Khartoum — Sudanese judges may receive special training on performing amputation on convicts should doctors refuse to carry them out, the country's deputy chief judge said today.
Last month doctors at al-Ribat hospital in Khartoum executed a court order against the 30-year old Adam al-Muthna who had his right hand and left foot severed as punishment after he was found guilty of armed robbery on a truck carrying passengers between North Kordofan and East Darfur in March 2006 and stealing SDG 1,000 (US$228) from its passengers.
After several years of appeal which reached the constitutional court, the ruling against al-Muthna was upheld.
The sentence drew strong rebuke and condemnation from several human right groups inside Sudan and abroad as well as the governments of Canada and France.
But the Sudanese Deputy Chief Justice, Abdul Rahman Sharfi speaking at a press briefing on Monday defended the sentence emphasizing that it is part of Islamic Shar'ia law.
Sharfi disclosed that more than 16 cases involving similar punishments had been carried out since 2001 and underscored that they have no shame in the implementation Shar'ia law.
"We cherish the book of Allah [Quran] and not the Hippocratic Oath [required by doctors]," the deputy chief justice said.
Sharfi warned that any doctors who refuse to carry out court-ordered amputations which he described as "the rule of Allah" will be prosecuted and that judges could be trained on the process if needed.
"If doctors refuse to carry out Hudud [Islamic] penalties then we are prepared to train and qualify some judges on the medical process of how to do the amputations" Sharfi said.
He affirmed the independence of the Sudanese judiciary and denied it falling under influence by external parties that may attempt intervene in the court rulings.
The judicial figure gave an example of him handing down 36 death sentences against members of the military who committed crimes, including one last February involving four members of the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and People's Defense Forces (PDF).
"The executive authorities thought that this ruling would negatively impact the morale of the Mujahideen [holy fighters], but we in the judiciary, believe that any person who commits an offense should receive the right punishment" Sharfi said.
He said that following the corroboration of the death sentence by Constitutional Court, a military officer filed a motion claiming the emergence of new evidence in the form of a ministerial decision declaring the western region as a military operations zone deeming re-trials necessary for the four indicted fighters.
"Although the memorandum concurred with the condemnation it opposed the penalty. At the same time the Constitutional Court rejected a petition filed by the defense to halt the implementation of the death penalty. In its decision the Constitutional Court said that the petition is nothing but tempering with the law and, hence, rejected the request to halt execution of the penalty. The case was sent back to the head of the judiciary" he recounted.
"I ruled that the case has exhausted all stages of litigation and punishment must be enforced without accepting further requests for suspending execution" Sharfi said.
Sharfi also asserted the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to examine decrees issued by the president to check for its legality and not its appropriateness.
He also stressed that any person who is brought before the judiciary for charges of embezzling public funds is subject to the law and shall be tried without courtesy and according to the standards of justice.
Source: Sudan Tribune