[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

April 27



ZAMBIA:

Zambia has 168 men and 2 women on death row


Yesterda's He was speaking in Kabwe today when he addressed hundreds of 
prisoners at Mukobeko maximum security prison

The Zambia Correctional Services says it has 170 inmates on death row. The 170 
comprises 168 males at Mukobeko Maximum Security Facility in Kabwe. The 2 women 
are confined to the female section.

Zambia Correctional Services Commissioner General Percy Chato said before the 
courts of law convicted and sentenced the 170 people to death for committing 
various capital offences, there had been no inmate on death row. The number had 
accumulated since July 16, 2015.

"As at July 16, 2015, there was no one on death row following the presidential 
clemency of 332 inmates by His Excellency Mr Edgar Chagwa Lungu, the Republican 
President. The number has risen since honourable courts have continued 
committing inmates to prison," he said.

Mr Chato, however, said in response to a Press query that no inmate on death 
row had been hanged since 1997.

Mr Chato said that the last Head of State to sign the death penalty which 
eventually led to the execution by hanging of eight inmates at Mukobeko Maximum 
Security Facility was Frederick Chiluba.

Dr Chiluba's successor Levy Mwanawasa refused to sign the death penalty during 
his reign, the precedent which subsequent presidents in Rupiah Banda, Michael 
Sata and Mr Lungu have carried on.

"There is no legal backing as to whether execution must not be carried out, it 
is on the Christian tenets since Zambia was declared a Christian Nation," Mr 
Chato said.

(source: Lusaka Times)

*********************

Zambian opposition fails to have treason case dropped----United Party for 
National Development leader among those charged, Amnesty claims intimidation

Opposition leader Hakainde Hichilema failed in his bid to have treason charges 
against him and other United Party for National Development (UPND) officials 
dismissed on Wednesday.

Hichilema and 5 other defendants have been accused of treason over an incident 
on April 8 when they allegedly blocked President Edgar Lungu's motorcade as it 
passed through Mongu, a town 500 kilometers (310 miles) west of the capital 
Lusaka.

Judge Green Malumano agreed with defense lawyers about the lack of detail in 
the treason allegation -- it contains no information how the accused planned to 
overthrow the government -- but refused to quash the charge.

"Instead, I will allow the prosecutors to amend the charge and ... include 
covert activities the accused planned to undertake in order to overthrow the 
Zambian government," he told the court in Lusaka.

If the prosecution failed to include such detail, the count would be quashed, 
Malumano added.

The UPND defendants cannot be bailed while awaiting trial for treason, which is 
punishable by the death penalty or at least 15 years' imprisonment.

Outside the court, around 50 opposition supporters were arrested following 
clashes with police.

Amnesty International on Wednesday demanded Hichilema's immediate release and 
called for the government to drop the treason charges. The group's southern 
Africa director, Deprose Muchena, said the treason allegation was designed to 
harass and intimidate the opposition.

(source: aa.com.tr)






NIGERIA:

Death penalty in Nigeria: Constitutional but unconventional


Executing persons on the death row is an issue Nigerians don't take lightly. 
Whenever this issue is raised, the picture of Late Sani Abacha comes alive. He 
was reckoned to have ordered the execution of over 100 Nigerians during his 
reign in power. It was contended then that the trials which led to the 
convictions were not fair and independent (there is a high possibility that 
many innocent persons were executed). The height of this was reached when Ken 
Saro-Wiwa was killed. His unjust execution nailed the death penalty debate. 
Over the years, while the law regarding death penalty remained intact the 
attitude of presidents and governors has changed. For various reasons they have 
been reluctant to sign the death warrants rather they commute the death penalty 
to life imprisonment. This is a good practise.

Unfortunately, it seems the attitude of some governors is now changing. In 
2013, under the administration of Mr Adams Oshiomhole four people were 
executed. Last year as well, under the administration of Mr Godwin Obaseki, 3 
death row inmates were executed. Lately, Mr Adeniji Kazeem, Attorney General of 
Lagos, caused a stir when he said the state was considering going ahead with 
the execution of inmates on death row.

Mr Femi Falana (SAN) in a letter to Governor Ambode dated April 19, 2017, 
informed the Governor that the planned execution of death row inmates which 
includes the popular Rev. King, General Overseer of Christian Praying Assembly, 
would violate the judgment delivered by Mufutau Olokooba, justice of the Ikeja 
High Court, in 2012. The judge held that "while a person who commits murder may 
be sentenced to death, it is illegal and unconstitutional to execute such death 
by hanging or firing squad as it will lead to the violation of his fundamental 
right to freedom from torture guaranteed by the constitution". In effect the 
judge declared section 367 of the criminal procedure law of Lagos State and any 
other law which provided for hanging by the neck unconstitutional.

