Women and Politics in Tanzania - Bagaining Patriarchy or Inferiority Complex?

Article/ Feature

16/October/2010

Women in Politics: Still Bargaining with Patriarchy or Inferiority?     

By: Clarence KIPOBOTA (Advocate)*

The struggle of women in politics continues all over the world. It is part of the feminist movement which gains momentum every day.

In Tanzania, women, as fighters of their own destine, have to do more than political move because socio-economic setbacks still hurdle them to stir forward. Therefore it is a war within a war. But, political move seems to be a bullet with multiple effects because it has to do with governance and ladder to powers. Hence, a say in decision making processes.

But the setbacks are vivid and long overdue towards lasting solution. For instance, several studies conclude that, women are victims of gender based violence and discrimination, facts which hinder them to access education, health services, information and of course political positions.

It is all because of classic patriarchy which makes them inferior. Moreover, it’s the same manifestation of inferior which empowers men to exercise patriarchy patterns. Which one is a real enemy between the two?

Moreover, it is discrimination which causes vast poverty and suffering to women, hence brakes on development. This adds more hardship into their involvement in politics and that is, cannot access potential and prospective voters because they are poor.

It is very unfortunate that, the current political trend increasingly sidelining the poor as they cannot pay for the nomination forms, finance media, campaign materials and petrol to move around in order to tell the voters that despite the fact that they are women, still can rule the country, at least from local levels. It is the economic factor which piles up more issues to embark upon as we negotiate a way towards women emancipation and empowerment.

To understand where we are in terms of women’s rights in governance, it is important to look at the history. Not long before 20 century when women came out openly to demand for political rights. The focus was by then to have the right to vote – not necessarily to be voted to because that was a far reach dream by then.

This was within a large package of feminist movement all over the world as said above. For instance, in 1919 a deputation from the Women’s India Association met the British viceroy (representative of queen) to demand votes for Indian women at around same time that suffragists were struggling for women’s right to vote in Britain and the United States of America. By then, most of African women did not even think of all these. They were in a darkness of real enslavement of their own destiny. It was almost not possible to single out their voices.  

But now, improvements are seen. For instance in Tanzania, few women are coming out bravely to contest men in constituencies. They win and entrusted with senior positions in politics.

At this point though, the challenges still outweigh the successes. To uproot the illusions of backwardness has not been simple job. Thus women still feel inferior to fight for powers.

Moreover, the dominance of male in politics has manipulated not only the traditions, but also the religious cultures and its teaching. In this way, a fear to come out for political contest is magnified. Therefore, they fight against patriarchy and inferiority complex at the same time. The war is so stiff.  

The legal protection, aimed at providing affirmative measures begun in 1940s. For instance, in 1948 the United Nations (UN) adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Few years later, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 was adopted and Tanzania ratified it in 1976. Before that, in 1952 the UN had adopted another instrument called the Convention on the Political Rights of Women. In 1979 the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) was also adopted.

The 1952’s convention and the CEDAW call for the right of the women to hold public office and exercise all public functions without discrimination. Following the 14^th Constitution amendment in 2005, the minimum number of special seats for women was increased from 15 to 30 percent.

Moreover, some of the policies and strategies have been adopted including the National Strategy for Gender Development of September 2005. But they do not adequately address the challenges of patriarchy and inferiority. Therefore, women’s war against these is not well backed.

Apart from this challenge, women have to bear the blames as well for failing to stage properly their advocacy agenda. Most of the CSOs in Tanzania, which advocate for women’s rights intentionally, exclude the counterparts (men) from the platform. Even the leadership of their ‘gender agenda’ is exclusively for women. Now, how can you fight with a distant enemy?

There is also an allegation that, women themselves to not support each other. In 2005 Ms. Anna Claudia Senkoro who tried her luck to contest for presidential position through PPT-Maendeleo, was heard lamenting that, none of the women rights groups did even state a word to congratulate her for picking nomination forms. She ultimately received only 0.17% (18,741) of votes while majority of voters in Tanzania are women.     

