#IShallNotForget comes under police scrutiny
Mpho Mokwape | Tuesday May 24, 2016 11:10
The police have since said that the movement has no founding constitution. The police through their answering affidavit by acting officer commanding, Onkemetse Tawana, who at the time denied the movement a permit to march against child sexual abuse, said the movement was not a legally registered society.
She argued that as such they have no founding constitution or registered business premises, which may be subject to inspection or any traceability as an association under the law. “I, therefore, find it quite disturbing that the movement of nameless individuals, whose backgrounds and credentials are subject to scrutiny by more nameless individuals (are) people within the movement (who) see it fit to interview and handle some of the most vulnerable members of our society,” she said.
Tawana explained that it was impossible to objectively tell where and under what circumstances the people within the movement are meeting with the children and if they were qualified and adequately trained to handle victims of abuse.
She argued she was not even aware of any safeguards that were in existence to make sure that there were no persons within the movement who could take advantage of these children and abuse them.
The affidavit further reads, “I am aware that in most cases it is the very person who the child (most) trusts who turns (out) to be the abuser. If the movement is to be believed in their assertion that more and more children are turning to this movement for help, such a movement should be properly associated as a society under the Society’s Act,” she said.
Further in the argument on Friday at the Gaborone High Court, state attorney Oaitse Rammidi said the movement was simply denied the permit because of the short notice that they gave to the police.
He argued that the application also failed to specify or even grossly estimate the number of people who were likely to attend, it was impossible to properly mobilise and adequately support the procession by deploying enough resources to support the procession.
“The applicants failed to give a useful guide or estimate of how many persons would be likely to attend the procession and the meeting. The unspecific number of ‘not less than 50’ did nothing by way of assisting the respondent to appreciate what measures would be necessary to impose in order to maintain peace and order at the prosecution,” he said.
The movement’s attorneys Mboki Chilisa and Gosego Lekgowe maintained that the police officer took into account irrelevant matters in denying the movement the permit.
The attorneys argued that the matter involved contravention of fundamental liberties and rights and that the Public Order Act was clearly drafted in consonance with the provisions of the constitution relating to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association.
Lekgowe said as long as the permit was denied, the applicants were impeded from enjoying their constitutionally protected rights so much that the police officer acted out of the Public Order Act.
Judgement will be delivered on Wednesday.