diamdak@hotmail.com

At the United Nations, 15 November, some 87 countries including 27 European Union States were able to secure approval by the vital Third Committee  of the General Assembly for a draft proposal seeking to “establish a  moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty.” By a vote  of 99 countries for and 52 against, the Committee, which has responsibility  for social, humanitarian affairs and human rights, is obligated to endorse  and submit the proposal to the UN General Assembly for consideration and  final adoption. Non-binding as the final outcome, a resolution, might be,  member nations would be required to gradually phase out capital punishment,  while  reducing the type of offences that could attract its imposition.

Expectedly the United States voted against the proposal, with its  envoy, Robert Hagen, calling on proponents “to recognize that international  law does not prohibit capital punishment.” Singapore’s envoy was even more caustic in its rejection of the proposal, describing its proponents as  countries lacking respect for the values and world view of other  nations.

Americans, whose Federal laws have retained the death penalty from the earliest times, would definitely be a hard nut to crack for all those  countries and human rights bodies that believe they could steamroller   their  way to victory. With China, another veto-wielding power beside it, America is in a strong position to save the world from fancy-driven nations and groups intent on upturning crucial elements of the world’s justice system.

The stance of the United States, bolstered by the disinclination of its revered Congress to review statutes dealing with capital punishment, definitely cannot be contradicted by reference to any aspect of jurisprudence. Those who might wish to point to the seeming contradiction that a number of States in that country have long abolished death penalty while the central administration has retained it have to understand that the States in question were governed largely by considerations that had little to do with protecting “human dignity” as canvassed by opponents of death penalty. A few decades ago one of that country’s renowned jurists, Justice William Douglas, gave some insight into the thinking that informed  abolition  of death penalty by some States. Part of the report in The Guardian (Lagos),  24 March 2004, said: “The death penalty was proscribed in some states  of the United States, according to Justice Douglas in Furman v. Georgia (1972)  to prevent its disproportionate imposition on minorities – the poor, the  black, the ignorant.”

Now, anyone familiar with American history, with the injustices, snares and brutalities that minority ethnic nationalities, particularly blacks,  had to contend with from the early 17th century to the first half of the 20th  century, would appreciate the validity of the explanation by Justice Douglas. In America of that period, it was commonplace for blacks to be arrested, prosecuted, convicted and executed – by institutions of the  State  or by lynch mobs – usually on trumped-up charges as part of campaigns  by  groups seeking to create an all-white country. In countless cases  blacks were lynched or sexually assaulted at will by vengeful whites for no  other  reason than what they termed “general principles.” Even the Constitution of  the United States which, as of September 1787, equated a male slave  with  “three-fifths of a man in determining representation in the House of  Representatives,” and the Supreme Court which, on March 6 1857, in  the Dred  Scott case, ruled that blacks were not citizens of the United States,  gave  little or no protection to the black man. Those States whose elite saw and  felt the light of God moved to shield blacks from such extremities of  hate,  hence the legislations abolishing death penalty.

That America as a nation upholds death penalty for culpable homicide largely explains its stance on a number of issues within its borders and on the international scene. In Iraq, after its forces had captured former  President  Saddam Hussein, the U.S. directed that he be tried in accordance with  local  laws for offences he had purportedly committed in his country. The  Americans  knew that if he were tried by the International Court at the Hague or  UN-sponsored war crimes tribunals he would escape execution whatever the  nature of his crimes. So, Iraqi law courts had to handle his trial, which ended predictably with a conviction and capital punishment. America was consistent all through, with President George Bush declaring that the execution was “an important milestone.” But hear the British as reported in a leading newspaper: British Foreign Secretary Margaret  Beckett  said Saddam had been “held to account,” but reiterated the British  government’s opposition to the use of the death penalty…. She said  that the  British government welcomes the execution of Saddam for some crimes he committed against the Iraqi people, but advocates “an end to the  death  penalty worldwide.” Beckett’s remarks were followed by a statement  from the spokeswoman to Downing Street, confirming that what she (the Foreign  Secretary) had said was fully reflective of the position of the British  Government. No one in Tony Blair’s administration could spot the  doublespeak in the remarks by the Foreign Secretary. It was all so apparent that  deep down in the minds of the then Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary of Britain, death penalty is in order, at least in some cases. Yet  Britain’s laws have long dispensed with death penalty and that country is one of  those vigorously pushing the aforesaid proposal at the U.N. Isn’t the

hypocrisy clear enough for all to see?

