Moi University student and blogger Seth Odongo. PHOTO | SAMUEL MUIGAI | NATION
In the week that Disembe Dikembe, the
ODM social media warrior, was arraigned in court for something he had
written, two Swazi nationals, human rights lawyer Thulani Maseko and
Bheki Makhubu, the editor of The Nation, a Swazi newspaper, were jailed
for two years without the option of a fine for something written by the
former and published by the latter.
Disembe was
charged with posting a message, deemed to constitute hate speech, on a
social media platform. Thulani and Makhubu, in custody since arrest in
March, were convicted after a trial for contempt of court.
The
background was that Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi ordered the arrest
of a government vehicle inspector who had impounded his official car
and who was then charged before the Chief Justice, having been assaulted
while in custody.
In a newspaper article, Thulani
criticised the Chief Justice for acting as the complainant, prosecutor
and judge in his own cause for which he was himself, with the editor,
arrested and charged with contempt for annoying the Chief Justice.
Justice
Ramodibedi, recently dismissed from the judiciary of his native Lesotho
on disciplinary grounds, then removed a judge hearing the case who had
granted the accused bail, which he cancelled himself, and assigned the
case a different judge. Tried while in custody, the two have now been
jailed without the option of a fine.
It is a quintessential show trial, one that enhances the well-earned title of a “judicial monarch”, for Justice Ramodibedi.
Disembe
is a true ODM cyber fighter, and an equal match for Moses Kuria and
Denis Itumbi, the opposing warriors on the Jubilee side.
Kuria’s
activities on social media have recently caused some consternation, for
example, when he likened the opposition to Al-Shabaab, or when he wrote
insulting messages about the Luo community.
NOT CHARGED
Unlike
Disembe, however, Kuria has not been charged in court but has gone on
to clinch a nomination ticket in the President’s party for the
forthcoming by-election in Gatundu.
Itumbi’s efforts
have since earned him, not scorn, but a high job in the presidency, with
the title of Director of Digital, New Media and Diaspora.
He
now has formal recognition at the highest level of power, and an
official platform which makes his social media work a part of state
policy. When, in September last year, human rights lawyer Maina Kiai
alleged that “a well-known hate blogger employed at State House” was
behind threats to his family, this newspaper concluded that Maina was
referring to Itumbi who, however, denied the allegation. The point is
that this is the image that the media has formed about Itumbi.
These
social media brawlers are not the only people whose expressions have
drawn political reaction recently. In the build-up to the Saba Saba
rally, a number of elected representatives, on both sides of the
political divide, drew attention to themselves after strong utterances
at public rallies.
Police appeared to consider these
utterances to be hate speech but no charges were brought against any of
the leaders. So why has Dikembe been singled out?
Two
factors seem to be at play in the way Dikembe has been treated. First,
he is writing on behalf of the opposition and not the government and,
second, unlike the political leaders, he has no clout as would protect
him from arrest.
It will be recalled that in 2010,
former minister Chirau Mwakwere, an establishment stalwart, faced hate
speech charges after remarks he had made at a political rally. The
prosecution of his case, however, faced many hurdles, and was then
withdrawn.
Kenyan law on hate speech dates back to
2008 and is a reaction to the post-election violence, which was caused
in part by a groundswell of inflammatory campaigns on social media.
As
conceived, the crime of hate speech was not something to be used in a
one-sided manner as has been evident so far. Under the Jubilee
Government, the hate speech legislation risks replacing the law of
sedition, which was the one-party era tool for silencing political
dissent.
The point of principle is that political
dissent is part of the country’s entitlement of freedoms. It was wrong
to stifle expression through sedition laws, and it will equally be wrong
to start using hate speech laws in a manner that takes the place of
sedition laws, which were repealed.
POLITICALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL
Underlying
the social media wars are real life differences about how to live
together as compatriots. Social media has taken the place of the
resistance media, like Pambana, published underground, and which
characterised the one party era, when the country was politically
dysfunctional. Silencing dissent through the criminal law will not make
the underlying problems go away.
From the dock, the
Swazi lawyer, Thulani, dressed as a Zulu warrior complete with headgear,
read a statement titled The failure of leadership in Swaziland, a
defiant political lecture to the judge and to the entire world, pointing
out that the essential problem in his country is not the high-handed
Chief Justice who jails his critics himself. The essential problem, he
said, is that leadership has failed and Swaziland needs political
reforms.
In Kenya, jailing social media attack dogs is
easy, even attractive. However, it is an escape from the essential, and
far more difficult task -- the task of political reforms, to create a
society where people will not need to hide behind pseudonyms to say what
they really feel.
No comments:
Post a Comment