POSITIVE VIBRATIONS
Human Rights and the Rule of law: A commentary
NO 153
HUMAN rights and the rule of law are topics which are very close to my heart. Fortunately, they are quite critical to the smooth running of any country on earth. Civility, in the context of civic responsibility is very important for all citizens, notwithstanding political leanings.
One of the largest and accomplished democracies of today is found in North America, by the name of the United States. In a very interesting twist of fate the United States also qualifies as a nation which has distinguished itself in supporting democracy as well as undermining it, using complex political and controversial methods.
As a matter of detail, for once, American citizens have tasted what potential despotism could mean under the current administration of President Donald Trump, (particularly) if and when institutions of government are weak.
It is actually settled that President Trump ascended to power through a democratic process that defies popular will. Did the popular will of the American people prevail? Zamba must truthfully take a learning curve and reflect on how the American citizens have managed controversies that visit their democratic process.
Even our friends, the British, will never out of sheer patriotism and national pride call upon any other entity to help them out of the “mess” of Brexit!
Faith and trust in our institutions be it in the Presidency, Parliament, the Judiciary and all other security entities, is very important. Strong institutions are key for human rights protection and promotion.
This contrasts with investment in hate, anger and deception, in most political formations and with some political actors.
In all fairness and respect to basics of natural justice, President Trump, touched many souls and was supported by people who will do all that any supporter must do, to promote his candidate towards victory and all its trappings.
As they say, in general, the 25 percent rule applies. 25 percent of the people, no matter what, will support you. Another 25 percent will not support you, no matter what you do.
The remaining 50 percent is split right on the middle at 25/25. A portion of 25 percent may be convinced to support you and another portion of 25 percent may be convinced not to support you. These are the swing voters/ supporters who come in many descriptions, depending on schools of thought.
It is the swing voters that propagandists (specialists in influencing elections using the Social media) mainly target. Propaganda is basically misinformation. The dictionary definition is “information, especially of a biased nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.”
A more and better amplification is: “Propaganda is a form of communication to distribute information. It is always biased. The information is designed to make people feel a certain way or believe a certain thing. The information is often political. It is hard to tell whether the information is true or false.”
In the advent of fake news and the unexpected explosion of information on the social media, relevant government wings need to stay on top of things, without fear or favour.
I have in the past talked about human rights and the rule of law by citing and pointing to authorities. Today, I will discuss this subject, just like the other part, from my heart.
Human Rights are about fairness. They are about what is right and what is wrong. My rights as Ngande, ends where your rights begin!
In the last two weeks, I have had readers asking questions such as, “What and who exactly the Cartel is?” Some have asked questions on what I think about “my biased ZNBC” – I do not know whether this refers to the National Broadcaster or some other entity with similar acronyms.
But what was common is that all, unlike many serious readers who call or send SMs or email, the two commentators, bluntly refused to disclose their identity, using lame excuses such as “but you write for the public.” I hear you.
Please take note that as a measure of respect for human rights in all democratic jurisdictions, the police, or who ever arrests you, is required by law to furnish you with a specific charge so that you may defend yourself adequately.
From international human rights law practice, a complainant, who writes to say the African Commission (Of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights) and withholds their identity, will have their complaint unattended to. This is the case with other international human rights systems. The basic principle is that “you cannot seek justice by promoting injustice.”
There are many times, when we think that only states violate human rights. Not at all! Just take a look at the social media and see how many private individuals, elect to defame and injure others for no other reason apart from subscribing to different viewpoints.
What about private clubs, such as political parties, particularly opposition political parties, who take to the social media either by themselves or through other hired professionals and sycophants, to despise/demonise and insult government.
This includes unfortunate incidents of destroying property. Who loses when you burn down a police station? Is this kind of expression not an attempt to injure the Treasury?
Let’s take the most topical view of freedom of expression. Does freedom of expression have boundaries? I would be extremely sad and certainly take to the platform of firm human rights advocacy, if and when there is an irresponsible position that “anyone can express themselves in any manner they wished.” Why?
That position is what I consider reckless, and attacks Article
1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
The provision that talks about “freedom of expression” in all international legal instruments makes reference to “provisions of domestic law.”
The fine and correct assumption is that those who wish to rely on the right to expression are members of the global community which is regulated by international law and, which law is not shy on matters of sanction. (Not the economic sanctions, we hear about).
We can also talk about penal reform (Prison reform). Penal reform is a matter which stares at, those Zambians who hold a negative view about prisoners, prisons and ugly conditions.
Bear in mind that apart from the legally recognised sanctions and restrictions, prisoners retain all other human rights. They are as human as any other. Their restriction represents the anger that society feels about those citizens who admit illegality and offend society.
For avoidance of doubt, Human Rights attach to all individuals, irrespective of colour, creed, belief, place of origin etc. The common denominator is the word “Human.” I ask; is your neighbour a human being? Are you treating him/her according to the provisions of our Laws?
This takes me to talk about the rule of law. The best way of describing the rule of law and not THE RULE BY LAW or LAW
of RULE, is simply that we must without exception accept to be governed by law. That; law is what it is, and not what I as Ngande, or any other Zambian, wants. It is as simple as that.
If the University of Zambia management or the Meteorological Services Department is going to make an official public decision, they cannot do so outside the provisions of the law.
It does happen that an overzealous official or an official genuinely, believing that they are acting within the law, makes a decision, which is in bad taste.
Judicial Review, traced as a Judicial “invention” of the United States in the land mark case
Human Rights are about fairness. They are about what is right and what is wrong. My rights as Ngande, ends where your rights begin!
of Marbury Vs Madison (Fourth President of the United States from 1809 to 1817) mitigates overzealousness.
Please note that in any judicial review proceedings, merit of the matter is never the subject of litigation. The subject of litigation is the manner in which a decision was made, without reference to presumed rights or wrongs. This power is vested in the Courts, as an independent umpire.
Judicial review is very much available in Zambian Courts, just like in many other civilised jurisdictions.
It is this component which appears shaky, year in and year out. Equally, it is this component, which many times, is fertile for abuse by those with ready access to the Courts. Strictly speaking, there is nothing wrong with anybody going to Court if not satisfied.
But, with the same reasons they go to Court, they must magnanimously accept the verdict of the Court if and when it goes against their pleading.
Just look at how Lawyers are gracious with any verdict! They will accept, by indicating, “Most obliged” and if need be, as the case maybe, advise their client on the option(s) of appeal, contrasted with unreasonableness.
Concretely and based on fundamentals of liberty, which includes the rule of law, Zambia has declared itself a democracy. What does this mean?
Among many others, it means that all Zambians must be staunch believers in democracy. They must believe in the rule of law. A believer in the rule of law will not work towards defeating or obstructing justice, by compromising or undermining legal processes. All illegalities are what they are. Illegal!
Intra-party democracy, in my view, is a determinant of acceptance and compliance to democratic norms. It will secure a good and deeper understanding of democratic practice, as well as constitutionalism/rule of law.