives of hundreds of wildlife species in real danger.
The herdsmen who are believed to be armed with guns have now declared themselves “rebels” and have vowed not to leave. They illegally occupy the areas of Nyabubare, Rwenjubu, Kanyampara, Muhokya, Hamukungu, Kamulikwizi and Kyondo in the vast national park.
And yet the Queen Elizabeth is not the only wildlife conservation area that is threatened by human settlement. Katonga, Semilki, Kidepo and Kaboya game reserves are all suffering from some level of human encroachment. That, in turn, has touched off a mass exodus of wild animals to safer but more distant places.
Already, a pride of 10 lions (which is a whole family) of these great wild beasts, has been wiped out in Queen Elizabeth National Park. Mr Moses Mapesa, the Executive Director of Uganda Wildlife Authority (Uwa), says encroachers apply poison to kill animals in their illegal quest to settle deep in the park. UWA has discovered various remains of lions including teeth, skin and claws.
The reported outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in the park has not helped matters either. A joint team consisting of technical officers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries and Uwa has noted the catastrophic nature of the disease to wildlife, livestock and the tourism industry especially due to the fact that whilst vaccination is applicable in cattle, the only practical way to prevent infection in the wildlife is to separate wildlife from livestock.
The criminal activities taking place in Queen Elizabeth National Park sit oddly on the fact that one in every 10 tourists coming to Uganda would like to see a lion.
So what has caused this burst of volatility? A ruthless group of people who have no regard for the country’s wildlife conservation efforts are flouting the law with impunity.
Wherever they come from, the Basongora pastoralists and any other nomadic groupings should not be allowed to encroach on a vital national resource and engage in the criminal activity of killing protected wildlife. A protected national animal park is not their place to be.
The Uganda Wildlife Act , is the law which serves to promote sustainable management of wildlife. The law provides that the ownership of every wild animal and wild plant existing in its wild habitat in Uganda is vested in the government on behalf of and for the benefit of the people of Uganda.
The law also serves to protect and preserve populations of rare, endemic and endangered species of wild life and planst which among others include lions and elephants. The law does not allow the destruction or encroachment of a wildlife sanctuary like a national park by human settlements.
It is the provision of the law that any person who enters a wildlife protected area without authority commits an offence and should be arrested and prosecuted. Uwa, which is mandated to enforce the law to protect the country’s wildlife resources should not allow the obstinate encroachment of our natural heritage and tourism jewel to continue unabated.
The number of mammals, birds and amphibians in Queen Elizabeth National Park is dwindling due to habitat loss and this must stop.
Next week: Pastors should not abuse the constitutional right to freedom of worship.
The writer is a Journalist and Advocate
msserwanga@gmail.co.ug
msserwanga.blogspot.com
0772 43 46 77.
July 10, 2007
Our Kenyan neighbours have once again led by example, this time round by successfully mounting a spirited fight for the ban in ivory trade to protect the country’s tourism industry.
Wildlife conservation is the backbone of Kenya’s vibrant tourism industry whose flagship species, the elephants, were being targeted by poachers. The Kenya government is smart and knows the hand that feeds its economy.
It could not allow poachers who cash-in on the lucrative trade in ivory to have their way. The Kenya government engaged delegates from 171 member countries of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild flora and fauna (Cites) and managed to win a nine-year ban in ivory trade. This was at the 14th conference of parties on the African elephant and ivory trade that sat in The Hague, Netherlands last month.
Unfortunately, back home in Uganda all is not rosy for our ecotourism with a growing population of marauding pastoralists encroaching on the country’s national parks which are the natural habitats of wildlife.
Queen Elizabeth National park, one of the country’s largest national parks, has come under attack from Basongora encroachers putting the lives of hundreds of wildlife species in real danger.
The herdsmen who are believed to be armed with guns have now declared themselves “rebels” and have vowed not to leave. They illegally occupy the areas of Nyabubare, Rwenjubu, Kanyampara, Muhokya, Hamukungu, Kamulikwizi and Kyondo in the vast national park.
And yet the Queen Elizabeth is not the only wildlife conservation area that is threatened by human settlement. Katonga, Semilki, Kidepo and Kaboya game reserves are all suffering from some level of human encroachment. That, in turn, has touched off a mass exodus of wild animals to safer but more distant places.
Already, a pride of 10 lions (which is a whole family) of these great wild beasts, has been wiped out in Queen Elizabeth National Park. Mr Moses Mapesa, the Executive Director of Uganda Wildlife Authority (Uwa), says encroachers apply poison to kill animals in their illegal quest to settle deep in the park. UWA has discovered various remains of lions including teeth, skin and claws.
