QUESTION OF THE DAY

Where there is a plot to do harm or a concrete plan of action to do harm, which is known to the person as a participant or otherwise, one could say that such a person should be invited for information gathering or arrested to be charged for alleged culpability.

On the other hand, where opinions are being expressed regarding the strength and weaknesses of security forces or measures isolated from any plan to do harm, one cannot impute improper motives.

In short, one could only impute improper motives if one has reasonable and justifiable grounds to do so. The beginning of impunity and tyranny is to attribute improper motives to a person who is simply exercising his or her freedom of expression or academic freedom without any iota to link the person to a plot to do harm and then arrest the person.

Any state that exaggerates what constitutes security threat will produce a political leadership and security apparatus that is paranoid. Paranoia gives rise to unreasonable fear and unreasonable act which could put the integrity of such actors into question. It should be avoided at all cost if a state is to be governed in accordance with law and best practice.

Join The Conversation