As for the affirmative measure taken of widening the scope of minimum seats for women, my observation is that, even the number could have been raised to 50 percent, still could not had justified any reason to celebrate for victory. Because, good number of women are not able to leave domestic chores for political podium and polling booth. They are inferior, voiceless and may be, as said above, not supporting each other.

Few of them in powers are not yet subscribed to the wish of their colleagues in the villages. They are sent in the parliament as special members for women but betraying the unlucky fellows by remaining mute throughout the sessions.

They cannot even speak of simple and vivid facts of girls pregnancies, drop outs, early marriage, female genital mutilations, gender based violence, unrecorded economic burden on shoulder of their colleagues and so many other issues. Something somewhere is wrong. It could be the way these representatives of special seats are obtained. More research on this should be conducted.

The emphasis point here is that, women’s rights in politics should be more than giving political offices. What matters should not be quantity but quality. This is the point that most of the activists normally miss.

The best approach of enhancing women’s rights and powers in politics should be the advocacy on the fact that, they are part of the composition of what makes Tanzania. Therefore, men have to accept and women have to fight. Much as special seats boost the balance between the two sides, more focus should be on emancipation of mental slavery than looking more pigeon holes to favour women.

This is important because too much favour is in itself discrimination. In fact, only one person can overpower hundreds of others if they are not capacitated. Indeed, it is not useful to create hundreds of special seats for women who do not utter even a single word. It is wastage of resources unless it is for pleasing the donors.    

The programmes or measures should focus on capacitating women in governance as well as creating legal and policy frameworks in which everyone in Tanzania will be obliged to be gender sensitive.

If this begins from lower level of education, then we will have qualified women who can contest for themselves. That is, not to give them fish but to give them skills on how to fish.

Other components within said frameworks could be ensuring that, all capable women are given same rights in political parties including minimum number of leaders in each of the registered political party.

It is also important to have a special limit that, a special seat member of parliament should not serve for more than five years in order to give others opportunity to excel in politics. Moreover, women should have the rights to ask a special seat member of the parliament to step down at anytime if that member remain dull for certain period of time. Again, this is why the right of women in politics should not be a mere holding of an office through certain affirmative measures.

As this country goes for general elections this month, I urge the people to vote for women with necessary qualifications but not to discriminate them because they are women. I believe they can do wonders if given opportunity. We have already good examples of very bold and active constituency women members such as Mama Anna Kilango Malecela. But, the end of elections should be the beginning of searching long-lasting solutions of what stated above. Each one of us can take his or her part.

---

* Clarence KIPOBOTA holds Bachelor of Laws Degree (LL.B (Hons)), Masters of Community Economic Development (Msc. CED) and Certificates in Human Rights and UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies. He is an Advocate of the High Court of Tanzania, currently working as Legal Consultant with LEGAL AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS LIMITED (LEDECO). He is also Human Rights Activist. Email: kipobota@yahoo.com Tel: +255 762776281/ +255 222700695. 

Freedom of Expression - threat to Ban on Newspapers Tanzania

Article/ Feature

22/October/2010

What is the Actual Limit of Freedom of Expression?     

By: Clarence KIPOBOTA (Advocate)*

Obviously, anything which is too much could be harmful. Hence, moderate rate is important. That is to say, to put a limit to every desire. However, what should be the limit and basing on what criteria needs not only explanations but also justification.

In the midst of very high political pressure towards the Election Day, the government comes out with tough warnings. The respondents are two local newspapers and one outspoken rights group.

The two newspapers are collectively alleged to publish seditious and disloyal stories which are calculated to instigate unrest and undermine the progress made by the government. In short, they do not ‘appreciating’ the positive side of the government.

The human right group is warned because its activism is seen to have been outstretching its statutory limit, which is to speak about women rights in media arena only. Generally, the trio is warned because they criticize certain issues done or omitted to be done by the government.

