Maravi

‘The police and you’

‘The police and you’
By The Post
Wed 17 Mar. 2010, 04:00 CAT

THERE’S a serious problem with the way our police officers are carrying out their functions where politics is concerned.

The structure and organisation of our police makes it open to political abuse. Our police officers are totally under the control and direction of those in power. They tell them who to arrest and when to arrest them. And they also tell them who not to arrest.

The police play a very key role in our judicial process and without them having reasonable independence to enforce the law without fear or favour, justice in our country will continue to be a fleeting illusion which we will pursue without any real possibility of attaining.

The way things stand in our country today, justice is nothing but a prerogative of those in power, which they carry out through their appointed police officers and other law enforcement agents.

The police is not independent from those in power. Although the notion that justice should be fairly administered is well-accepted, those who administer it in this country are not expected to be in any real sense independent from their political appointing authorities and masters.

Justice in this country is a political prerogative, which those in power carry out through their appointed officials in the police and other law enforcement agencies.

As such, those who enforce the law are agents of their political appointing authorities, those who rule the country. For this reason, our police officers have to conform to the dictates of the politicians in power.

This explains why those who are close to the rulers, the supporters and friends of those in power get away with serious crimes while those on the other side of the political spectrum are arrested and prosecuted on the most trivial of issues and sometimes even on trumped-up charges.

Look at how many supporters and friends of Rupiah Banda who can be said to have committed crimes but are today not arrested for anything. All sorts of excuses are found to let them go scot-free.

But look at what happens to those who oppose them, to those they see as enemies or as threats to their hold on power! Look at what happened to George Mpombo over that K10 million he had borrowed from Terence Findlay! Look at what is happening to Fr Frank Bwalya over the red cards! It’s not difficult to imagine what would have happened if Fr Bwalya and others were waging a yellow card campaign against Michael Sata! No one would stop them.

Look at how many innocent people – journalists, opposition cadres and supporters – have been physically attacked by MMD cadres, Rupiah’s supporters in full view of the police without being arrested. And the justification for not arresting them has come from the commander-in-chief himself – we mean Rupiah. He has made it very clear that if you ‘insult’ him, his supporters are free to go for you and it seems the police will do nothing if you are attacked on that account.

It seems our police service is there today to serve Rupiah and his supporters alone. It is of no service to those who have taken the route of opposition politics as a way of participating in the governance of our country. It seems it is a crime in the eyes of those in power and their agents in the police for one to belong to the opposition.

But why should it be a crime to belong to the opposition when the Constitution of our country is premised on a multiparty dispensation, on plural politics. They are running this country under our police service as if we were still under a one party political system.

The Constitution has changed but their mentality still remains that of one party dictatorship or hegemony. But we know very well why in December 1990 we changed our Constitution from that of a one party state to a multiparty one.

We didn’t want a legislated one party state. But that didn’t mean we were comfortable with a de facto one party state. We simply didn’t want anything to do with a single party hegemony because of experience.

The single party state, whether de jure or de facto, except at rare moments in history, is a recipe for tyranny. What we learnt from our own experience, the African experience and from the Soviet experience is that the concept of the party as a vanguard which has the right to rule by virtue of calling itself something and which sees itself as a permanent godfather of society, is a disaster.

We need a police service that realises that this country is constitutionally a multiparty one. And this means that the governing of the country is a joint undertaking between those in the opposition and those in the governing party.

This is why we say that we need elections whose results are accepted by both the winners and the losers so that at the end of the day we have a loyal opposition. This idea is a vital one because it means, in essence, that both those in the opposition and in the governing party share a common commitment to the basic values of the nation.

They don’t necessarily have to like each other, but they must tolerate one another and acknowledge that each has a legitimate and important role to play. When the election is over, the losers accept the judgment of the voters. If the incumbent party loses, it turns over power peacefully. No matter who wins, both sides agree to cooperate in solving the common problems of the society.

The opposition, whether it consists of one party or many, can continue to participate in public life, with the knowledge that its role is essential in any democracy worth the name.

They are loyal not to the specific policies of those in power, of the government of the day, but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state, and to the democratic process itself. This is why we say democratic elections are not a fight for survival, but a competition to serve.

What we are saying is only possible in a system where there is equality before the law. It is not possible under a system where those in the opposition, or those who are opponents of those in power are not entitled to equal protection before the law; where opponents of the regime are treated as criminals and are continually looked at with suspicions by those in the police.

Of course, the democratic state cannot guarantee that life will treat everyone equally, and it has no responsibility to do so. However, under no circumstances should the state impose additional inequalities; the police should be required to deal evenly and equally with all citizens. No one is above the law.

However, it’s clear to us that those who administer our criminal justice system hold the power for abuse and tyranny. In the name of the state, and under the guise of maintaining law and order, individuals have been arrested and detained, have had their political rights curtailed and have been tortured in all sorts of ways without legal justification – sometimes without even formal charges ever being brought. No democratic society can tolerate such abuses; no fair and just-minded people can tolerate such unfairness and injustices.

We appreciate and accept the fact that every state must have the power to maintain order and punish criminal acts, but the rules and procedures by which the state enforces its laws must be fair, just, public and explicit, not arbitrary or subject to political manipulation by those in the governing party and their government.

As Francis Musonda, our former inspector general of police, has correctly said, it is wrong for police officers to be selective in their enforcement of the law; they should enforce the law fairly and equitably without fear or favour.

If they don’t enforce the law fairly and justly, if they discriminate in their practices, those who are discriminated against will have no choice but to take the law into their own hands. Where the police fail, for political reasons or otherwise, to protect some citizens they are entitled to do it themselves.

It is within their rights. Our police is not behaving professionally and the consequences of this are not difficult to discern: anarchy and lawlessness will increase in the nation. And no force will stop people from demanding respect for their rights.

Labels: CORRUPTION, POLICE

posted by MrK @ 5:25 AM