Despite this judgement, the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) 2011 
in Section 301, still provides that the "punishment of death is inflicted by 
hanging the offender by the neck till he be dead" while the Administration of 
Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, in Section 402(1) provides that the 
punishment of death is inflicted by hanging the convict by the neck till he is 
dead or by lethal injection (a new introduction into our criminal justice 
system).

I don't support the execution of death sentences and I agree with Mr Falana 
that the death sentences should be commuted to life imprisonment. Unlike Femi 
Falana, however, I think such action by the governor should be an exercise of 
his discretionary powers and not because of the judgement in Ajulu's case.

I am surprised why Mr Femi Falana is relying on a High Court judgement to 
declare execution of death penalties illegal when the Supreme Court has in a 
plethora of cases affirmed that the death penalty prescribed in the Lagos State 
Criminal Code is consistent with the constitution of Nigeria.

In Onuoha Kalu Vs the state the Supreme Court Justice Iguh, held as follows:

"There is nothing in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 
that renders the death penalty under Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code of 
Lagos State unconstitutional. On the contrary, there are sections of the 
constitution, such as sections 30(1), 213(2) (d) and 220 (1) (e) which in no 
mistake terms, recognise the death penalty"

It is indeed settled law that a person who has been condemned to the death row, 
is still entitled - pending when the death sentence is executed - to enjoy some 
other rights which include, the right not to be subject to inhuman and 
degrading treatment (see Nemi v. Attorney General Lagos State (1996) NWLR 
(Pt.452) 42) Instances where actions of "torture or inhuman or degrading 
treatment" can arise for a convict includes where the person is put in a crowed 
cell or unhygienic cell without toilet facilities, lack of food etc. Wabili V. 
C.O.P (1985) 6 NCLR 429

This has not been interpreted to mean that the convict would not be executed.

In the same case of Onuoha Kalu Vs the state, Justice Belgore held as follows:

At any rate, if after death sentence has been passed and the accused is in 
prison custody if anything arises outside the normal custody that amounts to 
"torture or inhuman or degrading treatment" that will be cause of action under 
fundamental rights but not militating against the sentence of death. In such a 
case the death sentence stands. "Inhuman and degrading treatment" outside the 
inevitable confinement in death row will not make illegal the death sentence, 
rather it only gives ground for an enforceable right under the constitution.

Based on the doctrine of hierarchy of court, one can rightly argue that the 
Supreme Court judgement on this issue is settled law and as such final and 
binding on both the Supreme Court itself and the lower courts (including the 
High Court of Lagos State). As Justice Oputa while considering the powers of 
the Supreme Court (as the final court in the land) said in Adegoke Motors Ltd 
v. Adesanya

"We are final not because we are infallible; rather we are infallible because 
we are final"

The issue of executing persons on death row has been settled by the highest 
court of the land, even if it was reached fallibly. The Judgement of the Ikeja 
High Court even though it may be infallible, it is, unfortunately, not final. 
Our legal system is governed by finality and not fallibility or infallibility.

In the light of the above, I humbly disagree with the learned silk and posit 
that the governor would be acting within the law if he seeks to proceed. Rather 
than present legal arguments to discourage the governor, we have to appeal to 
his conscience and international best practises.

Punishments for capital offences attract the death penalty and this type of 
punishment is mandatory. The judge has no discretion whatsoever and the 
constitution approves of it totally. The only remedy available to a person on 
the death row is to appeal to the governor or the president to exercise the 
prerogative of mercy in their favour. Nothing more nothing less and this cannot 
be changed by a court, only a constitutional amendment can alter it. Which is 
why lawyers and NGO's have been demanding that the National Assembly should 
reconsider the continued relevance of death penalty in Nigeria.

(source: J.B Nwachukwu is a lawyer and a writer----businessdayonline.com)






SOUTH KOREA:

Will next president re-implement death penalty?


The death penalty reemerged as a hot political issue in Tuesday's presidential 
TV debate after being shunned by the courts for the past 20 years.

Conservative Liberty Korea Party candidate Hong Joon-pyo asked Democratic Party 
of Korea's Moon Jae-in in the debate on JTBC whether it is legal.

"It is not a matter of being legal or illegal," Moon said. "Although the 
Constitutional Court ruled the system legal, I personally think it should be 
abolished. Korea has not enforced the system for the past 20 years, making it 
practically dead in this country."