Let us start to consider the legal limits of the right to freedom of expression and opinion along unfavorable critics one can speak as part of enjoying his or her right to freedom of expression, information and opinion. The balance between the two sides mostly depends on the aptitude of each side. That is why do one give critic and why do the other side dislike the criticism.

It should be noted that, very few politicians can endure and take public critics positively because they prefer positive manifestation always. I mean, they life in ‘political profession’ depends on how fame they are. A notorious recognition is disastrous as it undermine popularity for future reelections.       

But few others can like and appreciate critics. For instance, the first constitutional Prime Minister of the then Russian Empire in early 1900, Mr. Count Witte, ordered his secretary to draw up a list of the writers who had written against him in the newspapers. A list of thousand journalists was duly presented to the Prime Minister. He then ordered the secretary to select the most abusive and personal of the unfavorable critics. This was also done.

Then, the secretary asked the Premier if he could handle the names to the public prosecutor. Mr. Witte refused and asked ‘why, to take actions against these according to the laws of the press?!” He said further, “No, that is not what I wanted, rather, select from these journalists my most aggressive critic and make my advocate and spokesman. I shall offer him the editorship of my paper,” said the Prime Minister. The Premier was also quoted that, experience had taught him that, the best champion and most faithful defender is the man who has been bitterest assailant.   

To him, criticisms no matter how they are, were good lessons for change. They are mirrors for him to see and rectify mistakes for better performance. Therefore, any limit set by law, was for those who could not wish to be changed by critics because they want people to see bad things out of them through good manifestation even if the situation is not pleasant. In short, they like those who can pretend that all is well while the opposite could be the true. I mean, the hypocrites.   

Therefore, the first limit to critics, which is actually a part of the enjoyment of the freedom of expression and opinion is actually the character of a leader himself and not necessarily the law. The law usually set minimum standards, which a positive thinker can actually widen it to allow people thinking outside the box.  

May be, as we move on, the alternative question should be that, why over-praising of something is not an offence even if it could be incorrect information?

The international and national legal frameworks recognize the freedom of expression and opinion as ones of the most fundamental rights for every human being.

Article 19 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights of 1966 (ICCPR), which is the same as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 states that, every person has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and to seek, receive and impart or disseminate information and ideas through any media regardless of national frontiers and also the right of freedom from interference with his communications.

At the national level, this right is guaranteed under the provisions of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania of 1977. For instance, Article 18(a) of this constitution states that, “kila mtu anao uhuru wa kuwa na maoni na kueleza fikra zake,” which is basically a quote of what Article 19 of the said international instruments said. The subjection of this right to other normal laws, was removed in 2005 following the 14^th Constitutional amendments.  

So what are these warnings for and what legal basis do they have? As for the two newspapers, their warnings are issued under the Newspapers Act of 1976. Section 3 of this law creates the office of the Registrar of Newspapers to assist the Minister in the registration and management of the operation of the newspapers.

The law gives the Minister and registrar wide discretionary powers to register, or suspend or ban on or close down any newspaper which seems to have violated the law, mostly on the basis of ‘public interest’ or for the ‘interest of peace and good order’ (Section 25 of the said law) which are not defined in the law. The two main offences mentioned in the law are ‘seditious offences’ and ‘incitement to violence.’  

That is fine, but do the ‘mtazamo hasi’ (negative attitude) or aggressive critics amount to the said offences? Does the expression of njama za kuiba kura (tricks to steal votes) one of the said offences under this law?

Section 31 of the newspaper law defines seditious intention to, inter alia, mean “to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the lawful authority.” The incitement to violence is defined under Section 37 to mean publication of statement without lawful excuse, which indicating or calculated to bring death or destruction of property.

Do the critics and opinion by those newspapers fit in the parameters of the provisions of the law? Obviously, not the case. It is just over sensitivity may be because of the election pressure, in which, each sides of the contestants in election want the public to believe all is well for its side. I mean to win confident.

However, gone are those days, in which people were to be induced to believe whatever the politicians said. Today, they are elite and therefore aware, to ask, question and in that way suggest areas for further improvement.

