It is in South Africa’s best interests to fight against terrorism but the country has to be pushed to fight crimes against humanity.
This is the view of a researcher on the eve of an appeal by the state before the Constitutional Court against a reduced sentence for terrorist Henry Okah.
Okah‚ a Nigerian national with permanent residence status in South Africa‚ was convicted by the Johannesburg High Court in 2013 for two bombings that occurred in Nigeria in 2010.
Two car bombs in Warri killed one person in March 2010‚ while another two explosions in Abuja killed 12 and injured 36 on October 1‚ 2010.
Mbete warns Concourt not to meddle in parliamentNational Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete has issued a stern warning to the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) to stay out of parliament's affairs.
Okah was tried using terror legislation‚ which gives South Africa jurisdiction to try crimes committed outside the borders of the country. He was sentenced to 24 years.
The state is appealing against the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment‚ which set aside Okah’s conviction for the Warri bombings and reduced his sentence to 20 years.
The SCA found that South Africa did not have jurisdiction to try Okah for the Warri bombings because he had conspired to commit the bombings while outside the borders of South Africa.
The SCA found that Okah had orchestrated the Abuja bombings from within South Africa and those convictions stood.
The zeal with which South African authorities pursue Okah’s case is in stark contrast to its opposition to comply with its international obligations regarding crimes against humanity. For example‚ the government’s reluctance to arrest Sudanese Omar al-Bashir while he was in South Africa.
Allan Ngari‚ a senior researcher at the Institute for Security Studies‚ said the reason the state struggled to attack crimes against humanity cases was that those cases involved heads of states and government did not want relations to sour between countries by apprehending those suspects.
“This is the issue that would touch on political heads. There is a reluctance on the part of African states to intervene in the governance of other states‚” Ngari said.
Ngari said it was easier for countries to cooperate on terrorism because these were acts against the state.
He said some states had gone beyond their powers in the fight against terrorism.
“The acts of terrorism do not involve the higher echelons of government‚ as in the case with the Zimbabwe torture case.”
Okah jail time battle goes to Concourt
It is in South Africa’s best interests to fight against terrorism but the country has to be pushed to fight crimes against humanity.
This is the view of a researcher on the eve of an appeal by the state before the Constitutional Court against a reduced sentence for terrorist Henry Okah.
Okah‚ a Nigerian national with permanent residence status in South Africa‚ was convicted by the Johannesburg High Court in 2013 for two bombings that occurred in Nigeria in 2010.
Two car bombs in Warri killed one person in March 2010‚ while another two explosions in Abuja killed 12 and injured 36 on October 1‚ 2010.
Okah was tried using terror legislation‚ which gives South Africa jurisdiction to try crimes committed outside the borders of the country. He was sentenced to 24 years.
The state is appealing against the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment‚ which set aside Okah’s conviction for the Warri bombings and reduced his sentence to 20 years.
The SCA found that South Africa did not have jurisdiction to try Okah for the Warri bombings because he had conspired to commit the bombings while outside the borders of South Africa.
The SCA found that Okah had orchestrated the Abuja bombings from within South Africa and those convictions stood.
The zeal with which South African authorities pursue Okah’s case is in stark contrast to its opposition to comply with its international obligations regarding crimes against humanity. For example‚ the government’s reluctance to arrest Sudanese Omar al-Bashir while he was in South Africa.
Allan Ngari‚ a senior researcher at the Institute for Security Studies‚ said the reason the state struggled to attack crimes against humanity cases was that those cases involved heads of states and government did not want relations to sour between countries by apprehending those suspects.
“This is the issue that would touch on political heads. There is a reluctance on the part of African states to intervene in the governance of other states‚” Ngari said.
Ngari said it was easier for countries to cooperate on terrorism because these were acts against the state.
He said some states had gone beyond their powers in the fight against terrorism.
“The acts of terrorism do not involve the higher echelons of government‚ as in the case with the Zimbabwe torture case.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Latest Videos