On December 2006, the long trial of a defiant despot came to end when American soldiers collaborated with Iraqi legal powers to end the life of a ruler, whose crimes were so much that the world was not exactly sure which one he was being hanged for. The venue of the execution was a Ministry of Justice facility in Northern Baghdad. He did not wear any blindfolds, but he was bound. As a noose was placed around his neck, Saddam Hussein was said to have mumbled a prayer. Sami Al-Askari, a political ally of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, told newsmen after the hanging: “We heard his neck snap.” A White House Spokesperson later added: “This is a good day in Iraq.”

There were reactions from civil society organisations around the world. Human rights groups questioned the motive behind public hanging in the 21st Century, and invoked laws to lambast the hangers. Some countries, including Switzerland, where the death penalty is outlawed, spoke against the execution. Those who had followed the activities of the Hans Blix weapons inspection team, also asked why the American occupation in Iraq was not cut short when they realised that Saddam had not concealed any weapons. Yasmin Alibai-Brown, a British journalist, wrote to question the conscience of modern humanity: In what way is the death of one man placatory? She wondered whether we were swapping the 21st Century for 14th Century Babylonian justice, where an eye went for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. In other words, should we kill those who have killed, or intend to kill, to appease the conscience of the greater good?

Years ago, the people of Kumasi were very good at administering instant justice to criminals who had made it their occupation to possess other people’s possessions. Those days, robbers didn’t have unbridled access guns, as they do now. There were unconfirmed stories of robbers who paid the police and borrowed their guns. They robbed with brute force, intimidating hardworking Ghanaians to surrender their life-long savings in a fraction of a second. They would not hesitate to kill if you showed the least resistance. Businesses collapsed, properties were destroyed, and families lived in terror. Fear gripped our very lives as we went about our noble activities in the land of our birth. Often, an alteration to the routine was when a thief was caught. It was fashionable to put them in car tyres, baptize them with gallons of petrol before we set them on fire. Folks cheered as they burnt. It was a way of appeasing ourselves for the nights we lived in fear in our own homes. It was justice well served, and it served the robbers well.

Human rights groups in Ghana did not complain very much. If they did, their agitations were drowned in the colossal loss of property and life that armed robbers often leave us with. Today, we are witnessing armed robbery on a scale that is a hundred times more dangerous and more terrible than what we saw in the days of old. It has become a career for some people. Locally manufactured guns are not difficult to get, and they sell quite cheap. So any deviant can sign on as an armed robbery apprentice today, and graduate with his own gang tomorrow, to lead the dreaded life in the underworld. Nobody determines the mode of operations of armed robbers. They rob as they please, and kill as they deem appropriate. So why should we worry our heads over their death if the police eliminate them to keep the rest of humanity safe? Recently, the police were reported to have shot and killed some eight armed robbers in an operation in the Ashanti region. The robbers had engaged the police in a shoot-out, to show their obstinate defiance to the laws of reason. The police did what any armed robbery victim would have them do. They killed those wicked killers to give us some peace of mind. But human rights lawyers and justice thinkers would not have them do that. Modern laws do not sanction would-be killers to be killed arbitrarily. Due process has to be followed. Robbers are entitled to their rights as human beings, like all of us.

It is unclear who speaks the consensus of the Ghanaian public on this matter, but it seems many Ghanaians are not against Babylonian justice when armed robbers are arrested. When I wrote about the armed robbery menace in October 2007, the response was overwhelming. A reader commented: “Armed robbery is more than terror. It is murder. It is indescribable. In any robbery where weapons are involved, the culprits should be made to do not less than 25 years without parole. Where there is injury or death, that person should be sentenced to death when found guilty, and the death penalty should be administered by the victims, friends, townsfolk, and must be carried out in the town the robbery took place. They know how to handle their own business. They shouldn’t burden the police.” Another commentator wrote: “As the Americans summon its armoury to fight the war on terrorism, Ghanaians perceive the terrorist to be the insurgents somewhere in Iraq or Afghanistan without the slightest conviction that the terrorist is right there living in their neighbourhood. When a robber breaks into your house in the middle of the night brandishing a gun, you are terrified to the bone. Your spinal cord ceases to straighten up and you kowtow to their demands amidst fear of terror.” He continued: “Gone are the years when a robber got terrified when he saw a policeman. Thus, a policeman was a terrorist for the robber. In this age, it is a reversing trend. The policemen themselves get terrified when they see an armed robber. It is imperative for Ghanaians to come to terms with the reality that the robbers of yesteryears are not the kind we have today.” He admonished us to hunt them down before they do.