The reported outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in the park has not helped matters either. A joint team consisting of technical officers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries and Uwa has noted the catastrophic nature of the disease to wildlife, livestock and the tourism industry especially due to the fact that whilst vaccination is applicable in cattle, the only practical way to prevent infection in the wildlife is to separate wildlife from livestock.
The criminal activities taking place in Queen Elizabeth National Park sit oddly on the fact that one in every 10 tourists coming to Uganda would like to see a lion.
So what has caused this burst of volatility? A ruthless group of people who have no regard for the country’s wildlife conservation efforts are flouting the law with impunity.
Wherever they come from, the Basongora pastoralists and any other nomadic groupings should not be allowed to encroach on a vital national resource and engage in the criminal activity of killing protected wildlife. A protected national animal park is not their place to be.
The Uganda Wildlife Act , is the law which serves to promote sustainable management of wildlife. The law provides that the ownership of every wild animal and wild plant existing in its wild habitat in Uganda is vested in the government on behalf of and for the benefit of the people of Uganda.
The law also serves to protect and preserve populations of rare, endemic and endangered species of wild life and planst which among others include lions and elephants. The law does not allow the destruction or encroachment of a wildlife sanctuary like a national park by human settlements.
It is the provision of the law that any person who enters a wildlife protected area without authority commits an offence and should be arrested and prosecuted. Uwa, which is mandated to enforce the law to protect the country’s wildlife resources should not allow the obstinate encroachment of our natural heritage and tourism jewel to continue unabated.
The number of mammals, birds and amphibians in Queen Elizabeth National Park is dwindling due to habitat loss and this must stop.
Next week: Pastors should not abuse the constitutional right to freedom of worship.
The writer is a Journalist and Advocate
msserwanga@gmail.co.ug
msserwanga.blogspot.com
0772 43 46 77.
Friday, July 6, 2007
DEBATE ON THE DEATH PENALTY
THE OTHER SIDE OF LAW
The right to life forms the bedrock of the concept of human rights, which is universally acclaimed as an inalienable and inherent right to all. However different legal regimes provide for and protect the right to life differently. In some jurisdictions such as South Africa the right to life is unqualified while in Uganda under our national constitution, its qualified. This means that the right to life under Uganda
' s legal regime is alienable (it can be taken away legally) if its in execution of a sentence passed in a fair trial by a court of competent jurisdiction.
As it has been pointed out previously in this column, our penal law imposes mandatory death sentences on what are refered to as capital offences, which include murder, treason and robbery with a deadly weapon. Those against the death penalty argue that the various laws of Uganda that prescribe mandatory sentences of death upon conviction are inconsistent with or in contravention of the constitution. The Constitutional Court in the case of Kigula earlier referred to in this column again comprehensively dealt with this contentious issue. It was argued before court that the mandatory death sentence treats a convict differently from that imposed under a non-mandatory section and that such treatment contravens of Article 21 of the constitution, which provides for equality before and under the law.
The other issue is whether the convict should exercise his right of appeal against the death sentence and not the conviction and that the appellate courts should have discretion to confirm or reverse the death penalty upon hearing mitigating factors. In this regard its argued that the convict is not given opportunity to show cause why the death sentence is not the appropriate sentence in their individual cases.
Then there is also the issue of separation of powers : the functions of the legislature and the judiciary. Those against the death penalty argue that the principle of separation of power allocates to the legislature the duty to define offences and prescribe possible sentences for each offence. For them the determination of the exact appropriate sentence and imposition is the duty of the judiciary under article 126(1) of constitution and therefore parliament should not have the power to impose mandatory sentences like the death penalty. Its argued that a statute which prescribes a mandatory sentence is an intrusion into the realm of the judiciary and as such violates the principle of separation of power.
It should be noted that the mandatory death sentence is acceptable and demonstrably justified in Uganda within the context of articles 21(4)( c) and 43 because the majority of Ugandans approve of it. The majority of Ugandans still view the death sentence as a fair penalty for heinous crimes. They accept it as a way of demonstrating their disapproval of such crimes.
However , in its pronoucement the Constitutional court held that the various provisions of the laws of Uganda which prescribe mandatory death sentence are unconstitutional. This means, that although it '> s the same court that upheld the death penalty as being constitutional, it as of the view that an accused person should be allowed an opportunity to plead mitigating factors for court to pass a fair sentence.
And this brings to another area of contention and that ' s the method to employed for carrying out the death sentence. Again in the Kigula case, the petitioners argued that death by hanging was cruely , inhuman and therefore unconstitutional . The petituioners also cited the case Ben Ogwang who has stayed on the death row for 20 years since his conviction and sentence.
