What happened in Zanzibar?

Zanzibar at last: Part three

Catch up with Zanzibar at last: Part one here

And read part two: Foray into the Zanzibar night here

And then catch up with the final part about what exactly went down in Unguja, from the photos I managed to salvage from the trip, in the slideshow below. Enjoy! (Not visible on blogger for mobile)

This post is un-African

Source: Masterfile.com

 

While I was away someone invented the afronometer and put mostly men in charge of it. And there is one peculiar thing about the afronometer: when it comes to making progress towards treating women with dignity and allowing them to exercise rights that were previously denied, it is rarely ever on the women’s side.

I have met with the afronometer when someone is arguing about the un-'Africanness' of gay rights, which is another debate altogether. Most times the afronometer is thrust forcefully upon me during discourse about why some things about the way women are treated need to change. As soon as I open my mouth to make a case for progress, someone somewhere, usually a man, blurts out: But that is so un-African!

Source: Africanholocaust.com

So I was not surprised to read an article on the Marriage Bill where a lawyer from the East Africa Law Society, no less, was quoted as having said that lawyers needed to advise Members of Parliament against the Bill because it is, wait for it, un-African. Never mind that he did not explain what was so un-African about it, or perhaps the reporter was only too happy to have gotten the perfect quote out of him, that he did not bother to put him to task to explain what about the Bill fails to measure up to the African standard. Other leaders, among them Kakamega senator Bonny Khalwale called on parliament to africanise the Bill.

What is African? How African are the clothes that you wear, the products that you use, your education, your religion,  your gods and so forth? If you were to examine every little thing about your life and culture, how much African would your afronometer find in it, or is 'Africanness' the convenient card we pull out to stand in the way of change that our minds have refused to process? A lot has changed since the origin of the African man.

Source: Superstock.com

We have adopted some cultures and assimilated them into ours, discarded some and retained others, and by so doing we have shown that culture is not a static phenomenon. It is dynamic -- constantly changing with the times. We pick some, drop some and get on our way. That is why our views on marriage and the place of men and women in it are being reviewed to be in sync with the realities of this time. In any case, I would say that the Marriage Bill has recognised  what some men would call African culture fully, by officially embracing polygamy. But the clause that would have men’s boxers in a twist is probably the part where they have to get the consent of their first and other wives before bringing in new wives, and other such ‘un-African’ measures, whereas before they could do whatever they pleased without seeking anyone’s consent. The only men who should be running scared about the Marriage Bill are those whose treat women without decency, respect and dignity. Those who have been treating women with dignity, know that the Bill is just a physical reminder of what they have known to be right all along. 

And for those whose argument against the Bill is its 'Africanness' or lack of it: to say that something is un-African is a fallacy. If anyone has a problem with a law, a custom or anything else, he should state why that thing is a problem and argue out his case instead of hiding behind 'Africanness' only when it suits him.

Read a copy of the Marriage Bill, 2013 here, so that you can make an informed and objective contribution to the Legal and Justice Affairs parliamentary committee as it holds it's public hearings on the Bill around the country, this August: http://goo.gl/E6WKGZ

 

Isn't it about time we did away with diplomatic immunity?

Diplomatic impunity: Getting away with murder

I do not mingle with diplomats so I have no idea if they are as delightful to be around as a dictionary would have me believe. The Free Dictionary, for one, conjures up images of a diplomat as a person with an acute sensitivity to what is proper and appropriate in dealing with others; a person who has an aptitude for speaking and acting without offending others. Simply put, diplomats are supposed to be synonymous with tact and sensitivity, thoughtfulness and finesse. This is understandable bearing in mind that they operate in foreign countries, where they are supposed to be the official negotiators for their governments, as well as promoters of mutual trade, economic, political, social and other interests. Obviously, they need goodwill on their side to be able to accomplish their missions.

