REMOVAL OF CLOTHES IS NOT THE ISSUE — THE QUESTIONS SURROUNDING THEIR DISPOSAL ARE- Abraham Simpamba

REMOVAL OF CLOTHES IS NOT THE ISSUE — THE QUESTIONS SURROUNDING THEIR DISPOSAL ARE By Abraham Simpamba I have read the article by Kenneth Ng’ona attempting to justify the removal and withholding of the clothes of the late Hon. Mutotwe Kafwaya on the basis of forensic investigation. Let us be clear: nobody is arguing that […]

REMOVAL OF CLOTHES IS NOT THE ISSUE — THE QUESTIONS SURROUNDING THEIR DISPOSAL ARE

By Abraham Simpamba

I have read the article by Kenneth Ng’ona attempting to justify the removal and withholding of the clothes of the late Hon. Mutotwe Kafwaya on the basis of forensic investigation.

Let us be clear: nobody is arguing that clothing cannot constitute forensic evidence. Of course it can. Zambia’s own Police Forensics Investigations and Criminal Records Section acknowledges that biological evidence found on clothing can be collected and analysed to support criminal investigations. Our National Forensic Act also provides for the proper collection, preservation, examination and documentation of forensic material in death investigations.

But that is precisely why the public must ask difficult questions.

FORENSIC FOR WHAT?

If Hon. Kafwaya was shot during an operation involving State security personnel, then the clothing he was wearing could potentially help establish:

– the position from which he was shot;
– the direction and distance of the firearm;
– the number and location of bullet impacts;
– whether there was gunshot residue;
– whether blood and biological material correspond with the official account;
– whether the wounds are consistent with the version being given by the authorities; and
– whether the physical evidence supports or contradicts eyewitness accounts.

So, if the clothes are evidence, preserve them.

Do not destroy them.

Do not burn them.

Do not dispose of them.

And certainly do not expect a grieving nation to simply accept that destruction of potentially important evidence is somehow evidence of a proper investigation.

THEN WHY BURN THE CLOTHES?

This is the question that cannot be answered with a lecture about forensic science.

If the clothes were important forensic evidence, why would anyone burn them?

Who authorised their destruction?

When were they destroyed?

Who had custody of them?

Who transported them?

Were they photographed before being destroyed?

Were samples taken?

Was the family informed?

Was an independent forensic expert present?

Was a chain-of-custody record created?

Was the investigating officer authorised to dispose of them?

And, most importantly:

Where is the forensic report based on those clothes?

These are not unreasonable questions. They are exactly the questions that a serious investigation should welcome.

WHAT DOES ZAMBIAN LAW SAY?

We should also stop importing American and British legal concepts and presenting them as though they automatically constitute Zambian law.

The Fourth Amendment is an American constitutional provision. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act is British legislation. Neither is Zambian law.

The relevant question is: what does Zambian law require?

Our own legal framework recognises forensic investigation. The National Forensic Act establishes mechanisms for forensic pathology and forensic science, including preservation and analysis of samples and proper documentation of findings.

The Zambia Police itself states that its forensic laboratory examines biological evidence found on clothing and other surfaces and provides expert evidence for courts.

And the Zambia Police Act places legal limits on the use of firearms. Among other things, section 24 provides circumstances in which firearms may be used and states that, as far as possible, their use should be to disable and not to kill.

Therefore, the question is not whether forensic investigation exists.

The question is whether the investigation into Hon. Kafwaya’s death has been conducted independently, transparently and in a manner capable of establishing the truth.

WE MUST NOT CONFUSE AN EXPLANATION WITH AN ANSWER

Saying “the clothes were evidence” does not answer the question of what happened to them.

Saying “there was a forensic investigation” does not prove that an independent forensic investigation actually occurred.

And saying “clothing can contain gunshot residue” certainly does not explain why potentially relevant clothing would be destroyed.

In fact, if clothing is potentially important evidence, its preservation becomes even more important.

That is why the public deserves answers.

CIVILISATION DEMANDS ACCOUNTABILITY

A civilised State does not become weaker by admitting that something may have gone wrong.

A government does not lose authority by saying:

“We made a mistake. We will investigate it. We will establish the truth and hold whoever is responsible accountable.”

That is strength.

What weakens public confidence is attempting to explain away every troubling question before an independent investigation has even established the facts.

Hon. Mutotwe Kafwaya was not merely a statistic.

He was a husband.

A father.

A former Cabinet Minister.

A former Member of Parliament.

And above all, a human being whose life had value and whose dignity did not end when the bullet entered his body.

The Constitution protects the right to life, and the State has a responsibility to ensure that deaths occurring in circumstances involving State security forces are subjected to credible investigation.

So let us stop insulting the intelligence of Zambians with technical explanations that do not answer the fundamental questions.

FORENSICS FOR WHAT?

WHO SHOT HON. KAFWAYA?

FROM WHAT POSITION?

HOW MANY SHOTS WERE FIRED?

WHOSE BULLETS CAUSED THE FATAL WOUNDS?

WHAT DOES THE BALLISTIC EVIDENCE SHOW?

WHAT DOES THE POST-MORTEM REPORT SAY?

WHERE ARE THE CLOTHES?

IF THEY WERE BURNED, WHO BURNED THEM AND UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY?

WHAT EVIDENCE WAS PRESERVED BEFORE THEY WERE DESTROYED?

And finally:

IF THE OFFICIAL VERSION IS TRUE, WHY SHOULD ANYONE FEAR AN INDEPENDENT FORENSIC INVESTIGATION?

Zambians are not asking for revenge.

We are asking for truth.

We are asking for justice.

We are asking for accountability.

And we are asking that the dignity of Hon. Mutotwe Kafwaya be respected even in death.

Civilisation demands that when the State gets something wrong, it must have the courage to admit it—not manufacture justifications to avoid accountability.

Anything less is not governance.

It is an insult to human dignity.