People’s Tribunal

It is illegal for the Executive to keep or sell snakes

(There is silence in the courtroom as Judge Mbadwa is about to read his judgment on the judicial review on the laws the Executive is using to keep snakes)

 

Judge Mbadwa: The matter before me was brought by Concerned Citizens who wanted this tribunal to make a determination on whether some people in the Executive are following proper laws in keeping snakes (judge coughs and takes a half glass of water.)

Is the representative of the Concerned Citizens in this courtroom?

 

Salo Wolima: Yes, my Lord. I have come with my entire team.

 

Judge Mbadwa: Good. For the benefit of friends of the court and those in the gallery, I will give the genesis of the matter. One senior member in the Executive alerted everyone that his colleagues believed that there was nothing wrong in domesticating snakes or keeping such reptiles as pets.  Considering that the act was being done by those in the Executive, the Concerned Citizens sought the indulgence of the Tribunal, seeking a judicial review on the matter. Their argument is that the Executive is using a wrong application of the law to keep reptiles such as snakes and that their conduct is endangering lives of ordinary Malawians, including that of the Executive.

I have read thoroughly the submissions of the Concerned Citizens where, among others, they have highlighted that members of the Executive are using licences they got under Chapter 66 (3) of laws of Malawi on keeping of crocodiles to also tame snakes.

They are arguing that they have inserted ‘snake’ where there was ‘crocodile’, distorting a law on crocodile licences to read: (2) The possession of a hunting licence shall be sufficient authority for the licence holder to be in possession of or to sell any snake killed by him or any snake product from such snakes but shall not authorise him to rear any snake unless he possesses a licence to rear snakes.

 

(3)The possession of a licence to rear snakes shall, if the licence so specifies, be sufficient authority for the holder to capture live snakes or take eggs of snakes in such area and subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in the licence.

I, therefore, agree with the Concerned Citizens that by inserting ‘snake’ in the citation where there was originally crocodile, the Executive did not only mislead the people but also were guilty of uttering a false document to deceive the people.

No one in the Executive is a witchdoctor or a Sangoma to warrant their keeping of snakes. The people did not vote for this government to keep snakes but to develop the country! The Executive have a duty to run this country and keep people happy instead of endangering their lives with venomous reptiles.

In short, it is illegal for the Executive to possess, sell or exhibit snakes because they belong to non-domesticated reptiles. If they really have the zeal of keeping wildlife, why don’t they join those queuing to run our national parks and game reserves through public-private partnerships (PPP)?

For wrongly applying the law and for a misplaced zeal to take care of wildlife, I hereby order that the Executive should rechannel their enthusiasm for snakes to taking care of their colleagues who were influential in government but are now destitute in retirement and are living on handouts!

 

Related Articles

Back to top button