Whilst one could argue that it is within Sylvia Muzila's rights to decide her future, without the public intrusion into her bedroom as the saying goes "Go sha baori", however something appears sinister in this episode. For instance, how did Sylvia Muzila obtain the 400 or so smses from the defendants' cell phones? Was there any connivance between her and cell phone providers and or did she abuse her powers as a district commissioner to obtain these messages? If it was so easy for her to do so, how safe are we as cell phone users from those wanting at all costs to destroy our private lives?
In the absence of further evidence, one can only conclude that this sordid affair is all but a damn intrusion into other people's privacy, which should not be let to pass without sanctions. Since the introduction of the cellular phones, gossips fly around the world in a matter of seconds. Everybody is involved including George W. Bush! One shudders to think of a situation where these gossips are brought into the public domain. Can the world cope with suicides occasioned thereby?
Could whichever cellular network was involved explain to their valued customers (who have created so much wealth for them within so short a time!) that they are not party to this sordid affair? The private lives of the individuals involved including innocent ones who communicated with them at any stage are at great risk. It is quite obvious that with the type of information she required she ransacked the whole data!
Proponents of the Security Intelligence Bill, currently before the National Assembly, argue that the absence of such a law makes it impossible for the security forces to gather evidence and the gullible buy into this argument. The Muzila affair should be an eye opener. Some of us have long known that it is easy to gain access into your opponent's mobile data, provided you are well placed. The Police for instance do not need the services of a Security Intelligence Act to obtain information from your mobile phone.
The other aspect is with respect to confessions before a man of the cloth. Now that her case has been splashed in the papers, and as a devout Christian herself one may ask, since when has a confession before a Pastor been a public affair and is it admissible evidence before the court of public opinion? How safe is it for the flock at St. John to confess or confide in their Bishop who looks set to be a star witness in the confession should Robert Muzila reneges?
Tabona Machinya
FRANCISTOWN
