Chitika's death sentence a Christmas gift - Mabenga
By Mwala Kalaluka
Tue 25 Dec. 2012, 12:00 CAT
MICHAEL Mabenga says he hopes the Chitika family has learnt a lesson for failing to be remorseful over the murder of his daughter, whose widower, David Chitika, was yesterday sentenced to death for the offence.
This is in a matter where the late Gladys Maketo Mabenga's widower, David and his 23-year-old nephew, Lawrence Kaunda were charged with the murder of Maketo on unknown dates but between September 10 and 11, 2010 in Lusaka's Chilenje township.
Delivering her judgment in a packed courtroom yesterday, Lusaka High Court judge Flavia Chishimba held that Chitika, 39, and Kaunda, a student, were guilty of Maketo's murder and that this was with malice aforethought.
Judge Chishimba said Chitika's conduct or behaviour on the material day was odd for someone whose wife had died and that the maid, on whose testimony the prosecution anchored its case, was a credible witness despite her inconsistent statements in the court and at the police station.
She said the inconsistency in the maid's statement did not subtract from the import and purpose of her evidence as she adduced her evidence in a clear and coincise manner.
"She is a credible witness and I hold accordingly," judge Chishimba said. "It is not disputed nor is it in issue that two statements were given by PW1 prosecution witness 1."
She said the prosecution witnesses, who were the deceased's relatives, had no interest to serve when they testified that they noticed blood in her mouth and nose because any lay person could mistake such stains as such when they were in fact not.
Judge Chishimba said the two postmortem reports that were conducted in the wake of Maketo's death were conflicting as to the cause of deathbut that in fact they agreed on many findings.
"The second report, P11, was professionally done," she said in response to the defence's submissions that it was biased in favour of the Mabenga family.
Judge Chishimba said she found the first postmortem report to be inconclusive but that the second postmortem report supported the maid's testimony that Maketo was strangled whilst she was alive and that it was the squeezing of the neck that led to deprivation of oxygen.
"I find as a fact that the deceased died due to strangulation," she said. "I am satisfied that malice aforethought has been established by the prosecution. I find as a fact that A1 David Chitika caused the death of the deceased with the help of A2 Kaunda with malice aforethought."
Judge Chishimba said despite denying the charges, Chitika's evidence was full of untruths and that he exhibited an odd behaviour on the material morning.
"The evidence by A1 that the deceased had suicidal tendencies, this, in my view, is concoction," she said. "I, therefore, find accused persons guilty as charged and convict them accordingly."
Judge Chishimba said since there were no extenuating circumstances in the case, she was bound by the law to pronounce a death sentence for both Chitika and his nephew.
"I thereby sentence you to death by hanging," said judge Chishimba as some women in the gallery started crying.
Outside the courtroom, the Mabengas hugged each other as some were shedding tears while the Chitika family remained inside the courtroom for a while before they came out.
However, David's sister, Elizabeth Chitika-Molobeka, the chairperson for culture in the MMD, used a different exit.
Mabenga, a former MMD member of parliament, said Chitika's death sentence was a Christmas gift to his family and that the truth had finally come out.
"It is a very good day. It is good in the sense that someone is going to lose life; the killer is going to lose life," he said. "I find justice Flavia Chishimba to be a competent judge."
Mabenga said it was a pity a young man who was supposed to be his son-in-law had dragged himself into a mess and that this should teach the Chitikas how to deal with issues of that nature.
"They were supposed to have shown remorse, they didn't," he said. "They are barbaric in their approach to life and so I hope that the Chitika family would be able to learn from this. They did this because they thought they were clever. There is no tribalism here."
Mabenga also said no politics was involved.
"We mourned in 2010 and we are still mourning but today they too are mourning. It is a pity that someone has died but for us, it is a Christmas gift," said Mabenga.
Efforts to get a comment from the Chitikas proved futile.
Labels: DAVID CHITIKA, DEATH PENALTY, MICHAEL MABENGA
Read more...
