Is Covid-19 denialism by leaders criminal?

Tanzania's former President John Pombe Magufuli addresses a campaign rally at Jangwani grounds in Dar es Salaam, October 23, 2015. [REUTERS/Sadi Said/File Photo]

Does the denialism that Covid-19 was a high risk to human life by the late Tanzanian John Pombe Magufuli just like former US President Donald Trump constitute a case for crime against humanity?

This is the question that was put to me over the weekend. It is a troubling question because it embeds in it beliefs, assumptions, half-truths and truisms.

Magufuli, who was a man with a big heart and super commitment to fighting corruption and improving governance in his country, shared one belief with Trump. Both men believed that “this whole thing about Covid-19” was more than the public, that has no access to high level classified information, could get to understand.

But first things first. The commitment of Tanzanians to utu (humanness), lived through the spirit of undugu (oneness), is enviable. But that spirit did not drop from heaven. The founding father of the nation, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, and his successors laboured really hard to cultivate it. That is the undugu drive Magufuli will be remembered for, among other high unrivalled legacies. My deepest condolences and prayers to Tanzanians as they mourn the death of not just their leader but a Pan-Africanist whose commitment to ‘Africanicity’ will be remembered by future generations.

Back to business. Magufuli’s critics bayed for his blood on two fronts: Stifling freedom of speech and leading a resistance that observing the World Health Organisation (WHO) protocols on preventing the spread of the coronavirus will lead to flattening the curve. On the latter, he drew global cynicism only paralleled with Trump, albeit on a small scale. But how grave was his resistance to accepting Covid-19 containment measures?

Let us deal with disinformation. Magufuli believed Covid-19 exists. He confessed a couple of times that his family and staff contracted the virus. Moreover, he advocated local containment measures such as kujinyungu (steaming oneself). On this basis, to say that he was a “denialist”, is a lie.

However, the cause and nature of Covid-19 for him, like for Trump, is suspect. That is why Magufuli carried out his own tests upon which he discounted the veracity of the virus. This is classical scientific scepticism given that he knew quite a bit of scientific principles, having been a scientist. Did he buy into conspiracy theorists, most who saw Covid-19 either as biological warfare; a business agenda fronted by pharmacists through development of a vaccine; an impending Fouth World War; a hoax and so forth?

About a year after the global effects of coronavirus, particularly deaths, in many countries, Magufuli permitted use of masks for those who had to and somehow scorned those who dared use them even in his presence.

The cure he advocated was belief in God mweza yote (in Him nothing is impossible). When he meets his maker, he will surely protest why he (God) let him down at the hour of need. Jesus Christ himself had this experience on the cross when he felt abandoned by his God.

The response on whether the “denialism” would constitute a crime against humanity lies on whether people can be charged for what they believe. In other words, can leaders be prosecuted for epistemic responsibility?

First, Magufuli laid bare the failure to flatten the Covid-19 curve in countries that strictly follow containment measures. Tanzania is no worse off than the US, Brazil or the developed countries in Europe. “Prosecuting” him at the ICC for refusing to follow the protocols will be self-defeating because there is no hard evidence to show that his country is worse off because of his ambivalent policy to the containment measures.

Second, contrast this with Kenya. Our government took drastic steps and even locked down the country as “necessary painful measures” to avert more disastrous effects. Unlike Magufuli, who acted based on what he believed, Kenyans turned to be the virus accelerators through political rallies and their don’t-care culture. Without reliable empirical evidence from both countries, it is difficult to tell who is worse off, and who should, therefore, face the ICC.

Third, in moral theory, it is encouraged to be on the side of what is right than to gamble when in doubt. We don’t know what Magufuli knew as president. He didn’t labour to provide substantial arguments for his anti-Covid-19 containment measures. But we know that Tanzanian Episcopal Conference repudiated his stand with evidence of 25 priests and 60 nuns succumbing to Covid-19. On this, we can safely conclude that Magufuli gambled and probably got it right for the first wave of the coronavirus, but not the second and third. He was wrong, period.

Dr Mokua is Executive Director of Loyola Centre for Media and Communication