Hong replied: "We have not abolished it. We simply did not execute it. The 
system's absence has fanned criminals like serial killers, making them 
rampage."

Moon did not back away, calling the death penalty "ineffective" for reining in 
criminals. "The whole world knows about the system's ineffectiveness," Moon 
said.

A Hankook Ilbo-Korea Times survey following the debate showed Moon leading the 
presidential race with over 40 % support.

The death penalty was last carried out on Dec. 30, 1997, under the Kim 
Young-sam administration, when 23 prisoners were executed. The next president, 
Kim Dae-joong, did not support the system and never saw prisoners on death row. 
Following administrations have also kept their distance.

The 1st execution was in 1949 for murder, while over 1,300 people are estimated 
to have been on death row in Korea. 61 people had a death sentence hanging over 
them as of February last year.

Non-government organization Amnesty International regards any nation that has 
not "pushed the button" for 10 years or longer to have abolished the death 
penalty. It estimates that as of this year, 104 countries have scrapped capital 
punishment.

(source: The Korea Times)






PHIIPPINES:

Palace: Death penalty poll shows Pinoys back 'strong stance' on crime


A recent survey showing that majority of Filipinos back death penalty is an 
affirmation of President Rodrigo Duterte???s leadership and his campaign 
against crime and illegal drugs, Malaca???ang said Wednesday.

A Social Weather Stations survey conducted from March 25 to 28 showed that 61 
%, or 3 in 5 Filipinos, are for the revival of death penalty, one of the 
priorities of the Duterte administration.

Only 23 % of the 1,200 respondents were opposed to capital punishment.

"The latest SWS survey showing that 61 % of the Filipino people support the 
proposed death penalty affirms the president's leadership platform anchored on 
peace and order as well as his strong stance against illegal hard drugs and 
criminality," presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said in a statement.

Abella claimed that the poll results prove that Filipinos are supportive of the 
House of Representatives' passage of the death penalty bill.

"It also proves that the House of Representatives' decision last month to pass 
the death penalty bill is on the right track and accurately reflects the pulse 
of the Filipino people," the presidential spokesman said.

The House of Representatives, which is dominated by Duterte allies, passed on 
3rd and final reading the death penalty bill on March 7 despite protests from 
the Roman Catholic Church, pro-life groups and a handful of House members.

The death penalty was abolished in 1987 during the presidency of Corazon Aquino 
but was reimposed 6 years later under President Fidel Ramos.

Crimes that were covered by death penalty include rape, kidnapping, murder, 
drug trafficking and rape.

Capital punishment was scrapped anew in 2006 under President Gloria 
Macapagal-Arroyo, who, as Pampanga representative, voted against the death 
penalty bill in March.

Abella said Duterte is "determined to fulfill his promise to make a safer and 
more secure place for the people" and to promote "sustained economic progress 
to uplift the lives of the Filipinos."

Drilon: Senate approval unlikely

According to Senate Minority Leader Frankilin Drilon, however, the chances for 
the death penalty bill are slimmer at the Senate.

"It's not simply because of the LP (Liberal Party), but because individually or 
collectively the senators think we should not impose the death penalty. In 
fact, there are 7 from the majority coalition today in the Senate who are 
against the reimposition of the death penalty and 6 from the minority," Drilon, 
a former Senate president, said at the Kapihan sa Manila Bay Forum on 
Wednesday.

Drilon said it is still not clear whether the Philippines is barred from 
reimposing the death penalty by international treaty, a matter that put 
hearings at the Senate on hold.

"The issue was whether or not the Second Optional Protocol was ratified and the 
opinion of the Secretary of Justice is sought. Again, the situation is the 
previous administration, specifically President Arroyo and then Secretary of 
Foreign Affairs, that, with the law which prohibited the imposition of death 
penalty, we are deemed to have ratified the Second Optional Protocol," he said.

The Department of Justice has yet to submit its legal opinion on the issue, he 
said.

(source: Philippine Star)

********************

Senator Pacquiao vows to push for passage of Death Penalty Bill


Senator Manny Pacquiao believes the death penalty bill is not yet dead contrary 
to the pronouncement of Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon on Wednesday.

"I have trust on the wisdom and foresight of my colleagues at the Senate. I am 
confident that we can be able to muster enough votes to push the approval of 
the death penalty bill in the Upper House," declared Senator Pacquiao, who is 
still in Brisbane, Australia to promote his July 2 fight against Jeff Horn.

Senator Pacquiao is scheduled to fly back to Manila on Friday evening so as not 
to miss the resumption of Senate session on Tuesday (May2).