They further argued that such convicts suffer from death row syndrome. That executions are carried out early morning and within the hearing of the other condemned inmates.A question is then posed : do condemned prisoners have any fundamental rights and freedoms left to be protected before they are executed. The Constitutional Court ruled in the affirmative.
Court held that prisoners did not lose all their constitutional rights upon conviction, only those rights inevitably removed from them by law either expressly or by implication. According to the court a prisoner who was sentenced to death still enjoyed the protection of Article 24 of the constitution and therefore cannot be subjected to cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment. The > ' death row syndrome ' the mental and physical state of the condemned prisoners who remain on the death row for a long periods, according to the court, amounts to cruel and inhuman treatment and thus unconstitutional.
Court stated that the spirit of our constitution is to the effect that whatever is to be done under it affecting the fundamental rights and freedoms must be done without unreasonable delay.Court observed that a delay beyond three years after a condemned prisoner> '> s sentence has been confirmed by the highest appellate court would tend towards inordinate (unreasonable delay.)
Following this land mark decision its clear that the death penalty is constitutional and the appropriate sentence for murderers. Again to avoid any issues of unfairness and reservability of the death penalty, the constitutional court has allowed courts to hear mitigating factors before passing the death sentence . This is a welcome development although this decision is yet to be tested in our courts. And those sentenced to death would not have any legal justification to protest the penalty. A convicted murderer should face death. The writer is a journalist and advocate.>>msserwanga@gmail.co.ug
The right to life forms the bedrock of the concept of human rights, which is universally acclaimed as an inalienable and inherent right to all. However different legal regimes provide for and protect the right to life differently. In some jurisdictions such as South Africa the right to life is unqualified while in Uganda under our national constitution, its qualified. This means that the right to life under Uganda
' s legal regime is alienable (it can be taken away legally) if its in execution of a sentence passed in a fair trial by a court of competent jurisdiction.
As it has been pointed out previously in this column, our penal law imposes mandatory death sentences on what are refered to as capital offences, which include murder, treason and robbery with a deadly weapon. Those against the death penalty argue that the various laws of Uganda that prescribe mandatory sentences of death upon conviction are inconsistent with or in contravention of the constitution. The Constitutional Court in the case of Kigula earlier referred to in this column again comprehensively dealt with this contentious issue. It was argued before court that the mandatory death sentence treats a convict differently from that imposed under a non-mandatory section and that such treatment contravens of Article 21 of the constitution, which provides for equality before and under the law.
The other issue is whether the convict should exercise his right of appeal against the death sentence and not the conviction and that the appellate courts should have discretion to confirm or reverse the death penalty upon hearing mitigating factors. In this regard its argued that the convict is not given opportunity to show cause why the death sentence is not the appropriate sentence in their individual cases.
Then there is also the issue of separation of powers : the functions of the legislature and the judiciary. Those against the death penalty argue that the principle of separation of power allocates to the legislature the duty to define offences and prescribe possible sentences for each offence. For them the determination of the exact appropriate sentence and imposition is the duty of the judiciary under article 126(1) of constitution and therefore parliament should not have the power to impose mandatory sentences like the death penalty. Its argued that a statute which prescribes a mandatory sentence is an intrusion into the realm of the judiciary and as such violates the principle of separation of power.
It should be noted that the mandatory death sentence is acceptable and demonstrably justified in Uganda within the context of articles 21(4)( c) and 43 because the majority of Ugandans approve of it. The majority of Ugandans still view the death sentence as a fair penalty for heinous crimes. They accept it as a way of demonstrating their disapproval of such crimes.
However , in its pronoucement the Constitutional court held that the various provisions of the laws of Uganda which prescribe mandatory death sentence are unconstitutional. This means, that although it '> s the same court that upheld the death penalty as being constitutional, it as of the view that an accused person should be allowed an opportunity to plead mitigating factors for court to pass a fair sentence.
And this brings to another area of contention and that ' s the method to employed for carrying out the death sentence. Again in the Kigula case, the petitioners argued that death by hanging was cruely , inhuman and therefore unconstitutional . The petituioners also cited the case Ben Ogwang who has stayed on the death row for 20 years since his conviction and sentence.
They further argued that such convicts suffer from death row syndrome. That executions are carried out early morning and within the hearing of the other condemned inmates.A question is then posed : do condemned prisoners have any fundamental rights and freedoms left to be protected before they are executed. The Constitutional Court ruled in the affirmative.