No extradition if no death penalty
By The Post
Tue 18 Dec. 2012, 14:00 CAT
It is shocking that some citizens of this country are seeking the retention of the death penalty in the new constitution. There is a growing trend to abolish this cruel, inhuman and degrading form of punishment. More than two thirds of the world's countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
The trend, both in Africa and globally, is towards ending the use of the death penalty. Since 2002, twenty-one countries have abolished capital punishment for all crimes, including several from Africa.
Across the countries of the Southern African Development Community, the appetite for death penalty is vanishing. Angola, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, the Seychelles and South Africa have already abolished it for all crimes. The battle to abolish the death penalty is being won. And Zambia should be on the winning side.
This being the case, why is the death penalty still being seen by some of our people as a fair and proportionate form of justice? Let's pause and ask ourselves: is there still a place for the death penalty in the 21st Century?
We are opposed to the use of the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle. We believe that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity. There is no conclusive evidence of its deterrent value; and any miscarriage of justice leading to its imposition is irreversible and irreparable. Every justice system in the world makes mistakes.
As long as justice remains fallible, the risk remains of executing an innocent person. Sometimes people are convicted of crimes they did not commit; once a person is executed, it cannot be undone. Innocent people have been executed for crimes they didn't commit.
The death penalty is not justice; it is the failure of justice. As Mahatma Ghandi famously said, "An eye for an eye makes the world blind."
We oppose the death penalty in all cases as the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It is the ultimate breach of the right to life as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is the predetermined and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state and it is unacceptable regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender or the method use.
It is for these reasons that the worldwide anti-death penalty movement contains the voices of many who have lost their loved ones to, or have been victims of, violent crime do not want the death penalty imposed in their name.
Executions brutalise those involved in the process. Combating crime should not create more misery through more violence. Society should affirm life, not end it. An execution constitutes an extreme physical and mental assault on an individual. It is the killing of a human being by the state, a cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment that is done in the name of justice. When a state carries out the death penalty, society lowers itself to the level of the criminal.
There is no scientific proof to show that the death penalty offers a solution to the problem of crime. Instead, crime may be reduced through having better trained and equipped police officers and an effective system for the administration of justice, eradicating poverty and improving education, amongst other things.
Nowhere has it been shown that the death penalty is a better deterrent to crime than imprisonment. In fact, in countries where the death penalty has been abolished, crime rates have often fallen.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has a right to life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Both the United Nations General Assembly and the African Commission on Human and People's Rights have adopted resolutions calling for a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty.
Human rights are universal, indivisible and inter-dependent. They are based on many traditions that can be found in all civilisations. All religions advocate clemency, compassion and forgiveness and it is on these values that we base our opposition to the death penalty.
If we continue with the death penalty, soon we will find ourselves in the extreme minority in this region and isolated. And with the great majority of our neighbours having abolished the death penalty, it will become increasingly difficult to have meaningful, efficient and effective cooperation with them. Once criminals go to the other side where there is no death penalty, it will be very difficult to have them extradited so that they can be tried for their crimes here in Zambia.
Already, the South African courts have made it very clear that their country may not extradite criminal suspects to a country where they may face a death penalty unless that country has given assurance that they would not be sentenced to death. According to the courts, there is an absolute obligation on South Africa to obtain an assurance that the death penalty would not be imposed before it extradites a person to a state to be charged with a capital offence and it would be unconstitutional for the South African government to extradite a person with no death penalty assurance.
Of course, this may drastically affect that country's ability to develop and implement national policy that was aligned to building sound relations with other regional governments that have not yet abolished the death penalty and which protocols on extradition have been signed. But the right to life applies to all.
And it doesn't matter that there might be an impression created that the country was a haven for fugitive criminals from abroad. And this would not be so if all countries in the region were to remove the death penalty or were prepared to give assurances against the death penalty.
It is emphasised that preserving good relations with other states cannot come at the expense of rights - the right to life. The death penalty that we are trying to cling to is out of synchrony with the trend worldwide to abolish it.
