THE PEOPLE’S LAW: ABDUCTION, CAPTURE AND ARREST. HOW FAR CAN THE STATE GO TO BRING A FUGITIVE TO JUSTICE?

Argentina protested the violation of its sovereignty and took the matter to the United Nations Security Council. Israel nevertheless proceeded with the prosecution. The case illustrates the distinction between abduction, capture and arrest. Capture is the physical seizure of a person, abduction involves taking someone away without lawful authority, while arrest is detention under recognised legal authority. The legality of the seizure and the jurisdiction of the court are separate legal questions.

More recently, in January 2026, United States forces captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in Caracas and transported him to New York to face federal criminal charges. Maduro pleaded not guilty, and his case is before the American courts. His capture generated international controversy, including objections concerning Venezuelan sovereignty and the legality of the American operation. Nevertheless, the criminal proceedings have continued. As with Eichmann, the controversy surrounding the manner in which an accused person was brought before a court raises legal questions distinct from the charges that the court must determine.

This reminds me of an important principle of criminal justice that I learnt during my law school days from my excellent criminal law lecturer, Mr Kelvin Hangandu at UNZA. In Liswaniso v The People (1976) Z.R. 277 (S.C.), the Supreme Court of Zambia addressed the admissibility of unlawfully obtained evidence.

The Court recognised that relevant evidence does not automatically become inadmissible merely because it was obtained unlawfully, subject to applicable evidentiary safeguards, including the rules governing involuntary confessions. In simple terms, the manner in which evidence finds its way into a courtroom does not necessarily determine its admissibility. This is an important distinction between the admissibility of evidence and the legality of the methods used to obtain it.