#CourtDiaries 4

Family bonds form the strongest ties humans share, but when they break, they sometimes shatter into irredeemable pieces, leaving no hope of mending.

It is not uncommon to see wonderfully built families devolve into unsavoury battlefields, for diverse reasons. But when it gets to a point where siblings begin to kill one another in cold-blood, setting the stage for transgenerational vendetta, it makes one wonder the depth of human cruelty, and for normal people like some of us, sends shock waves through.

Interestingly, the courtroom is one place where you hear all manner of off the wall stories. Moreover, if you work in a law office like me, you get the privilege of hearing first-hand these bitter familial tales as clients come briefing in.

In a recent case, a young man stabbed his brother multiple times in the stomach, leaving him in a pool of blood, and with a wife and kids behind. The victim writhed violently in agony till he drew his final breath. Apparently, the two siblings have had a simmering feud for sometime as testified by their other siblings.

The crime wasn’t particularly an arduous one, as they live next to each other in their family compound, making it easy for one to approach the other and stab him.

Incidentally, the children of the two siblings were the architects of their parents’ misfortune. On the day of the murder, they got into a flight which escalated when their parents intervened. A harmless scuffle between kids soon turned into a crime scene.

With a mangled corpse lying on the floor of the kitchen, it became obvious the two brothers weren’t trying to protect the interests of their kids as one might think, rather it was an opportunity to settle personal scores probably older than the children themselves.

Upon discovering the corpse, their only sister reported the matter to the police and he was immediately arrested. The family, including their parents, made no pretentions about him facing the full wrath of the law. For them, it was an unforgivable sin, and family considerations no longer mattered. The police subsequently filed a charge at the magistrate court and he was remanded in prison.

In criminal matters where the state, through its law enforcement agencies or the Ministry of Justice prosecutes, complainants usually hire private lawyers to follow up on their cases to ensure state prosecutors carry out their jobs deiligently. This practice is termed ‘holding watching brief’, and it is done to mitigate against instances of compromise on the part of the prosecution. For this reason, we were briefed to hold watching brief in the case.

While in custody, the police took further steps to transfer the matter to the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) so the offence could be tried in the High Court where the court has jurisdiction.

However, something strange happened along the line. The family, to our consternation, informed us of their intention to withdraw their complaint and discontinue the case. In one of our meetings, they cited the offender’s wife and children whose means of survival would be cut short as the reason for the withdrawal. And since they had agreed to assume responsibility for the deceased’s dependants, they thought it would be overly burdensome to take care of the offenders family as well while he rots in jail. In an affidavit of withdrawal their oldest brother would later depose to on behalf of the family, they stated that their decision was made in the interest of peace.

On the face of it, it appears the family was caught between two stools—losing two sons or saving one at the expense of the other. But should this be a difficult choice when everything is considered? Disappointingly, the family was more concerned about the future of the wife and kids of the murderer than the reality of the deceased immediate family.

I understand that blood is thicker than water, but the concerted decision of every single member of the family puts a huge question mark on the rectitude of the family. Under normal circumstances, it would be expected that the majority would turn over in their graves at the idea to withdraw the case, and perhaps one or two dissenters would go out on a limb to intercede for the murderer. But that wasn’t the case, as the family insisted on pulling out all the stops to let their brother off the hook.

Even though we weren’t comfortable with the family’s decision on purely ethical grounds, we didn’t want our judgement to come in the way of their wishes so we followed the instruction and began the process of withdrawal. And while I think the case, having been transferred to the DPP, have passed the tipping point where nothing can be done, it is one that have left a sour taste in my mouth seeing the conduct of the family.

In my opinion, the real victim here is not the deceased, but his traumatized children who may be denied justice if the application for withdrawal of complaint gets through. This means they would grow up seeing the man who took their father’s life living a normal life of freedom. To make matters worse, there are photographs of their father’s bloodied mutilated body—a smoking gun that would perpetually fuel their rage. Perhaps what the family doesn’t seem to realise is that letting the offender off the hook would create more problems in the future, as the children would want to avenge their father’s gruesome death.

At this point, the DPP gets to call the shots by either letting justice take its course, or setting the stage for a generational vendetta.