Jenkins Kiwanuka’s article which was published in Daily Monitor of Thursday, October 18, 2007 (It takes a sadist to defend Amin) was undoubtedly well researched. It was emotionally loaded too.
However, what Jenkins forgot to take into account is the basic principle of our law – namely the “presumption of innocence;” which states that no person shall be considered guilty of an offence until finally convicted by a competent court. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, which has to convince court that the accused is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
Guaranteeing the presumption of innocence extends beyond the judicial system. For instance, in many countries, including Uganda, journalistic codes of ethics state that journalists should refrain from referring to suspects as though their guilt was certain. They ought to use "suspect" or "defendant" when referring to the suspect, and use "allegedly" when referring to the criminal activity that the suspect is accused of. Iam therefore shocked and extremely disappointed that a seasoned, retired Journalist in the person of Jenkins Kiwanuka could opt for the “guilty-beyond-doubt” tone in his article.
In as far as I can recall, General Idi Amin was never convicted by any court of law, for offences Jenkins alleges he committed. From the legal standpoint, that dismisses his article as hearsay and therefore inconsequential. If Jenkins wants to vindicate himself though, he could initiate posthumous criminal prosecution procedures against the General, with a view of securing a posthumous conviction.
Iam not certain whether our judicial system allows posthumous trials – but our arsenal of seasoned lawyers could advise him accordingly. If Jenkins can’t secure a posthumous conviction for his alleged crimes, its time he left the General to rest in eternal peace. For then, however much he writes, General Idi Amin will, and can only remain a suspect!
No comments:
Post a Comment