Let's not try to cling to laws that we will have serious difficulties implementing. Today we already have a challenge: there are so many people on death roll who have not been executed because our successive presidents have been uncomfortable signing the death warrants for their execution.
Let's campaign for the abolition of the death penalty. This is something which we as citizens in the 21st Century can urge our government, our lawmakers to do.
Labels: DEATH PENALTY
Read more...
Supporting and opposing the death penalty
By The Post
Mon 02 July 2012, 13:25 CAT
THERE is a strong and interesting debate going on about whether or not the death sentence should be retained in our constitution. We have listened attentively and respectfully to all the arguments being advanced for and against the death sentence. Let's respect convictions, beliefs and explanations. Everyone is entitled to his own positions, his own beliefs.
But we must work together in the sphere of these human problems that interest us all and constitute a duty for all. We have listened to the views of Reverend Pukuta Mwanza, the executive director of the Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia, calling for the death penalty to be retained.
He argues that the death penalty is necessary for the protection of the general public as without it the lives of innocent citizens will be unsafe. We do not know whether the views of Rev Mwanza are personal or represent the position of the Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia on this issue.
We have also heard the views of Fr Augustine Mwewa, a priest in the Ndola Catholic Diocese, supporting the retention of the death penalty. Fr Mwewa says the death penalty serves as a deterrent and helps in reducing crime and that capital punishment assured the safety of society by eliminating criminals. He further argues that that only time the death sentence should be abolished is when the Judiciary puts its house in order.
And Caritas Zambia, a Catholic civil society organisation, has expressed views contrary to those of Fr Mwewa, calling for the abolishing of the death sentence because it undermines the respect for life.
A consortium of civil society organisations that promote the human rights of prisoners has also resolved to oppose the retention of the death penalty in the new constitution. They argue that the death penalty is inhuman and it is against the values of Christianity and human rights.
We hold the opinion or view that the death penalty is barbaric and should be abolished. The death penalty offers our nation not further protection from crime but further brutalisation. The death penalty is premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. The state can exercise no greater power over a person than that of deliberately depriving him or her of life.
No matter what reasons we give for executing prisoners and the methods of execution we use, the death penalty cannot be separated from the issue of human rights. As Levy Mwanawasa once put it, there can never be a justification for torture or for cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The cruelty of the death penalty is evident.
An execution constitutes an extreme physical and mental assault on a person already rendered helpless by government authorities. Like killings which take place outside the law, the death penalty denies the value of human life and cannot be reconciled with respect for human rights.
And if the death penalty can be justified for one offence, justification that accord with the prevailing views of society or its rulers will be found for it to be used for other offences.
Whatever purpose is cited, the idea that we can justify a punishment as cruel as death conflicts with the very concepts of human rights. The significance of human rights is precisely that some means may never be used to protect society because their use violates the very values which make society worth protecting.
When this essential distinction between appropriate and inappropriate means is set aside in the name of some greater good, all rights are vulnerable and all individuals are threatened.
The death penalty, as a violation of fundamental human rights, would be wrong even if it could be shown that it uniquely met a vital social need. What makes the use of the death penalty even more indefensible and the case for its abolition even more compelling is that it has never been shown to have any special power to meet any unique social need.
Countless men and women have been executed for the stated purpose of preventing crime, especially the crime of murder. Yet, study after study in diverse countries has failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty has any unique capacity to deter others from committing particular crimes.
Undeniably, the death penalty, by permanently incapacitating a prisoner, prevents that person from repeating the crime. But there is no way to be sure that the prisoner would indeed have repeated the crime if allowed to live, nor is there any need to violate any prisoner's right to life for the purpose of incapacitation: dangerous offenders can be kept safely away from the public without execution.
Every society seeks protection from crime. Far from being a solution, the death penalty gives the erroneous impression that firm measures are being taken against crime. It diverts attention from the more complex measures which are really needed.