A diplomat who behaves so delectably would hardly ever need to invoke diplomatic immunity except in cases where he is genuinely being persecuted. However, my interactions with diplomats, usually when they are behaving badly on our roads, makes me think that the reason diplomats need immunity is to use it as a licence to misbehave freely without being subjected to cumbersome and obstructive laws. What I gather about diplomats, from observing their red-plated diplomatic cars on our roads, is that a diplomat is a person who has no regard for other people.  You will probably catch a glimpse of his white SUV, bulldozing it’s way to the front of the queue of vehicles restrained by the traffic lights or jam, whizzing past a traffic cop who dares not flag it down because it bears the red mark of legally-sanctioned impunity, and speeding off to God-knows-where, presumably to attend to urgent matters of international importance.

You’ve probably cursed and muttered expletives under your breath when a diplomat’s car almost ran you out of the road: Sure, you’ve got places to go too and you are running super late, but unlike the busy diplomat with so much to do and so little time, you have to wait your turn or the traffic cop will milk the last coin out of your impatience.  Moreover, unlike the busy diplomat, aren’t you just another idler with more time on your hands than you know what to do with? Then again, the diplomat gets his way and no one ever gets hurt, so it’s kinda ok. You’d probably do the same if you had powers like his. It’s all good. And then someone dies.

On July 11^th, a busy US diplomat with so much to do and so little time, so much so that he could not afford to wait in the endless and meaningless Nairobi traffic  jam sped on the wrong side of Ngecha road. It was nothing unusual; this is what diplomats do – they have right of way even if it means flouting traffic and any other ‘obstructive’ laws and endangering other people’s lives. And to my knowledge, nobody ever gets hurt, at least not until July 11^th. The recklessness of this particular diplomat led to an accident that claimed one life and left nine others nursing injuries after his car collided with the matatu they were traveling in.

The story first appeared on social media, on a mum's Facebook group, as a question from a concerned mother: seeing as the diplomat had impunity (aka diplomatic immunity) on his side to protect him from facing up to his actions in a legal suit, would the widow of the man who died in the accident be compensated?

A few days later, a local daily, The Star, picked up the story, reporting on the police’s frustration at not being able to charge the diplomat. He had recorded a statement, but the best they could do was to investigate and hand over a report to his embassy. A man was dead here, others had survived with varying degrees of injury; where I come from, this is murder, but on the other hand, this is a diplomat. He can kill and get away with it. It is called diplomatic impunity immunity.  A few days later, the international media picked up the story. This time, a bit of outrage seeped onto Twitter. What would happen to the culprit? Couldn’t the government have him repatriated to face up to his crime? What about justice? Can a diplomat get away with murder just because of immunity?

Mr Joshua Walde, the man who was exercising his god-given diplomatic impunity that claimed a life, was long gone. He could not be prosecuted under Kenyan law, and only God knows if the US government will take any action on him. If anything, according to the AP story, a US government official noted that "Embassy employees are typically evacuated for medical evaluations after traumatic events but are also flown out of the country to avoid any possible retribution or attack from others involved in the accident."

Maybe it is good riddance that Mr Walde, and his reckless driving ways, is off our soil, so we won’t have to worry about other fatal accidents from him in future, but what about the rest of the diplomatic corps who continue to drive recklessly on our roads?  But in line with our national motto: Accept and move on, we have accepted this behaviour as part of diplomatic impunity (immunity).  

I get the purpose of diplomatic immunity. Politics is dirty and without immunity, diplomats may be needlessly persecuted by host governments making it difficult to perform their duties, but surely this shouldn’t be a licence to flout the laws of the host countries with abandon. But it is; those who abuse diplomatic immunity have nothing to fear. The most a diplomat can expect to get for his lawlessness is a slap on the wrist, and even that is rare.

I don’t expect anything to happen to Mr Walde. He has moved on from his ‘honest’ mistake which was committed while he was attending to urgent matters of international importance, and so should we. In fact, the rest of us have probably moved on from our initial outrage. Shit happens, it is awful, but what much can we do? March to the US embassy? Demand for him to be brought back to face the law? The government can take it up, pursue the case through diplomatic channels and possibly have Mr Walde’s immunity revoked so that he can be charged. It happened in the US when the second in command at the Republic of Georgia’s embassy in the US hit and killed a 16-year-old girl in 1997.