The government report on the status of the implementation of the said ICCPR, which was submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Committee last year in July indicated that, the government through Information and Broadcasting Policy amended number of laws and enacted new pieces of legislation in order to widen the enjoyment of the freedom of expression, information and opinion.

The government stated that, some of the laws amended included the Newspapers Act and the Broadcasting Services Act. It also proudly reported to the said UN committee that, the effect of this development enabled private owned newspapers, television and radio stations and media institutions professional training to be established. This includes also presence of the Media Council of Tanzania.       

The interplay of private media means bringing alternative views which in most cases against the government. It is the cost of freedom and liberalization. Otherwise, the amendment is meaningless if all media outlets have to speak of the same tune. The important point to emphasis should be the reliability, validity, truth, accuracy and usefulness of the information and not otherwise.

One of the ethical guidelines of the Media Council of Tanzania (MCT) - Professional Code of Ethics for Journalists) requires a journalist to always provide a truthful and comprehensive account of events in a fair and honest manner. It is this observation that speaking against the will someone all the times amount to ‘unfair and dishonest’ manner. It is all matters of choice of what the public should know after filtering the information to see if it meets what is said above.

Another important point to score here is the role of media. As it has already said by MCT (‘Journalism on the Move, State of the Media Report 2008’), the very nature of the media profession (and major business) is to be the watchdog of the government in office, to point out its mistakes and other shortcomings.

I think the rights groups are correct in holding that, the orders and warning issued by the government against Mwananchi and MwanaHalisi were calculated to squeeze the freedom of speech and the role of media. We can learn from the former Prime Minister of Russia, Mr. Count Witte who loved critics because they changed his powers to the better ways.

The analysis of the laws, media code of conduct and practice suggest that nothing is wrong to state that someone is not doing well unless that person wants to be flattered with cheap popularities. It should be understood that freedom belongs to the people and not to the wish or the few public leaders or the outdated law.

It is not correct at all to manipulate media to praise everything even if mischievous. This was not the intension of the limit set by the law. Why can’t we just accept critics and rectify the situation?

Transparency is one of the core pillars for good governance. We need to vote for leaders who learn through the critics and not for those who hide the truth in order to make fool of the people. 31^st of October should make us decide on this as well through the ballot box.

---

* Clarence KIPOBOTA holds Bachelor of Laws Degree (LL.B (Hons)), Masters of Community Economic Development (Msc. CED) and Certificates in Human Rights and UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies. He is an Advocate of the High Court of Tanzania, currently working as Legal Consultant with LEGAL AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS LIMITED (LEDECO). He is also Human Rights Activist. Email: kipobota@yahoo.com Tel: +255 762776281/ +255 222700695. 

Nyerere's Public Ethics - Misplaced Heritage - Tanzania

Article/ Feature

13/October/2010

Nyerere’s Public Ethics, Misplaced Heritage?

By: Clarence KIPOBOTA (Advocate)*

The clouds are herald of rain. That is, lots of indicators already show a displacement of the Late Mwalimu Julius Nyerere’s ways to public morals, in politics and other aspects of national survival.

It is, indeed, difficult to trace the lost point so that we can invest energy to rectify the situation. All what is certain for now is, social justice, rule of law and more importantly good governance principles are at stake.

May be Mwalimu’s philosophy, which mainly advocated for people centered powers, was hard to grasp for its followers; may be his legacy was not recorded well; may be what he said was for that particular time?

Today, it is ten plus one year of his going away. The nation still grieves especially common and poor people. They remember that, the begotten father loved the poor than the rich men because the poor are defenseless.

Amazingly, the politicians too, each one of them quotes him, use him as benchmark for political, social and economic ethics. But it is difficult to find anyone of them preaching the Mwalimu’s ethical guidelines in a more practical way. His legacy is somewhere misplaced.

The common, poor and people who are deprived of their political, social and economic freedom remember Mwalimu because they are still prisoners of their freedom. The root cause is poor governance, which is attributed by lack of patriotism and selfishness.