These were people who had not been victims of any form of armed robbery in their lives. The verdict of Ghanaians who have experienced armed robbery would be very different. In Lagos and other big cosmopolitan cities in Nigeria, people erect walls that dwarf the height of their mansions, to ward off armed robbers. The practice would soon catch up with Ghanaians if the armed robbery menace is not properly checked. And people will flee Ghana to seek refuge elsewhere. Years ago, I worked with a Nigerian who had angrily packed his family and belongings to live in the English town of Milton Keynes. He had worked as a solicitor in Nigeria, where he had built a good practice. He confided in me that whenever he closed from work in the commercial centres of Lagos, he had to drive through town for hours, often deliberately taking routes that led to nowhere, before going home. He did that to frustrate strange characters that usually followed his car. He had been robbed twice in the space of a year. He relocated to another part of the city, but the robbers still followed him and robbed him just a month after he had settled in. He left the country of his birth, where he could hardly travel to other states for legitimate business, to settle in Britain where he could afford to go to bed without locking his front door. Today, he goes about his business peacefully in his adopted town of Milton Keynes. But his family in Africa has to share their resources with armed thieves. My friend’s escapist measure is not the best way to solve the armed robbery problem in Ghana. If the security situation in his country does not improve, he would one day return to find it a lot worse that he left it. The solution is not to run away from the robbers or build long walls around our houses, so that they do not see what we have. We must face them when they show their faces, flex a bigger muscle when they do, intimidate them when they bark, defend ourselves when they attack and kill them before they do. We shouldn’t have the patience to wait and watch them plunder our hard-earned resources. But we would have the kindness to listen to the Human Rights talk after we had dealt with our killers the way we think is best for our security and the lives of our children. In this vein, the public would have confidence in a combative police service than one that waits for thieves to plunder before they arrest them for a never-ending court process.

The human rights argument makes sense because anything that has life, including dogs, has natural rights. And our constitution guarantees the right to life, a right that is inalienable. But the human rights argument must also ask what part of that inalienable right entitles a highway robber to rob poor market women of their capital and force male passengers in a commercial vehicle to have sex with their female travelers? What part of that inalienable right emboldens a criminal to rape a decent woman in the presence of a hardworking husband and children? What part of that inalienable right entitles an armed robber to kill and maim his victims after he had made away with all their wealth? The human rights position is like the theory that disproves the existence of God: It is worth listening to, and follows a logical reasoning but in the end it fails to show why very people are prepared to buy it. The rights of responsible citizens must first be protected.

Beyond rights and privileges, what are the concrete steps being taken to help the police protect us from the activities of armed robbers? I picked these suggestions from readers. 1. Decoys: We should deploy two armed but disguised soldiers or policemen to join big commercial vehicles as passengers, to protect market women and other travelers. These decoys would be placed at random on very busy commercial roads. After 9/11, some US airplanes that fly overseas use this method.

2. Telephone: We must develop a reliable emergency telephone response system, like the 999 in Great Britain or the 911 in America. This will require a proper address system in our towns. Meanwhile, town planning councils could start naming major neighbourhood streets and other main detours.

3. Alarms: Banks and other big businesses must have panic buttons that would signal police during emergencies. We should develop domestic alarm systems.

4. Patrols: Neighbourhood patrols by plain-clothed policemen should be boosted with cars and special bicycles, as is the practice in some countries.

5. Cell Phone Thieves: Crackdown on cell phone thieves. They are those who graduate to become armed robbers. Protect and reward informants handsomely.

Benjamin Tawiah

Email: btawiah @hotmail.com