Lakes state high court sentence ex-commissioner to life imprisonment
By Manyang Mayom
September 12, 2010 (RUMBEK) — The Lakes State high court sentenced ex-commissioner Agok Manyiel Dhieu to life imprisonment last Thursday, 9 September 2010. The court decision was announced by Lakes State high court judge, Noah Kau Ater. Manyiel was also ordered to paid 31 cows as compensation for the killing of his bodyguard in an incident in August 2008.
In 2008, Manyiel was the commissioner of Yirol West County, Lakes State.
During a visit to remote village in Annual payam located in the southern part of his county, an incident occurred involving his bodyguard and armed soldiers who entered his car without permission.’Payam’ is an originally Dinka word promulgated by the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement to refer to a small district.
One of Manyiel’s bodyguards fought with a Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) soldiers and was killed. Shortly after his death, another of Manyiel’s bodyguards killed the solider responsible.
The court ruled that Manyiel was guilty of complicity in the killing of an SPLA soldier, which Manyiel and a witness refuted. The witness said that when the gunfire began, Manyiel was sleeping. Manyiel affirmed that “I did not give an order or instruction to kill anybody to my bodyguard – I even wondered what it was when I heard gunfire outside”.
Mariam Agok Dhieu, Manyiel’s wife, dismissed court verdict saying that the court decision was completely politically motivated.
“I am not completely happy with way the case is being declared by high court judge – it is completely clear, that this decision being announced by the judge is seriously politically motivated – there is no justice at all,” said Dhieu.
Manyiel’s lawyer, Monyluak Alor Kuol, was “not satisfied by the decision of the high court.”
Alor said that he will submit a letter of appeal to the the high court for the decision to be revised on Tuesday.
Manyiel was charged under the Southern Sudan Penal Court Act 2008 under section 53, 206 and 140 with charges of murder.
Manyiel is the second commissioner appointed by Government of Southern Sudan presidential decree, replacing Akec Maciek Yor on March 15, 2007. Furthermore, Manyiel was relieved of his position in March 2010 by former caretaker Telar Ring Deng.
(ST)
Ajiech M. Chol
Lakes state high court sentence ex-commissioner to life imprisonment
Like its often said, “Justice serve is a justice denied” I believe those who have killed innocent people even the current vice president of GOSS Dr. Riak Machar and his former ally Dr. Lam Akol deserve to be persecuted for massacred innocent people in 1991 just because they have a personal problem with Dr. John Garang. I believe if the commissioner involved in such a horrible crime then he (Muoranyar) gets what he deserves. By persecuting those who have found guilty will scar criminals alittle bit. Last and not the least, I urge that the Southern Sudan Federal court should be given absolute power without restrictions to punish goverment officials who have involved in a crime lelated death like this case.
Kur William
Lakes state high court sentence ex-commissioner to life imprisonment
H.E Noah Kau Ater you have to be confidence that your ruling on this matter is accurate which comply with judicairy articles because the case seem to be complex a bit the confrontation of these SPLA soldiers with they bodyguards of ex-commissioner which resulted him to serve the jail term is not emminent without good clarification.
Kur
Andrew Ater REECH
Lakes state high court sentence ex-commissioner to life imprisonment
Everyone deserves to have fair justice regardless of race, religion, gender and ethnicity.
As a concerned citizen, I would like express my personal dissatisfaction with our legal system that robbed her citizen’s rights. In the case of Agok Manyiel Dhieu, I would like to point out to the readers that I’m not a fan of Agok Manyiel Dhieu nor am I his relative but as someone who want justice to take it course in methodological fair and balance regardless to all parties in dispute.
When I read the condition in which Mr Dhieu was charged reported below
“The court ruled that Manyiel was guilty of complicity in the killing of an SPLA soldier, which Manyiel and a witness refuted. The witness said that when the gunfire began, Manyiel was sleeping. Manyiel affirmed that “I did not give an order or instruction to kill anybody to my bodyguard – I even wondered what it was when I heard gunfire outside”. Sudantribine, 12/9/210.
I keep scratching my head, why? Because when a case turns on a conflict between the evidence of a prosecution witness and the evidence of a defence witness, it is commonplace for a judge to invite a jury to consider the question: who is to be believed? But it is essential to ensure, by suitable direction, that the answer to that question (which the jury would doubtless ask themselves in any event) if adverse to the defence, is not taken as concluding the issue whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the issues which it bears the onus of proving. The jury must be told that, even if they prefer the evidence for the prosecution, they should not convict unless they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the truth of that evidence. The jury must be told that, even if they do not positively believe the evidence for the defence, they cannot find an issue against the accused contrary to that evidence if that evidence gives rise to a reasonable doubt as to that issue.
In this case, I wonder which burden of proof was used, is the case was determined by the balance of probability which is the standard proof for civil, or, the proof beyond reasonable doubt, the standard of proof for criminal law.
The word complicity in criminal law stated that an individual is complicit in a crime if he/she is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so. However, Mr Dhieu has explicitly expressed his innocent knowledge of the incident, because, burden of proof is the obligation of a party on one side of a dispute or issue to provide sufficient evidence in support of their position. If Mr Dhieu was tried under criminal law, it should refer to the above expressed point. This discretion that has been placed on the term complicity is this matter is far too vague, making hard for the law person as well as legal idealist to comprehends the decision. The Mr Dhieu will be vindicated when the proper procedures of due process take it course!
As I know that the utilitarian principles of deterrence and prevention are drivers of punishment in contemporary society such as Retributive justice and just desert example of lex talionis, the biblical times – an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a proportionate response to crime proven by lawful evidence, so that punishment is justly imposed and considered as morally correct and fully deserved. Or, Utilitarianism philosophy stated that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. I personally, view this case more associated to Restorative justice and with no doubt, Restorative Justice should be used and would be more appropriate in this case, because, 31 herds are already awarded to the victim.
The following sections of criminal code penal should be used by Mr Dhieu bodyguard in his defence.
Section 56 – “Right of Private Defense of the Body and of Property”: Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions hereinafter contained, to defend:-
(a) his own body and the body of any other person against any offence affecting the human body;
.
Section 61 – “When Right of Private Defense of the Body Extends to Causing Death”:
The right of private defense of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in sections 58 and 59, to the voluntary causing of death only when the act to be repelled is of any of the following descriptions, namely:-
(a) an attack which causes reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
Section 62 – “When Right of Private Defense of Property Extends to Causing Death”:
The right of private defense of property extends, under the restrictions mentioned in sections 58 and 59, of the voluntary causing of death only when the act to be repelled is of any of the following descriptions, namely:-
(a) theft, mischief or house-trespass in such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that, if such right of private defense is not exercised, death or grievous hurt will be the consequence.
Section 63 – “Right of Private Defense against Deadly Assault when there is Risk of Harm to Innocent Person”: If, in the exercise of the right of private defense against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defense extends to the running of that risk.
Illustration: – (“A”) is attacked by a mob which attempts to murder him. He cannot effectually exercise his right of private defense without firing on the mob and he cannot fire without risk of harming young children who are mingled with the mob. (“A”) commits no offence if by so firing he harms any of the children.
I took this moment to comment as Martin Luther King, Jr, stated that our life will be to end when we keep silence on thing that matters”
Andrew Ater REECH is a concerned southerner and is a criminology and criminal justice student at Griffith University. He can be reached at [email protected]