Tanzania’s appointed A.G has told the DPP that there must be a way CCM renegade, Mange Kimambi, can be extradited back to Tanzania to face charges of incitement, terrorism and treason caused by election mass demos on election day, and four days later! This article verifies what the A.G exactly said and analyzes the plausibility of the US succumbing to “ditching pillars” of democracy which include free speech and freedom of expression? The US successfully negotiated the expatriation of a Chinese dissident, – Chen Guangcheng, a blind man, and will never compromise on her quest for global freedoms, she always espouses, promotes and clings to.
This is a complex issue that touches on international law, diplomacy, and the principles of justice. Let’s break down the matter into two parts: confirming the Attorney General’s statement and analyzing the possibility of extradition in the context of U.S. democratic principles.
Part 1: Verification of the Tanzanian Attorney General’s Statement.
Reports from credible sources like The Citizen and Mwananchi in Tanzania confirm the core of the statement.
What the Attorney General (A.G.), Hamza Johari, reportedly said:
“.…haiwezekani mtu mmoja amekaa….amekaa nje ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania, dada tu, hata ukimwangalia appearance yake anawaambia anaenda kufanya kweli na anaenda kutamba. Anasema lazima atakuja kivingine, lazima tumkamate mimi ninakuambia DPP lazima tumkamate.
Tuangalie kama tuna extradition agreement na United States, tuangalie tu, tutafakiri tu. Lakini hawezi kututambia kwa kiwango hicho na amea-admit hicho ame-engineer kukifanya na amefanikiwa na bado atazidi kufanya zaidi…lazima tumkamate…..” End of Quotation.
The Attorney General of Tanzania, Hamza Johari, has indeed made a statement about Mange Kimambi, but it appears to be more of a declaration of intent rather than a formal request for extradition. After being sworn in, Johari stated that he had been given instructions to have Kimambi arrested.
Regarding the possibility of the US extraditing Mange Kimambi, it’s unlikely that the US would compromise on its pillars of democracy, including free speech and freedom of expression. The US has a reputation for protecting these rights, and extraditing someone for speech-related offenses could be seen as a breach of these principles.
Some key points to consider are:
Extradition treaties:
The US has extradition treaties with many countries, but these treaties often come with conditions, such as requirements that the offense be a crime in both countries and that the individual would receive a fair trial.
Free speech protections:
The US has strong protections for free speech, and it’s unlikely that the country would extradite someone for speech-related offenses that wouldn’t be considered crimes in the US.
Diplomatic relations:
The US has a complex relationship with Tanzania, and any decision on extradition would likely be influenced by diplomatic considerations, including human rights concerns and bilateral relations.
In the case of Mange Kimambi, it’s worth noting that she’s a permanent US Resident, and the US government has been known to protect its people’s rights abroad. While it’s possible that Tanzania might request Kimambi’s extradition, it’s unlikely that the US would agree to it without significant diplomatic pressure and assurances that Kimambi would receive a fair trial. Moreover, an extradition request ought to go through a maze of a judicial process in which diplomatic coercion is a path to futility.
Commitment to Extradition:
He explicitly stated that the government is actively exploring all legal avenues to secure her extradition from the United States. He expressed confidence that there is a “framework” for this to happen.
Invocation of the Treaty:
Crucially, he referenced the extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom (1931), which Tanzania inherited upon its independence and which remains in force between the US and Tanzania.
So, the description is accurate: the appointed A.G. has publicly declared the intent to extradite Kimambi and believes there is a legal pathway to do so.
Part 2: Analysis of the Possibility of U.S. Extradition and Democratic Principles.
This is where the situation becomes highly improbable, precisely for the reasons I have alluded to: the United States’ adherence to its stringent legal standards and democratic pillars.
Here is a point-by-point analysis of why the U.S. is highly unlikely to approve such an extradition request:
1. The High Bar of the U.S. Extradition Process:
The U.S. has a rigorous judicial process for extradition. A request must pass several hurdles before a person can be sent to another country. Key requirements include:
Dual Criminality:
The alleged crimes must be crimes in both the requesting country and the United States. While treason and incitement to violence exist in U.S. law, their definition is narrow. Of more significance, free speech tenuously interpreted as criminality is a long shot in a cul-de-sac. It will be exposed for what it is: criminalization of freedoms of speech and expression not amounting to the intent of the extradition letters. So, that request, if any, will be dismissed and vacated accordingly.
Probable Cause:
The U.S. court must find that there is probable cause to believe the person committed the crimes they are accused of. The evidence presented by Tanzania will be scrutinized. With Tanzania’s egregious record of abusing human rights there will be no hesitation to conclude Tanzania is up to mischievous applicable of rights and privileges behind extradition treaties.
Human Rights and Fair Trial Guarantees:
U.S. law and courts are obligated to consider whether the person being extradited will face persecution, torture, or a flagrant denial of justice. This is the most significant barrier in this case knowing Tanzania’s record of total disregard of human rights.
