Doctrine of 'innocent until proven guilty' should be equal to everyone

A screenshot from a video showing a police officer allegedly shooting dead a suspected criminal in Eastleigh, Nairobi (Photo Courtesy)

My take tonight is about the viral video of a young man being shot to death in Nairobi’s Eastleigh estate a few days ago.

But I am choosing to focus on the shameful conversation that has followed this dastardly incident.

In summary, the video shows a man supposedly in police custody. A uniformed officer keeps the crowds at bay.

Inside the execution square is the body of another man lying seemingly dead on the ground, presumably shot by the same officers.

The plain clothes policeman then proceeds to shoot the young man almost 10 times, at point blank range.

In a society governed by the rule of law, there would have been no debate about just how abhorrent this killing was.

But no, here in Kenya, our reaction has been shocking to say the least. Some of us are cheering on this killing, after all, they say, the young men have been involved in serious crime.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, we promulgated one of the most progressive constitutions in the world!

That basic law provides for the right to life.

This right exists for everyone, for both the victims of crime and the perpetrators too. But it goes further to define exactly how that right can be taken away – through what civilised people call due process.

To advance the argument, therefore, that somehow it is ok for police to execute unarmed suspects, is to throw away the constitution that was passed by two thirds of right thinking Kenyans, just six and a half year years ago.

You see, if we make this infraction on the law just this once, when does it stop? Who's to say that we won’t do the same when we have scores to settle?

All it takes is for someone to cry wolf, accuse an individual of theft and they will be gunned down. Case closed.

Since when did police officers become the prosecutors, the judges and executioners? In any case, if indeed these two young men were part of a terror gang, wouldn’t they be more useful to the police alive rather than dead?

But the hypocrisy of this approach to fighting crime is exposed by how selectively we apply.

Why, for instance, haven’t we ever shot dead all the corrupt individuals who steal billions from public coffers each year?

If we, as a society believe so firmly in this extra-judicial shortcut, why have we taken so long with all the suspects in the Goldenberg scandal or even Anglo-leasing? Why aren’t we asking the inspector general to lead a firing squad to eliminate all the suspects in the NYS scandal?

Friends, the doctrine of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ must be as true for the high and mighty as it is for some seemingly nameless young men in Eastleigh.

We are equal before the law and a crime is a crime is a crime! And so for those posing the shoot-on-sight argument, you can’t have it both ways.

You either uphold the rule of law or you don’t. And if we have it your way, let’s have a jungle out here.

No elections. No Judiciary. No lawyers. Let might become right and let’s see if we’ll have anything called Kenya.

That’s the alternative folks, there is no in between. And that is my take tonight.