Africa-Press – Namibia. The inquest into the Nchindo brothers and their cousin, who were brutally gunned down by the Botswana Defence Force ( BDF) on 5 December 2020, was concluded in the Kasane Magistrate’s Court. The Nchindo inquest closed with no firearms found on the Nchindo brothers and their cousin. The lack of a smoking gun to justify the use of deadly force by the BDF has remained a metaphorical expression of “the elephant in the room” at the inquest into the killing.
Law-enforcement institutions are entrusted with a diverse set of tasks requiring a high degree of integrity within the police agencies and their oversight. Where this does not function well, law- enforcement officers may become vulnerable to acting unlawfully and outside their remit.
Considering the critical nature of vital evidence presented at the inquest, there are also a wide variety of definitions and protocols that have evolved to direct the way the evidence is defined for consideration by the inquest. Many of these protocols are specifically addressed and defined within the provision of the law of evidence. In this narrative, I will look at only two key basic definitions and protocols that a criminal detective should understand to carry out the investigative process properly, which I found relevant to the Nchindo inquest.
The probative value of evidence
The probative value of evidence is the degree to which a court or inquest proves fact(s). The more a piece of evidence proves a fact, the greater its probative value. Greater value means a greater potential impact on the outcome of the case or inquest. This is the extent to which the evidence could rationally affect the assessment of a probability of the existence of a fact in issue, and the ability of a piece of evidence to make a relevant disputed point more or less true.
Essentially, each piece of relevant evidence is considered based on its “probative value”, which is the weight or persuasive value that the court assigns to that particular piece of evidence when considering its value towards proving a point of fact in question for the case or for the matter being heard. This probative value of evidence goes towards the judge or magistrate and jury, reaching their decision of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court, or in a civil court, or on balance of probability at an inquest. They are, therefore, matters of evidence that make the existence of something more probable or less probable than it would be without them.
Physical evidence
The court or inquest will also generally attribute a high probative value to physical exhibits. The court likes physical evidence because they are items the court or inquest can see and examine to interpret the facts in issue for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or on a balance of probability. Physical evidence can include just about anything, such as weapons, fingerprints, shoe prints, bullets or cartridges, empty cartridge casings or spent rounds, etc.
These kinds of physical exhibits of evidence can be examined and analysed by experts who can provide the court or inquest with expert opinions that can connect the item of evidence to a person, place or the criminal event. In criminal cases, this allows the court to consider circumstantial connections of the accused to the crime scene, or the accused to the victim. For example, in the case of empty cartridge casings or firearms collected at the crime scene, ballistic examinations or forensic connections could be made, and in the absence of an explanation, the court or inquest would likely find this physical evidence to be conclusive, relevant and compelling evidence.
Evidence forms the building blocks of the investigative process, and for the final product to be built properly, evidence must be recognised, collected, documented, protected, validated, analysed, disclosed and presented in a manner which is acceptable to the court or inquest.
The term evidence, as it relates to investigation, speaks to a wide range of information sources that might eventually inform the court to prove or disprove points at issue before the trier of fact or on a balance of probability at the inquest. Sources of evidence can also include anything from the observation of witnesses to the examination and analysis of physical objects. It can even include the spatial relationship between people, places and objects within the timeline of events. From the various forms of evidence, the court or inquest can draw reasonable inferences and reach conclusions to determine if a charge or matter before it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and/or on a balance of probability.
Admittedly, the unexplained circumstances of failure to submit critical physical evidence at the inquest, such as the BDF firearms used in the brutal killing of the Nchindo brothers and their cousin, the ballistics examination reports and empty cartridge casings, which in any case should have been strewn or littered the crime scene, cast more doubts on the investigative line pursued by the Botswana police service. Our own detectives were not presented with some evidence in that regard either. What was more disturbing is the fact that family members of the deceased were not allowed to view the bodies, but were only shown their swollen faces when they went to identify the bodies on 9 November last year. Ironically, no explanation was given why fingerprints on the three elephant tusks allegedly found in possession of the deceased were not lifted. Despite the fact that no firearms or bullets were found in their possession, astonishingly, there was no evidence adduced of elephant carcasses found in the vicinity, at the material time, or proof connecting such exhibits to any poaching incident.
Tampering with evidence, fraud, corruption and bribery have reached epidemic proportions across the globe. As the history of virtually every police agency attests, policing is an occupation that is rife with opportunities for misconduct. Thus, corruption – the abuse of police authority for gain or favour – is one type of misconduct that has been particularly problematic.
The public looks to the police to be ethical, and to be good examples. But unfortunately, there are always bad apples – police who commit misconduct when investigating crimes. It has become fairly common for law-enforcement officers to tamper with evidence, and it can take different forms. It could involve planting an object at the crime scene during an investigation to incriminate someone who wasn’t involved in the suspected crime. Action to conceal and falsify evidence is also considered tampering with evidence.
In summary, accountability is a system of internal and external checks and balances aimed at ensuring that police carry out their duties properly, and are held responsible if they fail to do so. Such a system is meant to uphold police integrity, deter misconduct and restore or enhance public confidence in policing. Police integrity also usually refers to normative and other safeguards that keep police from misusing their powers and abusing their rights and privileges.
It is, therefore, a fundamental principle of a democratic society that the police should be held to account for their actions. Accountability involves the performance of law and order, providing services to the public, with respect to lawful, respectful and equal treatment of citizens, including those in neighbouring states.
For More News And Analysis About Namibia Follow Africa-Press