When the arguments of deterrence and incapacitation fall away, one is left with a more deep-seated justification for the death penalty: that of just retribution for the particular crime committed. According to this argument, certain people deserve to be killed for the repayment for the evil done: there are crimes so offensive that killing the offender is the only just response.
It is an emotionally powerful argument. It is also one which, if valid, would invalidate the basis for human rights.
If a person who commits a terrible act can deserve the cruelty of death, why not others, for similar reasons, deserve to be tortured or imprisoned without trial or simply shot on sight? Central to fundamental human rights is that they are inalienable.
This means that the right to life doesn't need to be earned by conduct for one to enjoy it. They may not be taken away even if a person has committed the most atrocious of crimes.
Human rights apply to the worst of us as well as to the best of us, which is why they protect all of us.
What the argument of retribution boils down to is often more than the desire for vengeance masked as a principle of justice. The desire for vengeance can be understood and acknowledged but the exercise of vengeance must be resisted. The history of the endeavour to establish the rule of law is a history of the progressive restriction of personal vengeance in public policy and legal codes.
If today's penal system does not sanction burning of an arsonist's home, the rape of a rapist or the torture of a torturer, it is not because they tolerate the crimes. Instead, it is because societies understand that they must be built on a different set of values from those they condemn.
An execution cannot be used to condemn killing; it is killing. Such an act by the state is the mirror image of the criminal's willingness to use physical violence against a victim. And probably this explains why Nelson Mandela concluded that "the death sentence is a reflection of the animal instinct still in human beings".
For these reasons, we urge all the Zambian people to demand the removal of the death sentence from their statute books, from their Constitution.
Labels: CCZ, DEATH PENALTY, PUKUTA MWANZA
Read more...
CCZ opposes death penalty
By Allan Mulenga
Mon 02 July 2012, 13:23 CAT
THE death penalty should not be the extreme punishment to be meted to those who commit serious crimes, says Reverend Moses Mwale. In an interview, Rev Mwale, who is Council of Churches in Zambia (CCZ) president, said the death penalty should not be part of the constitution.
"I strongly believe that death penalty should be not part of the Constitution. I am a pro-life person and I believe in life, as it were. I know the background and the essence of introducing the death penalty is to try to deter extreme crimes in society. By sentencing people to death it means that people might be deterred those who might want to commit extreme crimes might be deterred from committing such crimes.
But there is a point where I don't think we need to implement an eye for an eye in as far as these matters are concerned," he said.
Rev Mwale urged those advocating for the inclusion of the death penalty in the constitution to look at life holistically.
"Yes, those people that have committed murder or serious crimes deserve punishment, they are a danger to the society, but I don't think we should go to an extent of sentencing someone to death. We better give them a chance of reform and change, hoping that there would be change. For me the extreme punishment that we might confer on such people could be maybe a life sentence," he said.
Rev Mwale said there was need to give people who commit serious crimes an opportunity to repent and transform their lives.
"They could have made a mistake, but they could change in life and if given an opportunity. Those that are not going to change, let them be confined permanently away from the people around without killing them. During that time they might make a decision to change their lives as well," he said.
He said Jesus Christ believed in the reality of life and that all people had an opportunity to change.
Debate has raged over whether or not to retain the death penalty in the Zambian statutes.
Reverend Pukuta Mwanza, executive director of the Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia, recently said the death penalty should be retained as it was necessary for the protection of the general public.
And Fr Augustine Mwewa, a priest in the Ndola Catholic Diocese, said the death penalty serves as a deterrent and helps in reducing crime and that capital punishment assured the safety of society by eliminating criminals.
Labels: CCZ, DEATH PENALTY, MOSES MWALE
Read more...
Guy's visit to the prison of death
By The Post
Thu 12 Apr. 2012, 13:30 CAT
IT is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. And it is also said that a nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones - and Zambia treats its imprisoned citizens like animals.