Court held that prisoners did not lose all their constitutional rights upon conviction, only those rights inevitably removed from them by law either expressly or by implication. According to the court a prisoner who was sentenced to death still enjoyed the protection of Article 24 of the constitution and therefore cannot be subjected to cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment. The > ' death row syndrome ' the mental and physical state of the condemned prisoners who remain on the death row for a long periods, according to the court, amounts to cruel and inhuman treatment and thus unconstitutional.
Court stated that the spirit of our constitution is to the effect that whatever is to be done under it affecting the fundamental rights and freedoms must be done without unreasonable delay.Court observed that a delay beyond three years after a condemned prisoner> '> s sentence has been confirmed by the highest appellate court would tend towards inordinate (unreasonable delay.)
Following this land mark decision its clear that the death penalty is constitutional and the appropriate sentence for murderers. Again to avoid any issues of unfairness and reservability of the death penalty, the constitutional court has allowed courts to hear mitigating factors before passing the death sentence . This is a welcome development although this decision is yet to be tested in our courts. And those sentenced to death would not have any legal justification to protest the penalty. A convicted murderer should face death. The writer is a journalist and advocate.>>msserwanga@gmail.co.ug
OTHER SIDE OF LAW>>
The Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT) imposed the death sentence on Saddam Hussein and two of his seven co-accused early this month .The tempestuous former Iraqi dictator was handed the death penalty for killing 148 people from al-Dujail village in 1982.
However, Saddam ' s conviction and subsequent conviction has divided the world, The debate is on about the touchy issue of the appropriateness of the death penalty as an effective tool to deter capital offenses including murder. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (or Mam-Uncle-jala as he is sometimes referred) is himself opposed to the death penalty.
Talabani has intimated that he wont exercise his constitutional duty as leader of the Iraqi people to sign Saddam' s death warrant once the sentence is upheld by the country ' s appellate court. Talabani says he will delegate that duty to his deputies and that he will not be in Iraq when the execution is carried out. It is quite ironical considering the fact that Talabani is one of the longest lasting figures in Iraqi Kurdish politics stood up against Saddam '> s dictatorial policies and mass murder, and led a three-decade armed struggle in which many innocent Iraqis lost lives.
The same applies to Britain ' s Tony Blair who is also opposed to the death penalty but at the same time deploys British troops for a war without solid/hard evidence to justify his actions. As a result on overage 100 lives of innocent Iraqis are lost everyday.
> Amnesty International (AI) an organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of human rights has for decades worked for an end to executions and the abolition of the death penalty.
Each year since 1997 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has passed a resolution calling on countries that have not abolished the death penalty to establish a moratorium (suspension) on executions. The latest resolution, adopted in April 2005, was co-sponsored by 81 UN member states, the highest number ever. When AI convened an International Conference on the Death Penalty in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1977, just 16 countries had abolished capital punishment for all crimes.
Those against the death penalty argue that its dissuasive power has never been demonstrated and it is a punishment that is contrary to the idea of human dignity and to the right to life. For them, the death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments. But then one is left to wonder what other fitting punishment can be handed out to a person who doesn'>t value life. For a murderer who kills at will- with out any remorse. For a person who illegal takes away the life of another innocent human being.
In the case of Saddam one of the world' s best known and most hated murderers after the Nazi German'> s Hitler and Italy Benito Mussolini his tactic of imposing his authority by terror went beyond the occasional arrest and execution of opponents.
In attempts to suppress the Kurds, for example, he systematically used chemical weapons. And in putting down a rebellion of Shi\'ia in the south he razed towns to the ground and drained marshland. He didn' t care whom he killed whether they were children or pregnant women.
Amnesty International (AI) an organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of human rights has for decades worked for an end to executions and the abolition of the death penalty.>> Each year since 1997 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has passed a resolution calling on countries that have not abolished the death penalty to establish a moratorium (suspension) on executions. The latest resolution, adopted in April 2005, was co-sponsored by 81 UN member states, the highest number ever. When AI convened an International Conference on the Death Penalty in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1977, just 16 countries had abolished capital punishment for all crimes. Today the figure stands at 88.
Those against the death penalty argue that its dissuasive power has never been demonstrated and it is a punishment that is contrary to the idea of human dignity and to the right to life. For them, the death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life.
It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments. But then one is left to wonder what other fitting punishment can be handed out to a person who doesn ' t value life. For a murderer who kills at will- with out any remorse. For a person who illegal takes away the life of another innocent human being.