The British officials and their counterparts in other European capitals were essentially no different in psychological makeup from the Kosovo masses  who jubilated for days along the streets of Pristina, upon news of the 15 January 2004 assassination of the notorious Serbian paramilitary  leader, Zelkjo Raznatovic, alias Arkan. Such wild jubilations had been recorded  in black communities and among liberal whites in South Africa after the  assassination in 1962 of then Prime Minister Heinrich Verwoed; in  Pakistan  after its strongman, General Zia Ul-haq had been blown up; in former  Zaire,

now Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) after the death of Mobutu  Sese  Sekou, and even in Nigeria, in 1998 after the death of General Sani  Abacha.  That is the heart of man, the spirit force of his being, the power that lurks behind the personality that he projects, in expression. It demands that for injustice and crime divine retribution and the human penal system must apply and be seen to have applied in a manner commensurate with the offence, to serve as deterrent and preserve for humanity harmony and orderliness.

Concern for “human dignity,” as canvassed by the aforesaid nations,  groups  and individuals pushing for abolition of death penalty, ought to begin  with  the renunciation of war. Nothing in the experience of humankind in all history so totally divests man of his dignity and fundamental freedoms as war. Politicians in those nations as well as leaders of the human rights organisations that pushed the said draft proposal at the UN know the  horrors of the disintegrative processes in the former Yugoslavia, the story of genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and after, the barbarism of Charles  Taylor-sponsored ragtag forces in Sierra Leone and the degenerate  elements in Uganda’s Lords Resistance Army. Presently, Iraq and Darfur stare  us all in the face. Millions who have had sound education and or have been  engaged  in productive employment or business are either internally displaced or  have been reduced to refugees in foreign lands. They have been cut off from  their sources of livelihood by war and are disabled in the capacity to  provide for  the shelter, feeding and health needs of their children and other  dependents. Thousands of women, most of them respectable, law-abiding members of society, and under-aged girls, are raped and sometimes  strangled in war after war – sometimes in the presence of husbands or parents.

Now, what is greater indignity than that? So, why is anyone bothered about the dignity of a convicted murderer – a person duly investigated,  arraigned, and proven to have willfully (and oftentimes, brutally) terminated the life of  another human, and even given the opportunity of appeal - and not about how to institute processes that will hopefully check human inclination to war? It is a contradiction to accept war as a means of resolving disputes,  internationally or within national borders, while rejecting death  penalty outright. War takes lives in thousands and millions without  differentiating between guilty and innocent. Anybody could be felled by bullets or  mowed down by bombs, irrespective of innocence. Even children could be  felled. Let Britain and the other countries of Europe that joined the U.S. in the  reckless show of power in Iraq tell the world whether the thousands of Iraqis killed by their forces since 2003 were members of Saddam  Hussein’s Revolutionary Guard or Iraqi Armed Forces. Hundreds of children and  women  are among innocent civilians killed either in the aerial bombardments  of the early phases of the U.S.-led invasion of that country. All member  states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) whose forces have turned  parts of Afghanistan into killing fields have been responsible for the deaths  of hundreds of innocent civilians, including children and women, as the campaign against terrorist bases in that country intensifies by the  day.

Now, how can Britain and those same European powers whose activities in  war cause deaths of innocent civilians turn around to condemn and reject  death penalty – a punishment prescribed for clearly specified offences and  imposed only after clearly defined judicial processes have been duly followed? Nations currently pushing for “a moratorium on executions” at the United Nations should take a second look at the awesome arsenals of weapons conventional and nuclear - they have amassed over the years in  readiness for  war. Do the stockpiles suggest in any way that the governments and  people of those countries have regard for human life and dignity? Let’s ponder  for a while about the kind of mindset that led the ruling classes and elite  in those countries to embark on such horrific accumulation of weapons? What is  underlined is a murderousness of heart, an inclination to villainy,  destructiveness and sadism. That murderousness has manifested in all  wars –  civil or international. The weapons accumulated by nations of the world  are for missions similar to America’s nuclear attack on Hiroshima and  Nagasaki in 1945. Nothing less. They are for destruction of innocent lives by  imperialistic and godless leaders and politicians around the world. And  let

none of the nations calling for death penalty ever fancy itself as  having a better moral standing than the U.S. that has never made a secret of its  readiness to strike militarily at any other nation outside NATO, upon provocation, and continues to resist abolition of capital punishment.