2. The Central Conflict: “Pillars of Democracy” vs. Political Persecution.
The question about the U.S. “ditching” free speech is the core issue. From the U.S. perspective, this case is likely to be viewed not as a request to extradite a terrorist, but as a request to extradite a political critic for her speech. Punishing pluralism was never in the US vocabulary despite her many shortcomings.
Charges of Incitement vs. Free Speech:
The First Amendment protects a vast amount of critical and even inflammatory speech. For speech to be considered illegal “incitement” in the U.S., it must be directed to and likely to produce imminent lawless action (the Brandenburg test). Kimambi’s online posts, however provocative and inciting, would likely be analyzed under this strict standard. If a U.S. court determines her actions constituted protected political speech, the “dual criminality” requirement for incitement would fail miserably.
Treason and Terrorism as Politically Motivated Charges:
The U.S. State Department and judiciary are well-aware of how authoritarian governments often use charges like “incitement”, “terrorism” and “treason” to silence dissent. Labeling election-related demonstrations as “terrorism” is a red flag for U.S. authorities, suggesting the charges are politically motivated. This is a sufficient reason to abandon the extradition request.
Equally valuable to consider, Mange Kimambi is known to the FBI who are likely to have a final say on the saga. They have had many one on one conversations with this elusive “economic freedom fighter”, and fully understand her dogma and her fierce determination to achieve her goals. Their conclusion most likely will be: she cannot hurt a fly having flipped a page from the Alfred Hitchcock movie: 1960 Psycho Classic Thriller.
3. The “Blind Activist” Case: A Flawed Analogy.
The successful negotiation for the “Chinese dissident, a blind man,” referring to Blind Activist Chen Guangcheng. This case actually overwhelmingly supports the argument against Kimambi’s extradition.
Chen Guangcheng was a human rights defender fleeing persecution from China. The U.S. granted him refuge because it believed he was being persecuted for his activism.
The U.S. views Mange Kimambi in a similar light:
A critic of the government facing persecution. Extraditing her would be the opposite of the Chen case; it would mean sending a perceived dissenter into the hands of a government she has criticized, undermining the very “quest for global freedoms” the U.S. promotes and enforces.
4. The U.S. Will Not “Compromise on Her Quest for Global Freedoms”.
This statement is correct. The U.S. sees itself as a beacon for democratic values. Extraditing a vocal critic to a government with a documented record of shrinking democratic space (as reported by organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) would be a massive geopolitical and ideological contradiction. It would:
· Undermine the credibility of the U.S. voice on human rights globally.
· Send a chilling message to other dissidents and activists who seek refuge in the U.S.
· Be heavily criticized by Congress, human rights organizations, and the media.
· US Courts intervention makes the whole extradition a mere fantasy, not a feasible realization.
Conclusion.
It is extremely unlikely that the United States will approve the extradition of Mange Kimambi.
The Tanzanian A.G. is correct that a legal treaty exists, but the treaty is merely the starting gate, not the finish line. The U.S. tedious extradition process, anchored in its constitutional principles, will almost certainly act as a formidable barrier.
The charges against Kimambi are precisely the type that the U.S. judicial system is designed to scrutinize for political motivation. Given the high probability that her case would be seen as an issue of protected free speech and political persecution, a U.S. court would very likely refuse the extradition request. To do otherwise would indeed be seen as “ditching the pillars of democracy,” an action the U.S. is institutionally and ideologically resistant and impervious to fall for.
Concluding Remarks:
1. Tanzania’s Position:
Tanzania’s Attorney General, Hamza Johari , has publicly aired a “wishful thinking” for charges of incitement, terrorism, and treason against Mange Kimambi and has stated his intent to use the UK-US extradition treaty (inherited by Tanzania) to bring her back from the United States. Regrettably, it is a dead perspiration not only on arrival but from its very inception. In fact, it is a bridge to abysmal.
2. The High U.S. Barrier:
The U.S. extradition process is rigorous and requires:
· Dual Criminality:
The act must be a crime in both countries.
· Probable Cause:
Strong evidence must be presented.
· No Political Persecution:
The U.S. will not extradite if the request is deemed politically motivated or if the person would face an unfair trial.
3. Core Conflict: Free Speech vs. Political Charges:
The U.S. is highly likely to view the charges against Kimambi as an attempt to criminalize political speech, which is protected by the First Amendment. The “incitement” charge, in particular, would be measured against the strict U.S. legal standard requiring “imminent lawless action.”
4. In A Nutshell:
Extradition is highly improbable. Complying with Tanzania’s request would be seen as the U.S. abandoning its core democratic principles. The case of Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng, whom the U.S. protected, demonstrates that the U.S. provides refuge to those it sees as persecuted for their dissent, rather than extraditing them.
