The Truth Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC) has hired 300 statement takers. 100 of them are victims of past human rights abuses. The reason behind it according to the TJRC is that this is a victim-driven process. Let us discuss whether victims should take such a primary role in the Truth Justice and Reconciliation process.
Recall that the Chairperson is victim number one, since he has indicated in public that he looks forward to have his case heard (remember he is so wealthy he has filed another suit in court- to clear his name). In my view this is the foundation of disaster. Justice requires that all victims are treated equally. There are no classes of victims nor should victims be treated on a priority basis.
One of the core functions of the TJRC under section 6 of the TJRC Act, 2008 (No. 6 of 2008) is- investigate gross violations and abuses of human rights including abductions, disappearances, detentions, torture, sexual violations, murder, extrajudicial killings, ill-treatment and expropriation of property.
Statement taking is the most important stage of the Truth Justice and Reconciliation process. If a victim's statement is not taken, then that violation may never find a place in the hearings or even the final report. In other words this is the entry point for all cases. It therefore means that the Kenyan TJRC has opened up alternative entry points, that of being a Chairperson or a statement taker. Remember that all victims whether rich or poor, young or old, literate or illiterate desire to be heard and hopefully secure redress. However due to resource constraints, not all cases will be heard at the TJRC hearings. Indeed some will get redress, others will appear in the final report and some dismissed for lack of merit. Statement takers should therefore be professionals, well trained for the work.
Justice must be done and seen manifestly to be done. The question is whether the victims who do not work as statement takers will perceive justice to be done in the present circumstances? I wonder if the case involving the chairperson will be heard first? Won't there be the temptation for 'victim statement takers' to prefer their cases or even add more details just to make sure their cases are heard? Although statement takers will only take statements, is the process open and impartial? Can all Kenyans identify with the process? Is it a process for a few, or for the entire republic? Is the process honest?
These are critical questions that come to my mind. What is your view.
1 comment:
Are you suggesting that victims are biased? I think the issue is how professional and well-trained they are. I would be concerned if we adopted that all victims, solely because they are victims, are disqualified from holding positions in a truth commission or any other body. As long as they are qualified, why should they not participate or be hired? All other truth commissions of which I am aware had victims on staff -- in fact Desmond Tutu, who was detained by the apartheid police, chaired the South African commission.
Post a Comment