There is very little to choose between them. Not even the human rights  community in Europe that is fighting for abolition of death penalty can be taken seriously. Let them begin by compelling their governments to dismantle

their stockpiles of weapons. Given that wars, like quarrels and brawls, are almost inevitable at one time or the other and that armaments would continue to swell around the  world, the least we can do is admit to ourselves that circumstances could  necessitate the taking of lives. It is a reality we cannot run away  from.  That standpoint provides us all a means of resolving the aforesaid contradiction by restricting our concern over death penalty to the nature of offences for which the penalty could be imposed. Death penalty for coup  plotting (and oftentimes, for being merely “accessory before the  fact”) is a hard sell. Divulgence of military or sensitive secrets to a foreign country or local insurgent groups need not attract death penalty. So are offences like drug peddling, sexual immoralities and the like. The world should  seek a common position on these issues – exclude them from the category of capital offences. Europe would be advancing the cause of humanity if it is able to freeze  its programmes for armament and persuade the U.S. to do same. A fraction of America’s annual Defence Budget of US$500 billion and above, if  invested in  critical areas of need like research into bush fires and boosting its  fire-fighting capability, would make a lot of difference in the lives of  its citizens. The wild fires that swept through parts of California showed clearly that America has a lot to do to guarantee security of life and property within its borders. Europe and America should re-direct  resources intended for defence to research into effective means of combating global warming. On “Our World” programme of the Voice of America (VOA), 18 November, 2007, experts lamented the lack of equipment for measuring  (and dealing with) the impact of water vapour on atmospheric temperature.  Let the U.S. and Europe provide the required resources to minimise the scourge  of global warming and protect the future of humanity.

Here in Nigeria, some who never tire to ape Europeans in countless  ways, have also canvassed outright abolition of death penalty. Without  exception they regurgitate lines affirming the right to life and dignity as  propounded in some international conventions and insist that capital punishment  has not served as deterrent. They also argue that the instinct for murder would be repressed if criminals know that the risk of conviction and execution is no longer present. In other words armed robbers and other vicious elements in our midst would not kill their victims if the prospect of their being  executed were eliminated. Those who hold these views only show their  very limited grasp of trends in our country, especially in the past 11  years. It is common knowledge, for instance, that the execution of an  Assistant Commissioner of Police and a Police Sergeant on 16 January 1996, after conviction for ‘conspiracy, aiding and abetting armed robbery’ is  about the last known case of death sentence carried out in this country.

What  looked like official position on the subject emerged on 4 January, 2000 when  the then Minister of Cooperation and Integration in Africa, Professor Jerry  Gana, declared to State House correspondents that the Federal  Government had granted pardon to all convicts who had been on the death row for 20  years and upwards, and also commuted the conviction of others who had been on death row for 10 years to life imprisonment. (The Guardian (Lagos), 5  January, 2000; Vanguard,(Lagos) 5 January, 2000).

That action by the last regime, widely publicised, sufficiently signaled the thinking in Government that capital punishment be discouraged and  ultimately abolished. The criminals have not seen any public executions by firing squads (as used to be common in the 1970s and 1980s) or hangings in prison yards since then, yet they have been at their most vicious. We know that armed robbery, hired assassinations and related forms of violence have been at their worst in the past eight years. Armed robbers have been most daring these days, attacking police stations and other security formations, bullion vans, banks, and other public places in broad daylight. The viciousness  of the criminals these days could be so chilling. There was, for instance,  the case of a luxury bus whose occupants were ordered to file out and lie prostrate on the highway in the dark. They did, and were crushed within  a few minutes by a truck at top speed. Do those robbers, if caught, deserve anything less than the pain they caused those innocent passengers?

Opponents of death penalty believe that life imprisonment would do for offences of a capital nature. They need to be reminded that even if  that were acceptable, Nigeria is not the type of country where the justice  system is insulated from undue interference by powerful people. A person on  life imprisonment for murder could be released any day by a State governor or a president whose agents might have engaged or intend to use the convict for criminal activities. We saw how murderers and arsonists in Anambra and Oyo States have been protected by the powers-that-be between 2003 and 2007.  Death penalty, if restricted to culpable homicide, need not be a  headache to  the world. The UN General Assembly should at best preoccupy itself with specification of offences for which capital punishment could be  imposed.

* Mr. Dakolo is on the Editorial Board of The Independent Newspapers, Lagos, Nigeria. diamdak@hotmail.com