12 Angry Men.
This was a courtroom drama released in 1957, set
entirely within a jury deliberation room. The movie follows twelve jurors who
must decide the fate of a young man accused of murder. If convicted, the
defendant faces the death penalty.
At the start, almost all the jurors are eager to
deliver a guilty verdict and move on with their lives. The evidence against the
young man seems overwhelmingly convincing at first glance, and they see little
need for further discussion.
However, juror #8, played by Henry Fonda, is hesitant to make a hasty decision. He challenges the other jurors to examine the evidence more carefully, raising doubts about the reliability of key testimonies and the logical gaps in the prosecution’s case. His insistence eventually leads the jury to reconsider their initial rush to judgement.
His persistence exposes
how a quick decision could have resulted in a wrongful conviction, highlighting
the danger of prioritising expedience over a careful search for truth.
The majority of the jurors believed that reaching a
quick decision was in their best interest, seeing it as a practical solution to
a seemingly straightforward case. Juror # 8, however, represented a voice of
caution, reminding them that the stakes were too high to ignore
inconsistencies, even if it meant prolonging the process.
The film’s central conflict between the perceived need for efficiency and the moral imperative to ensure justice offers a critical lens through which to understand the Doctrine of Necessity.
This is a legal and political principle that justifies extraordinary actions or decisions taken during emergencies, even when such actions would normally contravene existing rules or laws.
It rests on the premise that, in a crisis, adhering to
the usual procedural rules may result in greater harm, and thus exceptions can
be made to preserve the broader interests of order, stability or governance.
Fast forward to this week in Kenya. We had 67 angry men and women in the Senate. The impeachment of Kenya’s former Deputy President, Rigathi Gachagua, popularly known as Riggy G, has sparked intense debate about justice, fairness, and the exercise of authority in moments of crisis.
While
ostensibly about issues of governance and accountability, the impeachment has
evolved into something far more symbolic—a reflection of Kenya's complex and
sometimes arbitrary political system, where the real power dynamics and hidden
forces that are inscrutable, unreachable and indifferent to reason, appear to
shape outcomes long before the official process is completed.
In the eyes of public opinion, Riggy G’s legal team
successfully dismantled the evidence presented by the motion mover during cross-examination by pointing out inconsistencies and raising questions about the
credibility of the charges. This led many to question the motives behind the
impeachment, and they begun to view it as potentially unjust.
However, just as public sentiment seemed to shift in his favor, he fell seriously ill and was hospitalized rendering him unable to make his case directly.
His lawyers argued that, in the interest of fairness, the
process should be suspended until he recovered and presented his case. Despite
these appeals, the Senate voted to proceed with the impeachment, rejecting their
request for a delay citing urgency and political necessity.
Many of his political supporters came out openly in his defense and alleged that there were hidden hands pulling the strings and using formal procedures to mask what is essentially a political takedown.
They
felt that he was trapped in a bureaucratic performance where a preordained
outcome had already been drawn and that the function to find truth or deliver
justice had been reduced to legitimizing a decision already made.
The Senate’s decision to proceed with the impeachment process reflects a refusal to observe the principles of the doctrine of necessity.
While the Senate may argue that delaying the proceedings could have led to prolonged political uncertainty, potentially destabilising the country’s political climate, this decision has faced significant criticism.
Many believe that moving forward while Riggy G was incapacitated undermined due process and fairness. Critics argue that this choice risks eroding the integrity of legal and political norms, raising concerns about the impartiality of the process.
The decision to proceed highlighted a rigid adherence to
procedural rules, arguably prioritizing expedience over fairness and empathy,
and risking potential injustice by continuing in Riggy G’s absence.
By refusing to grant a delay for Riggy G’s defense,
the Senate may have inadvertently signaled that political expediency outweighs
the foundational democratic principles of fairness. What is unfolding now feels
less like a legitimate judicial and legislative process, and more like a
predetermined political ritual, one where Riggy G’s verdict was already
decided, even as the façade of due process persisted.
Begs the question. Is this impeachment a legitimate
attempt to hold Riggy G accountable for alleged corruption and abuse of office,
or is it a case of political takedown? You be the judge.
I submit that even as we navigate the aftermath of this contentious impeachment, it serves as a lesson in the delicate art of governance; that even when the law permits exceptions, the wisdom to know when and how to use them is what defines the strength of a democracy.
The Senate’s
actions, whether seen as justified or overreaching, will remain a pivotal point
for ongoing debates about the role of necessity in political life and the
boundaries of power in moments of uncertainty.
The doctrine of necessity reminds us that power is not only about the ability to enforce rules but also about interpreting them in ways that acknowledge human dignity and empathy.
The exercise of sovereignty
carries the responsibility to consider when exceptions are warranted. The true
challenge for leaders is not just in making decisions, but in discerning when
those decisions should be tempered with compassion.
Finally, my unsolicited advice is to the Senators. Given
that most of you quoted biblical verses in your submissions on the floor of the Senate, allow me to also quote one which you conveniently forgot. Which of
you, if your donkey falls into a pit on the Sabbath day, will not immediately
pull it out?
The doctrine of necessity highlights a fundamental tension between strict adherence to the law and the moral imperative to act compassionately in exceptional circumstances.
Human need and compassion should
override strict legal codes. Rigidity can lead to injustice and therefore should
not override the moral duty to act with compassion when circumstances demand
it.
When
necessity speaks, it demands a response that follows neither law nor tradition.
— Anonymous