In the case of Saddam one of the world ' s best known and most hated murderers after the Nazi German ' s Hitler and Italy Benito Mussolini his tactic of imposing his authority by terror went beyond the occasional arrest and execution of opponents. In attempts to suppress the Kurds, for example, he systematically used chemical weapons. And in putting down a rebellion of Shi'ia in the south he razed towns to the ground and drained marshland.
He didn ' t care whom he killed whether they were children or pregnant women.
And then you have the campaigners against the death penalty arguing that, historically severe punishments have never reduced criminality to any marked degree. But it can also be stated that there exists no scientific proof of the notion that life sentences for murders have produced any positive results reducing capital offences either.
The concept of retribution, which allows for the death penalty, was designed to fit the crime. This concept is derived from the natural law and rights theory that emphasizes the divine right and power, which no human being can upset. This means that if you take one'> s limb, you simply pay with your own. I wouldn' t agree further. We are all rational beings who think before we act and base our actions on a careful calculation of the gains and losses involved in whatever we do. If a man wants to take the law in his own hands and kills another innocent human being he should pay the ultimate price and that' s death.
This doesn' t mean that such a murderer should not be subjected to a fair trial in competent courts of law. That'> s why our justice system is very elaborate on this matter. By the time a death sentence is up-held by our supreme court of seven judges: there is possibly no defence left for such a convict.
Therefore, there is no logic in Amnesty International' s propagation that the use of the death penalty for social benefit is suspect because it involves ' sacrificial' use of certain members of society for some social good. There cannot be any plausible ' sacrifice'> in a convicted murderer. Such a person has no place in a civilized society.
In the United States, where the chief objection to capital punishment is that it has always been used unfairly, in at least three major ways: with regard to race, sex, and social status- such legal gaps can be closed by the law makers. It is not a sufficient reason for abolishing the death penalty.
And then you have the campaigners against the death penalty arguing that, historically severe punishments have never reduced criminality to any marked degree. But it can also be stated that there exists no scientific proof of the notion that life sentences for murders have produced any positive results reducing capital offences either.
The concept of retribution, which allows for the death penalty, was designed to fit the crime. This concept is derived from the natural law and rights theory that emphasizes the divine right and power, which no human being can upset. This means that if you take one> '> s limb, you simply pay with your own.
I wouldn' t agree further. We are all rational beings who think before we act and base our actions on a careful calculation of the gains and losses involved in whatever we do. If a man wants to take the law in his own hands and kills another innocent human being he should pay the ultimate price and that'> s death.
This doesn ' t mean that such a murderer should not be subjected to a fair trial in competent courts of law. That ' s why our justice system is very elaborate on this matter. By the time a death sentence is up-held by our supreme court of seven judges: there is possibly no defence left for such a convict.
Therefore, there is no logic in Amnesty International ' s propagation that the use of the death penalty for social benefit is suspect because it involves ' sacrificial ' use of certain members of society for some social good. There cannot be any plausible ' sacrifice ' in a convicted murderer. Such a person has no place in a civilized society.
In the United States, where the chief objection to capital punishment is that it has always been used unfairly, in at least three major ways: with regard to race, sex, and social status- such legal gaps can be closed by the law makers. It is not a sufficient reason for abolishing the death penalty.
> And in Uganda the death penalty is a constitutional provision for all capital offences. Courts cannot afford to allow them to be swayed from their duty of independent arbiters of our constitution because of public opinion. Punishment must be commensurate with the offence.
Amnesty International should instead employ its vast resources on educating the public about the legal ramifications of one' s actions especially in murder cases. Indeed many lives can be save by the simple power of knowledge.
Next week in this column: The pronouncements of the Constitutional Court on the death penalty. The writer is a Journalist and advocate
And in Uganda the death penalty is a constitutional provision for all capital offences. Courts cannot afford to allow them to be swayed from their duty of independent arbiters of our constitution because of public opinion. Punishment must be commensurate with the offence.>> Amnesty International should instead employ its vast resources on educating the public about the legal ramifications of one ' s actions especially in murder cases. Indeed many lives can be save by the simple power of knowledge. Next week in this column: The pronouncements of the Constitutional Court on the death penalty. The writer is a Journalist and advocate> msserwanga@gmail.com>
The Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT) imposed the death sentence on Saddam Hussein and two of his seven co-accused early this month .The tempestuous former Iraqi dictator was handed the death penalty for killing 148 people from al-Dujail village in 1982.
However, Saddam ' s conviction and subsequent conviction has divided the world, The debate is on about the touchy issue of the appropriateness of the death penalty as an effective tool to deter capital offenses including murder. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (or Mam-Uncle-jala as he is sometimes referred) is himself opposed to the death penalty.
