On the night of August 22, 2014, a botched security operation was carried out purportedly to flush out murder suspects, who were said to be hiding in a particular village. There had been a cry over a spate of murders, which were being committed in the area by known thugs, some of whom were protected by local leaders. Although most of the thugs had gone into hiding, some had returned to the village.
The operation was conducted by a team of 13 armed security personnel. One of them was tasked to carry out surveillance and intelligence prior to the operation. A particular house, identified as that of a suspect, was a simple thatched mud house, with one main door made up of iron sheets. The house consisted of three small rooms.
The officer in charge of the operation told court that upon arrival at the house, they knocked at the door and identified themselves as police officers and commanded the occupants to open the door and switch on the lights. They knocked on the door three times, but did not get any response. They pushed in the door and it fell across, on the floor.
The officer then heard the sound of metal brushing against the wall and warned one of the security team members that someone could be armed with a machete waiting for them. The officer then reported hearing a male voice shout “I will kill somebody”. The officer said he asked the person to surrender, but he did not heed his request. The officer then fired twice in the air. Another officer also fired his gun. A total of five rounds of ammunition were fired by the two officers.
It was dark in the house, but the officer claimed that there was some movement, as one ran out into the darkness and then there was a strange calmness. One of the officers had a torch, which was flashed into the house. It was then that the officers saw a woman leaning against the wall bleeding. Beside her was a machete. Two of the officers tried to perform first aid procedure on her. The woman was, in fact, the 14- year- old daughter of the suspect. She succumbed to her injuries and the postmortem examination report described her as a girl of good nutritional status and of slight physique. She was shot in the head and chest.
The officers collected the spent cartridges and they fled the scene, allegedly to rush the victim to hospital. The officer in charge of the operation said they could not secure the scene that night on account of security fears. The officer denied having had the intention to kill, as the shots were fired in the air, so as to scare the suspect into submission.
The officers did not deny noticing the presence of two other children, who were lying on bed, but denied kicking them and ordering them to kneel on the blood stained floor. It was the officer’s contention that in the house, there was a man who escaped during the commotion. Another officer corroborated the version of events as narrated by the officer in charge and denied that they knew there were children in the house. That they had done surveillance procedures, but did not get evidence of the presence of children in the house.
The two officers, who discharged their firearms that night were charged with the offence of murder and the particulars of the offence on August 22, 2014, the two with malice aforethought caused the death of a 14- year-old girl during a botched security operation. The two officers denied the charge as they had no intention to kill in the course of the operation. It is apparent that the security officers intended to arrest or kill the girl’s father, but instead ended up killing her.
There was no dispute in this case that the deceased died as a result of gunshot injuries. The immediate supervisor of the officers testified to the effect that the operation was duly authorised after they received information that several murder suspects had been sighted in the area. An internal investigation found no evidence of murder, as there was no element of malice aforethought.
It was the case of the defense that the 13 officers, who were involved in the operation were properly and procedurally booked out from the station and booked in upon return. It cannot be said, therefore, that when they were leaving the fateful night, their intention was to cause death. If that were to be so, then all the 13 officers ought to have been charged with murder alongside their two colleagues.
It was also argued that the accused acted in self defense; they had properly identified themselves as security officers. Upon entering the house they heard the voice of a man threatening to kill them. They also heard the sound of a metal brushing against the wall and deduced that it was a machete.
The father of the deceased girl testified for the prosecution and said on the night in question, he was not home, but very far away and that his wife visited him leaving their children at home under the care of the their 14- year-old sister. That the following day, his brother called to inform him that his children had been attacked by the police and one of them had been killed. He was informed that he was a wanted man and he was, therefore, not able to attend the funeral of his daughter.
The prosecution produced the mobile telephone printouts of the deceased girl’s father. The printouts showed that he received a call that night and in the morning from the place he said he was in. It was the prosecution’s contention that the theory that the father of the deceased girl was in the house on the material night could not be true.
Court considered the conditions in the National Security Act that gives conditions as to the use of firearms. In the Act, firearms can only be used when extreme means are inadequate and for the following purposes:
Saving or protecting the life of the officer or another person
In self-defense or in the defense of another person against imminent threat of life or serious injury
Protection of life and property through justifiable use of force
Preventing a person charged with a felony from escaping lawful custody and
Preventing a person who attempts to rescue or rescues a person charged with a felony from escaping lawful custody
Another section of the Act states that a security officer shall make every effort to avoid the use of firearms, especially against children.
About the security Act
In the National Security Act, firearms can only be used when extreme means are inadequate and for the following purposes;
a)Saving or protecting the life of the officer or another person
b)In self-defense or in the defense of another person against imminent threat of life or serious injury
c)Protection of life and property through justifiable use of force
d)Preventing a person charged with a felony from escaping lawful custody.
To be concluded…
