The question we gonna attempt to answer today is whether the Human Rights Commission can replace or overlap with the statutory investigative and enforcement powers of the police. On the last day of Sheria week, the President of TLS, Boniface Mwabukusi, recommended to the President Samia Suluhu Hassan to pack the Human Rights Commission with a statutory punch and do what the police are unwilling or unable to do: arraignment of human rights violations.
This is definitely a duplication of roles between the police and the commission. What will be the outcome, assuming Mwabukusi has his way? Will criminal justice have a new dawn because the commission has chopped off some of the police functions? Mwabukusi’s mind was transfixed on extrajudicial abductions, torture and killings. Suppose it was the security forces who were the ones perpetrating these atrocities. Can the commission be armed to the teeth with the tools to investigate bad cops within the security apparatchik? This discourse discusses the dilemmas and challenges that will ensue no sooner the commission yanks off some of the statutory functions of the police.
Mwabukusi’s intent is honourable and above reproach. He is really traumatized by extrajudicial crimes inflicted on common mwananchi. So, his passionate aim is really to end human rights abuses. The way the Tanzania Human Rights Commission was patched up was really to act as a whistle-blower and a catalyst to get to the bottom of human rights abuses. It was not created to do it but to recommend further actions wherever necessary. The problem comes when the regime is also committing her own atrocities. When it comes to non-regime-sponsored human rights violations, the police are best suited to deal with them. However, when the bosses of the police or the police themselves are the ones who are the perpetrators of human rights violations in order to achieve parochial political goals, the police become eunuchs to pursue those cases diligently. This narrates why political-related human rights abuses have remained in a perpetual limbo.
Orders from their superiors or out of fear of reprisals deter the police from doing the right thing. This brings me to another question, which is probably what Mwabukusi was attempting to address: who investigates the investigators? In other words, who investigates the police when they are being accused of acts of omission or commission against human rights? Can the Human Rights Commission fill the boots left by the police through the legislative effort? I seriously doubt it. And here are my reasons.
The first problem the commission will face is a lack of cooperation from the police simply because the police have a rigid hierarchical power structure and will be impenetrable to the commission. The commission, through statutory enabling, may have powers to summon the suspects from the police force but cannot compel them to self-incriminate themselves or their compatriots. So, despite having been clothed with statutory teeth, the commission will be undermined by a lack of cooperation from the police force. In fact, out of sheer rivalry, the police will be incentivized to ensure the commission fails because of meddling on issues which are not traditionally falling into their orbit of practice.
The second thorn will be that the commission will need to rival the police in the allocations of resources akin to the latter with other law enforcement bodies such as TAKUKURU, Drugs Control Enforcement Authority (DCEA), etc. Like all those organs, the Human Rights Commission will find that it does not have sufficient resources to do the job. At best it will be catching up to the police. The commission will find it never has enough resources to carry out its statutory mandate.
The third inertia is duplication and overlap of the statutory responsibilities. The Human Rights Commission that was supposed to do the ground work and write a report, which essentially plays an oversight role, will be swallowed with enforcement remit. Then, the commission will lose its meaning because it will find itself facing accusations associated with enforcement like those the police encounter on a daily basis. Such questions tend to revolve around shoddy investigative works, bias, cover-up, bribery, extortion, etc. Then, we will see that even the commission needs another layer of oversight to keep it under the leash.
Fourth is what I call escapologist mentality. This happens when institutional problems such as those confounding the police are not addressed there but are shifted to another institution. The commission empowered to have police powers will slow or frustrate police reforms. The lame excuse will be now we have the Human Rights Commission legally strengthened to pursue human rights violations, let us give it time to do its work. Fixing a myriad of internal police problems will require back-burner treatment.
Fifth is gutting the police. Look at the TAKUKURU today. Whoever advised us to create one really wanted us to breastfeed mega corruption. TAKUKURU is good at dealing with petty criminals but takes a nap when senior government officials have been adversely mentioned. They usually wait or tarry for presidential directives before springing into action. Tons and tons of corruption allegations do their rounds in Parliament and news outlets, but you will never hear TAKUKURU taking the initiative. Some say it is a lack of security of tenure, but others see an “unholy alliance” between the appointer and the appointee. There is a symbiotic association between the two classes, tying them at the hip.
Then what should really be done to hammerlock human rights abuses? It is a complex matter because it is linked to the political fortunes of those in power. As the rulers of the day refuse to subject themselves to a democratic process, nothing will stop them from weaponizing atrocities in order to keep themselves in power.
That makes Mwabukusi’s well-intended advice just another cosmetic “nip and tuck” but will never solve the intricacies of why humanity is obsessed with the sceptres of power and is willing to violate the rights of their perceived enemies to cling to power, albeit it is all too fleeting surreal, to put it bluntly?
Interestingly, President Samia Suluhu Hassan sidestepped this thorny issue with these words: “……umezungumzia Tume ya Haki ya Binadamu….” She made no attempt to address the core issues Mwabukusi had raised. This shows the complexity and the sensitivity of the issues at hand. Unless there is a political will to respect human rights, we will be grinding water in a millstone. The president was too comfortable to address the grievances of poor working conditions within the judiciary and made some loft promises to reverse them, but when it came to “actions against human rights atrocities”, it was, for obvious reasons, a “no-go zone”!
Our challenge ought to be how do we secure and retain the political will to arraign upon human rights abuses? This question is far-reaching and vital to discuss, rather than a pop-up of rival bodies to deal with those violations.
Read more articles by Rutashubanyuma Nestory