Talabani has intimated that he wont exercise his constitutional duty as leader of the Iraqi people to sign Saddam' s death warrant once the sentence is upheld by the country ' s appellate court. Talabani says he will delegate that duty to his deputies and that he will not be in Iraq when the execution is carried out. It is quite ironical considering the fact that Talabani is one of the longest lasting figures in Iraqi Kurdish politics stood up against Saddam '> s dictatorial policies and mass murder, and led a three-decade armed struggle in which many innocent Iraqis lost lives.
The same applies to Britain ' s Tony Blair who is also opposed to the death penalty but at the same time deploys British troops for a war without solid/hard evidence to justify his actions. As a result on overage 100 lives of innocent Iraqis are lost everyday.
> Amnesty International (AI) an organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of human rights has for decades worked for an end to executions and the abolition of the death penalty.
Each year since 1997 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has passed a resolution calling on countries that have not abolished the death penalty to establish a moratorium (suspension) on executions. The latest resolution, adopted in April 2005, was co-sponsored by 81 UN member states, the highest number ever. When AI convened an International Conference on the Death Penalty in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1977, just 16 countries had abolished capital punishment for all crimes.
Those against the death penalty argue that its dissuasive power has never been demonstrated and it is a punishment that is contrary to the idea of human dignity and to the right to life. For them, the death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments. But then one is left to wonder what other fitting punishment can be handed out to a person who doesn'>t value life. For a murderer who kills at will- with out any remorse. For a person who illegal takes away the life of another innocent human being.
In the case of Saddam one of the world' s best known and most hated murderers after the Nazi German'> s Hitler and Italy Benito Mussolini his tactic of imposing his authority by terror went beyond the occasional arrest and execution of opponents.
In attempts to suppress the Kurds, for example, he systematically used chemical weapons. And in putting down a rebellion of Shi\'ia in the south he razed towns to the ground and drained marshland. He didn' t care whom he killed whether they were children or pregnant women.
Amnesty International (AI) an organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of human rights has for decades worked for an end to executions and the abolition of the death penalty.>> Each year since 1997 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has passed a resolution calling on countries that have not abolished the death penalty to establish a moratorium (suspension) on executions. The latest resolution, adopted in April 2005, was co-sponsored by 81 UN member states, the highest number ever. When AI convened an International Conference on the Death Penalty in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1977, just 16 countries had abolished capital punishment for all crimes. Today the figure stands at 88.
Those against the death penalty argue that its dissuasive power has never been demonstrated and it is a punishment that is contrary to the idea of human dignity and to the right to life. For them, the death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life.
It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments. But then one is left to wonder what other fitting punishment can be handed out to a person who doesn ' t value life. For a murderer who kills at will- with out any remorse. For a person who illegal takes away the life of another innocent human being.
In the case of Saddam one of the world ' s best known and most hated murderers after the Nazi German ' s Hitler and Italy Benito Mussolini his tactic of imposing his authority by terror went beyond the occasional arrest and execution of opponents. In attempts to suppress the Kurds, for example, he systematically used chemical weapons. And in putting down a rebellion of Shi'ia in the south he razed towns to the ground and drained marshland.
He didn ' t care whom he killed whether they were children or pregnant women.
And then you have the campaigners against the death penalty arguing that, historically severe punishments have never reduced criminality to any marked degree. But it can also be stated that there exists no scientific proof of the notion that life sentences for murders have produced any positive results reducing capital offences either.
The concept of retribution, which allows for the death penalty, was designed to fit the crime. This concept is derived from the natural law and rights theory that emphasizes the divine right and power, which no human being can upset. This means that if you take one'> s limb, you simply pay with your own. I wouldn' t agree further. We are all rational beings who think before we act and base our actions on a careful calculation of the gains and losses involved in whatever we do. If a man wants to take the law in his own hands and kills another innocent human being he should pay the ultimate price and that' s death.
This doesn' t mean that such a murderer should not be subjected to a fair trial in competent courts of law. That'> s why our justice system is very elaborate on this matter. By the time a death sentence is up-held by our supreme court of seven judges: there is possibly no defence left for such a convict.
Therefore, there is no logic in Amnesty International' s propagation that the use of the death penalty for social benefit is suspect because it involves ' sacrificial' use of certain members of society for some social good. There cannot be any plausible ' sacrifice'> in a convicted murderer. Such a person has no place in a civilized society.
In the United States, where the chief objection to capital punishment is that it has always been used unfairly, in at least three major ways: with regard to race, sex, and social status- such legal gaps can be closed by the law makers. It is not a sufficient reason for abolishing the death penalty.
