The family of Kaaka, the Ejura-based social media activist who was attacked and killed in his house, says they will not testify before the Committee set up by government to probe into the issues surrounding his death and the subsequent violence that occured after his burial.
According to them, even though they are grateful to government for the establishment of the three-member committee to look into the issue, they do not believe the focus of the committe will bring them enough justice as they require.
In statement, the family revealed that they have “sought and obtained independent legal advice as to the work of the Committee, and our rights vis-à-vis the Committee, we have become apprehensive of the substantively and procedural regularity of the Committee’s work.”
“We are also now concerned that the Committee’s work does not provide the appropriate framework for a full, faithful and impartial inquiry, as envisaged under Article 278 of the 1992 Constitution. In this connection, we note, in particular:
“(1) Our regret with the decision to not establish this inquiry using the powers provided for under Article 278 of the 1992 Constitution. We are concerned that the failure to institute a proper Commission of Inquiry under Article 278, means that this Committee of inquiry does not have the powers, rights and privileges of the High Court or a Justice of the High Court at a trial,” the statement from Kaka’s family stated.
According to them, due to the reasons above, “the Committee has no power to enforce the attendance of witnesses and examine them on oath.”
Kaaka’s family also noted that, upon monitoring the work of the Committee, they have realized the Committee’s inability to enforce the attendance of witnesses and examine them on oath as well as to compel any documents, to be very puzzling.
“We are also concerned that these restrictions put the Committee in a position where it can neither vet, validate nor substantiate any statements made before it; nor cross-examine the testimonies of the witnesses on the basis of facts independently procured,” the statement further stressed.