By
Retlaw Matatu Matorwa
Oscar Pristorius
murder trial is unarguably one of the 21st century greatest trials. Human
interest subjects such as Love, race, frie-nemies[1] to
privileges of the “haves” took center stage during the trial. Unwearyingly, I
watched the trial transforming from a tragedy to a reality show. The legal
theatrics in the court room was interesting- it was world class performance.
The precedents from this case, undoubtedly has space in the future of legal
jurisprudence. Of interest, the star witness was truly remarkable; Pistorius sobbed,
stammered and gave contradictory statements on the stand. He nearly
incriminated his defense for misleading him. It was dramatic indeed!
Oscar’s trial
dominated social media platforms Facebook, Twitter, Instagram to mention but,
a few. Bloggers and Journalist were glued on whatsapp texting and sending
updates about the trial. In addition to, demonstrations
and picketing from gender activists and organization, sympathizers and
opportunists had their part to play.
Carte Blanch’e
spruced it up through acquiring rights to broadcast the trial live. 138 million
people across the world followed the trial through DSTV channel 198. The channel
was even named OSCAR’s TRIAL. News channels
from CNN to Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation were pre-occupied with the trial
bringing experts foretelling, analyzing the proceeding of the trial- what to
expect- in fact everyone had an opinion.
I appreciated
this trial, for affording the public unfettered right to exercise their freedom
of expression. In essence, this trial was highly opinionated, every Jack, Jill
and Tom had an opinion. Following debates and exchanges on twitter and
facebook- it was amazing how the public “overnight” turned to forensic, Legal and
judiciary experts.
Despite public
opinion calling for his condemnation- to the disappointment of many- Judge
Thokozile Masipa slapped the Olympian with a five year Jail term for culpable homicide
causing the death of Reeva Steenkamp on 14th February 2013.
Whether Judge
Masipa was too lenient or not, is an issue I’m reluctant to address. I will
leave it to legal enthusiast.
This case was
highly publicized, the social status of the accused person also attracted
interest from a wider range of audience. There was no way; this case would have
avoided attracting public opinion. Hence, we had the verdict long before the
trial.
However, public
opinion lacks substance and facts. People’s opinions are not necessarily facts-
Hypothetically, how many of us supported a wrong opinion simply because we want
to please a friend, relative or acquaintances? Not all opinions are misleading
but, human beings have a tendency of using emotions without benefit of
intellect- clouding their judgments.
Judge Masipa must
have had it rough given the public pressure on her shoulders. The manner in
which things were happening makes it difficult for one to maintain an impartial
mind.
However, should
our courts of law relied on public opinion, I’m sure our correctional
facilities must be bursting in capacity; we will all be in prison! - But rest
assured courts of law would be a joke!
Fortunately in
the courts of Law, “the wise and dull both have their story to tell.”
There is no space
for Court of public opinion in a court of law: Courts of Law are established to
seek truth and deliver Justice and fairness to both parties. The court of Law
weighs the merits and demerits of the case before coming up with a judgment. It
places more value of evidence and not emotions.Most of all, the courts of Law
work on the presumption of innocent till proven guilty, BUT court of public
opinion WORKS ON PRESUMPTION OF- guilty till proven innocent and are quick to condemn.
In the courts of
Law the accused is given an opportunity to give his account of events. Unlike
our courts of public opinion where we claim monopoly over what is and should be
the truth. He or she is afforded an opportunity to seek advice from experts in
the hope of shaping his truth- implicitly, the state probes the account of the
accused to triangulate and collaborate his/ her facts and evidence. The
prosecution and defense attorneys are given ample time to state their case in
the presence of an impartial Judge- Playing MUTONGI GAVA character[2]
As a rule of
procedure, the presiding Judge must not be influenced by anything other than
evidence before the court. The rule cushions the Judge from being affected by
public opinions and emotions- As far away as possible he/ she must keep a
distance from media, analyst and public centered opinions. He or she must make
his/ her judgments based on facts and evidence. The courts of public opinion
rarely offer such opportunities.
Without going
into further details, I’m inclined to appreciate Judge Masipa’s objectivity-
she remained calm and collected paying attention to details throughout the
trial. Despite public outrage condemning the accused -her lordship dared
things. She has guts!
Whether
her judgment was erroneous or not, Masipa refused to be intimidated by public
blackmail- she decided to stand by her facts and objective judgment, taking
considerable caution. She upheld the Law, which she was sworn to serve- we may
not agree with her but I respect her incomparable principle of impartiality
resisting populist self serving judgment.
It is my earnest
prayer that; fellow Judges and magistrates in Zimbabwe take a leaf from her
Lordship Masipa. I watched helplessly, as our judiciary system failed a man,
condemning him to prison for his huge sexual appetite. The judiciary system
succumbed to pressure from the public, women rights movement and other
opinionated groups. We judged him on the basis of being a man of the cloth.
This trial removed reason and substituted elements of Law and evidence with
emotions.
I went on record,
and will do so again Martin Gumbura deserves a fair trial- Maybe Masipa may
provide us guidance.
Anyway, that’s my
thinking my thinking!
Black
September………….
[1]
Frie-nemis- is a term used in reference to friends with a antagonize a friend
[2]
Mutongi Gava comes from an old folklore
meaning the impartial, objective judge
No comments:
Post a Comment