And then you have the campaigners against the death penalty arguing that, historically severe punishments have never reduced criminality to any marked degree. But it can also be stated that there exists no scientific proof of the notion that life sentences for murders have produced any positive results reducing capital offences either.
The concept of retribution, which allows for the death penalty, was designed to fit the crime. This concept is derived from the natural law and rights theory that emphasizes the divine right and power, which no human being can upset. This means that if you take one> '> s limb, you simply pay with your own.
I wouldn' t agree further. We are all rational beings who think before we act and base our actions on a careful calculation of the gains and losses involved in whatever we do. If a man wants to take the law in his own hands and kills another innocent human being he should pay the ultimate price and that'> s death.
This doesn ' t mean that such a murderer should not be subjected to a fair trial in competent courts of law. That ' s why our justice system is very elaborate on this matter. By the time a death sentence is up-held by our supreme court of seven judges: there is possibly no defence left for such a convict.
Therefore, there is no logic in Amnesty International ' s propagation that the use of the death penalty for social benefit is suspect because it involves ' sacrificial ' use of certain members of society for some social good. There cannot be any plausible ' sacrifice ' in a convicted murderer. Such a person has no place in a civilized society.
In the United States, where the chief objection to capital punishment is that it has always been used unfairly, in at least three major ways: with regard to race, sex, and social status- such legal gaps can be closed by the law makers. It is not a sufficient reason for abolishing the death penalty.
> And in Uganda the death penalty is a constitutional provision for all capital offences. Courts cannot afford to allow them to be swayed from their duty of independent arbiters of our constitution because of public opinion. Punishment must be commensurate with the offence.
Amnesty International should instead employ its vast resources on educating the public about the legal ramifications of one' s actions especially in murder cases. Indeed many lives can be save by the simple power of knowledge.
Next week in this column: The pronouncements of the Constitutional Court on the death penalty. The writer is a Journalist and advocate
And in Uganda the death penalty is a constitutional provision for all capital offences. Courts cannot afford to allow them to be swayed from their duty of independent arbiters of our constitution because of public opinion. Punishment must be commensurate with the offence.>> Amnesty International should instead employ its vast resources on educating the public about the legal ramifications of one ' s actions especially in murder cases. Indeed many lives can be save by the simple power of knowledge. Next week in this column: The pronouncements of the Constitutional Court on the death penalty. The writer is a Journalist and advocate> msserwanga@gmail.com>
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
WHERE THE IGG MUST BE HELPED
same here
Where the IGG must be helped
July 3, 2007
Another pair of senior government officials are embroiled in verbal fight with the Inspector General of Government over alleged fraudulent court settlements in which it is alleged the country lost a whooping Shs102 billion.Corruption is a multifaceted and multi-prolonged problem . It may be grand or petty, isolated or systemic but these new revelations epitomise the scale of graft in this country. The colossal sums talked about here can finance half of the 2007/2008 budget.The effects of corruption are self evident. The pandemic is ranked as one of the greatest constraints to investment and economic development, public service delivery and equitable local and national development. You have heard about the corrupt political big wigs and their equally corrupt bureaucrats who expend their loot by buying huge chunks of land; some the size of counties. They then build huge ‘palaces’ which they do not occupy. The balance of their loot is stashed away in foreign bank accounts. As it was argued in this column last week, one of the factors responsible for the endemic corruption in Uganda has been the political leadership’s apparent lack of commitment to dehorn the problem. And now that the executive has made a turn around and is willing to bring the culprits to book, the powers of the IGG have come into question. Almost all government officials accused of grand corruption have questioned the IGG’s investigative and prosecuting powers.The public needs to know that Inspectorate of Government’s powers are succinctly provided for in Article 230 of the Constitution and they include, among others; to investigate, arrest and prosecute corrupt public officials. There are other institutions such as the Auditor General whose functions relate to unearthing financial irregularities or malpractices, the police which can investigate cases of corruption or fraud and the Director of Public Prosecutions who can prosecute any criminal case, including those related to corruption. The framers of the Constitution were aware of the limitations of the other institutions and decided to create an independent body specifically charged with the responsibility of fighting corruption and abuse of office.Therefore, the Inspectorate occupies a central position regarding the fight against corruption. It is the anti-corruption institution of Uganda. It is also a complaints office to which any person aggrieved by a decision of a public official or authority takes his or her complaint for redress.It reports to Parliament and has the function of promoting and ensuring strict adherence to the rule of law and principles of natural justice while dispensing its powers and executing its Ombudsman role. Thus, its mission is to promote good governance by enhancing accountability and transparency; and enforcement of the rule of law and administrative justice in public offices. It is however imperative that the IGG guards against applying double standards when enforcing the law. Take for instance the two cases of John Ken Lukyamuzi who lost his parliamentary seat for allegedly failing to declare his assets and that of the two ministers, one of whom still retains his seat in parliament.In the Lukyamuzi Vs. AG case court in my view erroneously held that in cases of a dispute between the IGG and accused party, the IGG can constitute itself into a tribunal. This reasoning defeated the principals of natural justice upon which the administrative functions of the IGG are premised.There is an urgent need by the minister responsible to revise the IGG Act and make for provisions that will address the composition of the tribunal, and the mandate of the tribunal.The IGG should not stop at the successful prosecution of corrupt officials. That public officer must seize all ill-gotten assets, auction them and remit the proceeds to the Consolidated Fund for national development.There is also the need for government to merge the Inspectorate of Government and the Prevention of Corruption Statutes to prevent an overlap of roles between the IGG and Director of Public Prosecution. By having one body of laws governing the anti-corruption regime, the law enforcement officers’ work will become much easily. NEXT: The government should protect national parks from encroachers.