He was driving while drunk when he crashed and hit the teenager, and initially nothing was done to him because he was a diplomat. He had immunity and could not be prosecuted, but that was before the story got to the media and attracted national outrage. The US government asked for a waiver of immunity from Georgia, it was granted and the man was tried and convicted of involuntary manslaughter and aggravated assault. 

So far Mr Walde has been lucky because I have not heard of any concrete plans by the Kenyan government to get him to face justice. And the most the US embassy has done is to offer an apology to the widow of the dead man, but an apology means nothing for justice. The police did say they would be asking the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to liaise with the American embassy for action, but whether anything concrete will be done remains to be seen. At the end of the day the only person who will have to live with this painful memory is the widow – a victim of injustice, shortchanged by the law of diplomatic impunity.

If the accident by Mr Walde had happened in his home country, America, he would not have been allowed to get away with reckless driving that results in death. Why should he be allowed to do that here or anywhere else, under the guise of diplomatic immunity? And Walde is not alone in using immunity to get out of legally sticky situations. The Shelter Afrique boss's case  after he allegedly assaulted the agency's financial director has not been resolved - he flashed the immunity card to bar authorities from prosecuting him last year. The Nigeria ambassador to Kenya also got off an alleged wife-battering conundrum after flashing the immunity card. And there are other cases to illustrate the abuse of diplomatic immunity, some of which are not reported in the media.

 Isn’t it about time we reviewed this impunity that hides behind the pretexts of diplomatic immunity? Immunity may have been based on good intentions, but if someone has obviously broken the law, they should face up to their actions, and not be allowed to abuse the immunity clause to get away with their crimes. In fact, there should be a clear clause in the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations stating that any diplomat who commits an internationally recognised crime cannot get off on diplomatic immunity. It cannot be that people jeopardise the lives and rights of others and get away with it, legally, on our watch. Immunity must be reconciled with the requirements of justice.

Let diplomats live up to their name of thoughtfulness, tact and decorum while dealing with others or face the full force of the law. But this can only happen if the Vienna Convention is amended to allow for this, or if the home governments of criminals masquerading as diplomats refuse to stand in the way of justice, and allow the law to take its course.

 

 A bit on diplomatic immunity
Certain foreign government officials are not subject to the jurisdiction of local courts and other authorities. As such, they may not be arrested or detained, compelled to be witnesses in legal cases or prosecuted. They are also protected from search warrants.

The level of immunity may differ depending on the rank of the official:

• Diplomatic agents and members of their immediate families are immune from all criminal prosecutions and most civil law suits.
• Administrative and technical staff members of embassies, and consular officers  have a lower level of immunity. They are only immune for acts performed as part of their official duties.

Immunity may be waived by the home country and immunity does not exempt a diplomat from the jurisdiction of his home country. The host country can declare any member of foreign diplomatic staff persona non grata and the home country of the diplomat would have to recall the person or terminate his contract with the mission.

Source: Ediplomat.com http://goo.gl/G7mJoU

Diplomatic code of misconduct

If you think that it is only in Kenya (or Africa) where diplomats behave badly and get away with it, then you have probably not travelled widely enough. Top on the diplomatic code of misconduct are traffic offences, sexual offences, and refusing to pay rent or other fees and other crimes under the guise of diplomatic impunity.

Below are examples and commentary on diplomatic immunity reported in various media.

1. The untouchables: Is diplomatic immunity going too far? (Readers Digest) http://goo.gl/lWBDHB
2. Diplomatic immunity or diplomatic impunity? (The Standard) http://goo.gl/GWWKC8
3. The 6 most ridiculous abuses of diplomatic immunity (Cracked.com) http://goo.gl/m9uBt

Additional view from a legal perspective http://goo.gl/IfDcxO