Senator Pacquiao said the country currently needs a death penalty law to 
address the problem on illegal-drugs trade, as well as, drug-related crimes.

Senator Pacquiao explained there are 2 main reasons why he is staunchly 
proposing for the restoration of the capital punishment.

First, Senator Pacquiao said, drug trafficking can be considered a heinous 
crime.

"Transcript of the 1986 Constitutional Convention would bare that the delegates 
even mentioned 'dope' trafficking as among the heinous crimes and ConCon 
delegate Christian Monsod, main proponent of a death penalty provision in the 
1986 Constitution, used this argument to convince his fellow delegates to 
support his proposal.

Second, Senator Pacquiao believes there is a compelling reason for the 
re-imposition of death penalty involving commission of heinous crimes.

"Don't they (opponents of death penalty bill) consider rampant drug-related 
crimes and the magnitude of illegal drug problem in the country as compelling 
reason?" Senator Pacquiao asked.

For Senator Pacquiao, shabu and even ecstasy are not drugs but poison.

"Shall we allow this kind of poison to continue killing our people particularly 
the youth sector? This is not just addictive but it also kills the dreams and 
future of our youths and the moral fiber of our society," the senator from 
Mindanao said.

He believes that the victory of President Duterte was part of God's plan.

"President Duterte's assumption to power unveiled the gravity of illegal drugs 
problem in our country. Only his administration has declared a relentless war 
against illegal drugs," the boxer-turned-senator said.

According to Senator Pacquiao, there are enough safeguards against wrongful 
execution of the death penalty.

He said, one is outright review by the Supreme Court of the capital punishment 
meted out against an accused and the other is the commutation of the death 
sentence by the President.

(source: philboxing.com)






IRAN:

Revolutionary Courts Responsible for Majority of Executions in Iran


In the Iran Human Rights' (IHR) annual report on the death penalty, the issue 
of due process and the role of the Revolutionary Courts in sentencing 
individuals to death.

The Revolutionary Courts were established in 1979 by the 1st Supreme Leader, 
Ayatollah Khomeini. They were meant to be temporary courts to deal with the 
officials of the former regime. However, they continue to operate more than 37 
years later. These courts are less transparent than the Public Courts and these 
judges are known for greater abuse of their legal powers. These judges also 
often deny access to legal representation during the investigation phase and 
prevent lawyers from accessing client files on the basis of confidentiality, or 
the fact that lawyers have insufficient qualifications to review certain files.

Trials may only last a few minutes, with no jury, no defense lawyers and death 
sentences based on no evidence other than confessions extracted under torture. 
These are the hallmarks of these Revolutionary Courts.

These courts are also well-known for their part in the summary executions of 
the political opposition in the 1980s. Data collected by the IHR shows that 
every year several hundred people are executed on the basis of death sentences 
issued by these courts. This number is significantly higher than the number 
sentenced by the criminal courts.

As the regime has continued to crackdown on human rights activists and lawyers, 
the Revolutionary Courts have played a key part in stamping out any sign of 
opposition. In 2016, for example, the Revolutionary Courts sentenced the human 
rights defenders Nargges Mohammadi and Atena Daemi to 10 years and 7 years in 
prison, respectively, for their activities against the death penalty.

At least 340 of the 530 executions in 2016 were based on death sentences issued 
by the Revolutionary Courts. They have had a higher number of those executions 
for the past 6 years, all the way back to 2010.

"A sustainable reduction in use of the death penalty is impossible as long as 
there is no due process. Revolutionary Courts, which sentence hundreds of 
people to death every year are among the key institutions responsible for 
Iran's violations of due process and must be shut down," said a spokesperson of 
the IHR.

All cases regarded as security related, such as cases involving political and 
civil activists, and others allegedly involved in corruption and drug-related 
charges, are processed by the Revolutionary Courts.

(source: themediaexpress.com)






PAKISTAN:

'Blasphemers deserve death penalty' says PTI


One of Pakistan's leading political party which calls for "moderation and 
freedom to practice the religion" has reaffirmed its support for Pakistan's 
controversial blasphemy laws.

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf(PTI) which is headed by cricketer turned politician 
Imran Khan tweeted its support for the blasphemy laws and endorsed the death 
penalty for those who commit of Blasphemy.

In series of tweets, PTI stated that the party severely condemns 'false 
propaganda that the party plans to make changes to blasphemy laws'.

PTI's official twitter account added that the "PTI strictly believes that 
blasphemer of Prophet (PBUH) deserves the death penalty."

(source: Rabwah Times)