The Ujamaa Policy of 1967 aimed at trying to address all these. As Mwalimu himself noted in 1960s, man’s existence in society involves an inevitable and inescapable conflict – a conflict of his/her own desires. For every individual really wants two things, freedom to pursue his own interests and his inclinations. That is selfishness as opposed to equality.  

To Mwalimu, the idea of society is based on human equality in which everyone enjoys the national cake and status. In this way, there must be limits set by public ethics or laws to limit private interests against public desire. Possibly this is why during his era, little was heard about Mafisadi. They feared the system as it was working austerely.  

Today, poor governance haunts this spirit. It is increasingly seen as heart-attack and effective deterrence of individual and country development. Abuse of public office is at great height. The heritage is misplaced somewhere. This is notwithstanding current efforts to salvage the situation.

The said Ujamaa Policy was affirmed on 26 January 1967 under what was called the Arusha Declaration on Socialism and Self-Relience. This was the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU)’s creed, which aimed at building a socialist state. It laid down several principles, which were widely used as public ethics for all Tanzanians especially the public leaders.

Every citizen or public leader was obliged to believe that, all human beings are equal and have the same right to dignity and respect. Other entitlements including the right to freedom of expression, movement, religion, and social justice were later one embodied in the constitution of Tanzania following the firth constitutional amendment in 1984.

Principal aim number nine was to see the government eradicating all types of exploitation, intimidation, discrimination, bribery and corruption. Indeed, in 1971, 1979 and 1984 the government passed and improved the laws in order to curb corruptions and misuse of public powers.

No politician dared to seize public money for private use because Mwalimu himself was at front line supervising the implementation of the laws. To save the government by then was a sacrifice and not a pride for financial gain to the detriment of poor people. This was the standard set. But nowadays, politics is one of the most paying offices. Everyone is for it.

Today, apart from degraded patriotism, our sovereignty is endangered by a love of investment money, grants and loans from abroad. Much as Mwalimu believed that it is miraculous to develop without money, he insisted that the country can generate money from its own local sources including taxation. The interest was to have a final say in our own national agenda.

During his time, the enterprises of foreign investors were encouraged but with a caution that, if a total control of our economy is left to them, then they would take the profits away from Tanzania. This is why the focus was actually on the need of self-reliance than dependence of loans, grants and so on from the outsiders.

In fact, donor dependence in most of African countries has incapacitated the leaders to think of new local sources of income for economic survival. Sometimes, the greed need of investment money is for the detriment of the local communities. We have heard of Maasai in Loliondo, pastoralists and farmers in different parts of the country challenging the land grabbing and evictions from their traditional lands in favour of investors.  

All these occur because we have neglected Mwalimu’s ethics, which viewed communities as main players in development process.

As for this, the TANU’s creed emphasized that, we should not lessen efforts to get money we really need, but it is more appropriate for us to spend time in the villages showing the people how to bring about development through their own efforts, rather than going on so many long and expensive journeys abroad in search of development money.

All these have to do with good governance, to mobilize local resource and use the same in a wise manner. At the moment, the heralds show that we have missed this ethical point.

Well, then, where to trace the lost point? May be it could not be possible to retrieve Ujamaa under the current globalization context in which, capitalism rules the world. But, the creeds set by TANU as public ethics could be maintained, of course, basing on the political will.

The first thing could be to have good, patriotic and bold leaders like Mwalimu Nyerere, who feared no one when it came to issues of public interests.

The second thing is to avoid a manipulation of businessmen and rich people in the electro process because; a well-fed man cannot easily understand when someone says he/she is hungry. That is, if one is brought into power by the wish of few rich men, he/she will be blind of the hunger facing the majority poor.

Moreover, today, the politics is one of the very expensive businesses. A poor man cannot stand to contest the rich because he could not print banners, manipulate media and pay for round trips to seek supporters. It is a riches’ game, who do not care of the poor people’s needs apart from the assurance of the pursuit of their businesses.