And thanks to Guy Scott, the Vice-President of our Republic, because his visit to Mukobeko Maximum Prison with the press, with television cameras enabled the Zambian people to have an idea of how life is in that prison.We expect more from this government in terms of prison conditions. Michael Sata has spent time in jail, of course unjustifiably and maliciously so.
In Michael, we have a leader who understands the true conditions of our prisons and has from time to time talked about it, associated himself with it. More is expected of Michael's government on the issue of improving prison conditions.
There has been enough talk on this issue. Prison conditions don't require much disquisition. What is needed is action to change the inhuman conditions of our jails.
It is also pleasing to learn that this government is not interested in hanging people, in the death sentence. This is not the first time we have heard this from a government of our country.
Levy Mwanawasa denounced the death sentence. Levy refused to turn himself into a chief hangman by signing death execution orders for condemned prisoners as long as he remained in power: "…Life is sacred and I will not allow people to be slaughtered like chickens".
Many people were delighted to hear these words from their president and thought Levy's principled opposition to the death penalty would be followed through by his government and help our people to rid themselves of this evil and inhuman form of punishment.
There is need to abolish laws that allow and compel our courts of law to sentence people to death. The case for abolishing the death penalty becomes more and more compelling with each passing year. Everywhere, experience shows that executions brutalise those involved in the process.
As Levy had eloquently explained, nowhere has it been shown that the death penalty has any special power to reduce crime. And in country after country, it is used disproportionately against the poor. Yet too many politicians and other citizens still believe that they can solve urgent social problems by executing a few or even hundreds of their prisoners.
Too many of our people are still unaware that the death sentence offers our nation not further protection but further brutalisation. The death penalty is premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. The state can exercise no greater power over a person than that of deliberately depriving him or her of life.
No matter what reasons we give for executing prisoners and the method of execution we use, the death penalty cannot be separated from the issue of human rights. As Levy once put it, there can never be a justification for torture or for cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The cruelty of the death penalty is evident.
Like torture, an execution constitutes an extreme physical and mental assault on a person already rendered helpless by government authorities.
Like killings which take place outside the law, the death penalty denies the value of human life. The death penalty cannot be reconciled with respect for human rights.
And if the death penalty can be justified for one offence, justification that accord with the prevailing views of society or its rulers will be found for it to be used for other offences.
Whatever purpose is cited, the idea that we can justify a punishment as cruel as death conflicts with the very concepts of human rights. The significance of human rights is precisely that some means may never be used to protect society because their use violates the very values which make society worth protecting.
When this essential distinction between appropriate and inappropriate means is set aside in the name of some greater good, all rights are vulnerable and all individuals are threatened.
The death penalty, as a violation of fundamental human rights, would be wrong even if it could be shown that it uniquely met a vital social need. What makes the use of the death penalty even more indefensible and the case for its abolition even more compelling is that it has never been shown to have any special power to meet any unique social need.
Countless men and women have been executed for the stated purpose of preventing crime, especially the crime of murder. Yet, as Levy demonstrated, study after study in diverse countries has failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty has any unique capacity to deter others from committing particular crimes.
Undeniably, the death penalty, by permanently incapacitating a prisoner, prevents that person from repeating the crime. But there is no way to be sure that the prisoner would indeed have repeated the crime if allowed to live, nor is there any need to violate a prisoner's right to life for the purpose of incapacitation: dangerous offenders can be kept safely away from the public without execution.
Every society seeks protection from crime. Far from being a solution, the death penalty gives the erroneous impression that firm measures are being taken against crime. It diverts attention from the more complex measures which are really needed.
When the arguments of deterrence and incapacitation fall away, one is left with a more deep-seated justification for the death penalty: that of just retribution for the particular crime committed. According to this argument, certain people deserve to be killed as repayment for the evil done: there are crimes so offensive that killing the offender is the only just response.
It is an emotionally powerful argument. It is also one which, if valid, would invalidate the basis for human rights. If a person who commits a terrible act can deserve the cruelty of death, why not others, for similar reasons, deserve to be tortured or imprisoned without trial or simply shot on sight? Central to fundamental human rights is that they are inalienable.