The writer is a Journalist and Advocatemsserwanga@gmail.commsserwanga.blogspot.com 0772 43 46 77
Where the IGG must be helped
July 3, 2007
Another pair of senior government officials are embroiled in verbal fight with the Inspector General of Government over alleged fraudulent court settlements in which it is alleged the country lost a whooping Shs102 billion.Corruption is a multifaceted and multi-prolonged problem . It may be grand or petty, isolated or systemic but these new revelations epitomise the scale of graft in this country. The colossal sums talked about here can finance half of the 2007/2008 budget.The effects of corruption are self evident. The pandemic is ranked as one of the greatest constraints to investment and economic development, public service delivery and equitable local and national development. You have heard about the corrupt political big wigs and their equally corrupt bureaucrats who expend their loot by buying huge chunks of land; some the size of counties. They then build huge ‘palaces’ which they do not occupy. The balance of their loot is stashed away in foreign bank accounts. As it was argued in this column last week, one of the factors responsible for the endemic corruption in Uganda has been the political leadership’s apparent lack of commitment to dehorn the problem. And now that the executive has made a turn around and is willing to bring the culprits to book, the powers of the IGG have come into question. Almost all government officials accused of grand corruption have questioned the IGG’s investigative and prosecuting powers.The public needs to know that Inspectorate of Government’s powers are succinctly provided for in Article 230 of the Constitution and they include, among others; to investigate, arrest and prosecute corrupt public officials. There are other institutions such as the Auditor General whose functions relate to unearthing financial irregularities or malpractices, the police which can investigate cases of corruption or fraud and the Director of Public Prosecutions who can prosecute any criminal case, including those related to corruption. The framers of the Constitution were aware of the limitations of the other institutions and decided to create an independent body specifically charged with the responsibility of fighting corruption and abuse of office.Therefore, the Inspectorate occupies a central position regarding the fight against corruption. It is the anti-corruption institution of Uganda. It is also a complaints office to which any person aggrieved by a decision of a public official or authority takes his or her complaint for redress.It reports to Parliament and has the function of promoting and ensuring strict adherence to the rule of law and principles of natural justice while dispensing its powers and executing its Ombudsman role. Thus, its mission is to promote good governance by enhancing accountability and transparency; and enforcement of the rule of law and administrative justice in public offices. It is however imperative that the IGG guards against applying double standards when enforcing the law. Take for instance the two cases of John Ken Lukyamuzi who lost his parliamentary seat for allegedly failing to declare his assets and that of the two ministers, one of whom still retains his seat in parliament.In the Lukyamuzi Vs. AG case court in my view erroneously held that in cases of a dispute between the IGG and accused party, the IGG can constitute itself into a tribunal. This reasoning defeated the principals of natural justice upon which the administrative functions of the IGG are premised.There is an urgent need by the minister responsible to revise the IGG Act and make for provisions that will address the composition of the tribunal, and the mandate of the tribunal.The IGG should not stop at the successful prosecution of corrupt officials. That public officer must seize all ill-gotten assets, auction them and remit the proceeds to the Consolidated Fund for national development.There is also the need for government to merge the Inspectorate of Government and the Prevention of Corruption Statutes to prevent an overlap of roles between the IGG and Director of Public Prosecution. By having one body of laws governing the anti-corruption regime, the law enforcement officers’ work will become much easily. NEXT: The government should protect national parks from encroachers.
The writer is a Journalist and Advocatemsserwanga@gmail.commsserwanga.blogspot.com 0772 43 46 77
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