Without going back in a more practical ways to trace the Mwalimu Nyerere’s public ethics guidelines, we will continue to starve and dying on the side of elegantly smelling Tanzania, while only few continue to flourish for the interest of themselves, families and close friends.

It is time to rethink and think of poor Tanzanians. This is how we can remember the begotten father of the nation, the Late Mwalimu Nyerere. We want Mwalimu to continue living with us forever by appreciating his love to us.

We have yet another opportunity to try the change and that is the 31 of October 2010. Let us use wisely this noble opportunity to vote for good leaders who can emancipate us from this stack.  

 

---

* Clarence KIPOBOTA holds Bachelor of Laws Degree (LL.B (Hons)), Masters of Community Economic Development (Msc. CED) and Certificates in Human Rights and UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies. He is an Advocate of the High Court of Tanzania, currently working as Legal Consultant with LEGAL AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS LIMITED (LEDECO). He is also Human Rights Activist. Email: kipobota@yahoo.com Tel: +255 762776281/ +255 222700695. 

Death Penalty in Tanzania - Wild Justice (Adv. Clarence KIPOBOTA)

Article/ Feature

11/October/2010

Death Penalty: Vengeance or Wild Justice?

By: Clarence KIPOBOTA (Advocate)*

Death Penalty is still retained in the Tanzanian penal laws, in particular the Penal Code, Cap. 16 and the National Defence Act, Cap. 192.  The three offences, which are punishable by the death penalty in Tanzania, are murder (section 197 of the Penal Code), treason (sections 39 and 40 of the Penal Code) and misconduct of commanders or any service (military) man in the presence of an enemy (first schedule to the National Defence Act).

This penalty is executed by handing the person who is convicted until when he or she dies. But it is not applicable to pregnant women and children under eighteen. The justification for exonerating pregnant women from the rope is to hoard the life of innocent child who grows in the womb of the convicted mother. Either way, this does not bring much sense as long as it is retained for others even if they are guilty.

The current report by Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC) shows that, total of 137 countries (68.5 percent) had already abolished death penalty in 2009. That means, Tanzania remained to be one of only 63 countries (31.5 percent) around the world which still retained the death penalty in their statute books.

May be it is not appropriate to view country’s legal and human rights progress through what is happening around the world. But again, the global trend is vital for measuring country’s commitment to international human rights obligations. Hence, inevitable.

The world’s coalition against this penalty stages a move to call for abolishment. Some of the rights groups in Tanzania, mostly LHRC, SAHRiNGON-T, Zanzibar Legal Service Centre (ZLSC) and the Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) escalate the move on part of Tanzania.

The government and the public has picked the pace but with different sentiments and sides. One side is in favor and the other side is against the penalty. This article scribes for the later group.

Those who are in favor of the punishment collectively and generally state that, “capital” offences such us murder and treasons should be controlled by “capital” punishment. In other word, revenging.

As for those who are against it, advance the arguments that, it is inhuman, degrading, and none-deterrence kind of punishment. So to speak, it does not meet the essence of punishing the criminals.

Criminologists maintain that, essence of punishing a criminal including the killers should be either to deter other people from engaging in illegal acts; restitute or partially return the victim to the same status (status quo ante); rehabilitate the criminal to make him or her a better citizen afterwards; incapacitate or restraining his or her freedom and retribution (not revenge) in order to inflict pain to the wrong doer as part of reforming him or her.

Countries like Tanzania, which still revenge by sanctioning the killing of the killer, miss these points. In fact, fail even to justify the retention of this punishment in the statute books.

The rates of crimes steadily increase instead of decreasing. For instance, the statistical information suggests that, despite the executions of murderers between 1961 and 1995, the incidences of offences which are punishable by the death penalty were increasing and are still increasing from 46 convicts in 1961 to more than 2,000 in 2010.

The message here is that, root causes of the crimes as it is explained below, should be traced rather than ‘managing the crisis’ after the occurrence. That is, instead of controlling the crimes by punishing the criminals, the best way should be to prevent the crime.