They may not be taken away even if the person has committed the most atrocious of crimes. Human rights apply to the worst of us as well as to the best of us, which is why they protect all of us.
What the argument of retribution boils down to is often no more than a desire for vengeance masked as a principle of justice.
The desire for vengeance can be understood and acknowledged but the exercise for vengeance must be resisted. The history of the endeavour to establish the rule of law is a history of the progressive restriction of personal vengeance in public policy and legal codes.
If today's penal system does not sanction burning of an arsonist home, the rape of a rapist or the torture of a torturer, it is not because they tolerate the crimes. Instead, it is because societies understand that they must be built on a different set of values from those they condemn.
An execution cannot be used to condemn killing; it is killing. Such an act by the state is the mirror image of the criminal's willingness to use physical violence against a victim.
And this probably explains why Nelson Mandela concluded that "the death sentence is a reflection of the animal instinct still in human beings".
For these reasons, we urge Michael and his government to move further than Levy did and totally get rid of the death sentence from the laws of our country. Let's rid our country of the death penalty.
And Guy's visit to Mukobeko, the prison that keeps those on the death row, should be the first step in this direction.
Labels: DEATH PENALTY, GUY SCOTT, MICHAEL SATA, PRISONS
Read more...
Lawyer asks Supreme Court to declare death sentence unconstitutional
By Mwala Kalaluka
Sat 11 Sep. 2010, 12:00 CAT
THE Supreme Court has been asked to declare as unconstitutional a section in the Zambian Constitution that provides that anyone convicted for aggravated robbery while armed with a firearm should be given a mandatory death sentence. And the Supreme Court has directed the State to file their response in the matter through submissions, given the constitutional nature of the death penalty.
This is in a matter where Alex Njamba, who was sentenced to a mandatory death sentence by the Lusaka High Court on November 21, 2008, has appealed against his sentence arguing that the sentence was arbitrary and unconstitutional. Njamba has also argued in his memorandum of appeal that the mandatory death sentence imposed on him was a degrading and inhuman punishment.
Lusaka lawyer, Abraham Mwansa, who is representing Njamba in the matter stated in his heads of argument submitted before Deputy Chief Justice Ireen Mambilima sitting with Supreme Court justices Dennis Chirwa and Hilda Chibomba in Ndola, that Njamba’s death sentence was an arbitrary deprivation of life.
Mwansa submitted that the sentence was a denial of the appellant’s rights to a fair trial and also the usurpation of the inherent sentencing power of the court.
“Thereby depriving the Judiciary of an essential judicial function in clear violation of the constitutional principle of separation of power,” Mwansa stated.
“Having found the Appellants guilty of the offence of aggravated robbery whilst armed with firearm, the court below did not feel compelled to consider the circumstances of the offender and the offence.”
Mwansa stated however, that the appeal was not a challenge to the death penalty per se.
“It is important to clarify at the outset that the issue advanced by the Second Appellant is not about the death penalty as such, but rather about the mandatory requirement of death penalty,” Mwansa submitted.
He stated that it was Njamba’s contention that not everyone convicted of aggravated robbery whilst armed with a firearm deserves to die.
Mwansa submitted that refusing or denying a convict facing death sentence to be heard in mitigation when those facing lesser sentences are allowed to be heard in mitigation was clearly unjustified.
He quoted further that by reason of its compulsory and automatic application, a mandatory sentence could not be subject of an effective review by a higher court.
Mwansa stated that it was his client’s prayer that the Supreme Court declares that section 294(2) of the Penal Code, to the extent that it provides for mandatory sentence of death on anyone convicted for aggravated robbery while armed with a firearm, is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court sitting in Ndola adjourned the matter to its next sitting to allow the Attorney General and the state file their submissions in the matter.
Labels: DEATH PENALTY, SUPREME COURT
Read more...
