‘A suspect is innocent until proven guilty’
Murder cases are piling up and the number of suspects awaiting trial is at 849 nationwide. The Judiciary is finding it tough to clear the cases due to funding after the British Government which used to find the murder trials pulled out a couple of years ago. Is there anything that can be done to save the situation? News Analyst FRANK NAMANGALE spoke to a human rights activist Timothy Mtambo, executive director of the Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation (CHRR).
Q
Is there a way to ensure that the rights of murder suspects are not infringed upon?
A
It is very unfortunate for our country to still have a large number of murder suspects awaiting trial for years despite having a progressive Constitution and being signatory to various international instruments which provide for the protection of the rights of murder suspects, just like all other suspects of various crimes. The domestic and international law clearly grants the right to immediate trial for any murder suspect and calls for a fair distinction of treatment of murder suspects from convicts be it the separation of murder suspects from convicts in the cells.
Q
Would you clarify why it is important to separate suspects from convicts?
A
A person is innocent until proven guilty and that justice delayed is the same as justice denied. In short, the legal framework is conducive to ensuring that the rights of murder suspects are not infringed on but the only problem has been the enforcement of such which seems to be a cancer for Malawi. With the status quo, government should also provide a conducive environment as required by law that the murder suspects held in pre-trial custody longer than legally allowed could sue and be compensated for the period spent in prison. The Legal Aid should; hence come in to provide such assistance.
Q
Government has for a long time relied on donor funding for murder trials, but donors stopped funding such trials, was this sustainable?
A
The issue of our country to start working towards a shift from total donor dependence due to unsustainability of such is a positive move which must certainly be supported by all stakeholders. However, as to whether this is the right time to completely rule out donor support in our budgetary support and other domestic initiatives, I think to the contrary. The process ought to be gradual but focused, while putting our house in order through ensuring financial prudence of how we use public resources among others.
Q
Can the current budgetary support suspension by donors somehow affect prosecution of murder cases?
A
Yes, it does. We hear that government has increased funding to the Judiciary, supposing we still had the budgetary support, the budgetary adjustment offered to the Judiciary would have been even more and in the process help to clear more cases. Again we have to be mindful that the budget allocated to the Judiciary covers a wide range of activities and it may not even help to clear some murder cases as priorities differ. In fact, in the just recently presented zero-deficit budget, we have been told that the budgetary support to the Judiciary has been increased with special focus on Cashgate cases. Nothing has been said about prosecution of murder suspects. I also insist that the lack of political will by our leaders to ensure that justice for all is effectively delivered for all including murder suspects through prioritsing of resources for justice service delivery has been a contributing factor on the continued infringement of the rights of murder suspects.
Q
Murder and other suspects face problems because of congested cells, poor feeding and poor health facilities, how does this affect Malawi’s record on human rights and how can this be avoided?
A
This continues to be a great concern that despite the prevailing domestic and international legal framework which forbids the mixing of suspects, including murder suspects with convicts, there are still such cases in our prisons in Malawi which have portrayed a bad image for the country both at domestic and international level in as far as protection and promotion of civil rights are concerned.
Q
Is there any excuse government can give on this?
A
Government has always attributed this to lack of space due to poor funding. But as I earlier said, this to a greater extent only points to lack of political will on the part of our politicians especially when it comes to the question of what to prioritise and not. There is need to construct more space where convicted persons are not detained with pre-trial detainees. There is need to provide adequate food and health services. There is also need to immediately take action to reduce the number of persons in pre-trial detention and provide effective remedies and compensation for those unlawfully held in custody. There is also need, as recommended in the recent UN human rights committee recommendations for Malawi, for the government to develop a national policy for reducing the backlog of cases, strengthening the appeals procedure and increasing the number of judges and judicial officers, in particular in rural areas.
Q
What is the best way forward on the matter?
A
While calling for government’s protection of the rights of murder suspects through a speedy trial process, I would also urge the government of Malawi to adhere to the recent UN human rights committee recommendations on the abolishment of death penalty. It is still a concern that death sentences are still imposed and that these are not only applicable to the most serious crimes. As recommended by the committee, the government should review the Penal Code and ensure that the death penalty, if imposed at all, is applicable only to the most serious crimes as defined by Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the ICCPR. At the same time, government should provide adequate funds for a prompt process of resentencing of prisoners who received mandatory death penalty. Adequate funds should also be allocated for the prosecution of the many murder suspects who are waiting for trial.