This brings in another point to consider in detail. That is, whether the current Penal Code, Cap. 16 is controlling or preventing the crimes. May be this needs kind or in-depth survey plus reviewing whole package of criminal justice system of Tanzania. For instance, by considering current legal and institutional capacities of law enforcers to see whether it fits into current criminal trend. Of course, other socio-economic factors such as poverty and globalization could be taken into account.

The Legal Sector Reform Programme is doing its part, though in a rather small and less momentous speed. It might be facing some challenges which the government should rectify. Something could be done to make it more effective and appealing to the overgrowing challenges of the legal sector in Tanzania.

Until then, the poor majority of Tanzanians would possibly been convicted and hanged while they are innocent. This is important argument against death penalty because findings already show that, several innocent people find themselves in death row because they failed to make their defence.

When we talk of effective criminal justice system, we refer to issues like number of motivated police officers to carry out investigation, investigation mechanisms to proof the connectivity between the accused person and the crime, the detention and remand facilities for suspects, legal representation of experienced lawyers and so on.

Moreover, the unfriendly situation of police custody and prisons tends to incapacitate the suspects psychologically. At the time when they are aligned to answer their charges, they find themselves incapable of recalling key facts for their defence.

The number of Advocates in Tanzania, which is less than 1,300 for a population of 40 million people, is insufficient. Most of the practicing advocates are based in Dar es Salaam and Arusha. This means, most of the suspects are not represented. Therefore, for those who cannot make their defence because of those factors, face a danger of being convicted while they are innocent.

  

On the social part of argument, policy and legal makers should understand the fact that, in every society there are insolent and rude people who do not fear death. In fact, in other countries this situation is enrooted in the spirit of their rituals. Some of them even think that if someone kills another person for a certain purpose, he or she has done a holy forfeit. In this way, the death penalty to them is actually a sacrifice and blessing but not a punishment. If this is not observed, soon or later, we will have a nation in which killing is not a feared fate.  

A common argument which whirls around is that if we say death penalty is injustice what about the justice of those who have been murdered. The response to this revolves around same arguments stated above. That is, execution of the killer does not bring back the life of the person killed or mitigate the suffering of the relatives of the victims.

May be the best way should be to confine the ‘killer’ in jail with hard productive community works such as construction of schools for street children, hospitals for women and elderly groups and so on. These ‘killers’ can feed and cloth for themselves through the work they are doing. Families of the victims can actually be restituted through the money obtained from the work done.

As I repeat once again, it is almost accepted that, we cannot manage to curb crimes entirely because of the nature of human being. The passion and desire cause people to commit crimes, sometimes without evil intention.

The criminologists suggest that cruelty like murder cases usually springs from certain social weaknesses. In fact, it is a society which prepares crimes and the criminal commit the same. The reasons as said above can be poverty. It can also be unjust or insufficient legal system or degrading of morals. It is time to think wide and outside the box as we move on with the Legal Sector Reform Programme in Tanzania.

Moreover, as pointed out earlier on, since Tanzania is part of what goes on at international level, especially its obligation to the international human rights treaties, it is high time now for the government to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which aims to abolish the death penalty.

Finally we should not that, while those (colonialists) who initiated in the statutes are busy doing away with it and most of them have actually abolished it, Tanzania and other several African countries are still tenaciously cuddle it.

It is therefore this call that Tanzania should join the world’s movement to abolish this penalty. Let us stop this wild justice as its time has gone.

---

* Clarence KIPOBOTA holds Bachelor of Laws Degree (LL.B (Hons)), Masters of Community Economic Development (Msc. CED) and Certificates in Human Rights and UN Treaty Monitoring Bodies. He is an Advocate of the High Court of Tanzania, currently working as Legal Consultant with LEGAL AND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS LIMITED (LEDECO). He is also Human Rights Activist. Email: kipobota@yahoo.com Tel: +255 762776281/ +255 222700695.