Editorial, New Vision  -  R. Halperin�s news - SEPTEMBER 12, 2001

UGANDA: Debate Capital Punishment

ABDALLAH NASUR is walking free again after more than 20 years of incarceration.

Nasur, who gained notoriety as the no nonsense governor of the then Central Province, was convicted of the 1972 murder of the mayor of Masaka, and has been on death row since 1979.

 The announcement that President Museveni had pardoned and ordered the release of a pillar of the Idi Amin administration has been met with mixed feelings.

 Some feel that he should have been executed for the capital offence he committed, while others are of the view that he has paid for his crime.

 The 2 schools of thought are representative of man's moral struggle with capital punishment. The death penalty is broadly meted out on those who have killed.

 Proponents of the death penalty argue that the punishment should match the crime, that is 'an eye for an eye'. Opponents of capital punishment say execution is merely revenge and perpetuation of killing that serves no useful purpose in correcting wrongdoers. It all boils down to the moral question of whether justice should aim at getting criminals to pay for their crime or having the errant of society straightened out.

 The Nasur issue is not going to answer either contention, since Uganda has the death penalty firmly on its statutes, and Museveni simply used a presidential prerogative to set the convict free.

 It should, however, get us thinking with better focus about capital punishment at this time when the Constitution Review Commission is taking in views on contentious elements of the national constitution.

 At the institutional and individual level, we need to discuss candidly and have a consensus on this critical issue, for which the Constitution is the perfect forum.