A landmark ruling was made late this week by the Supreme Court when it based on DNA testing to solve a paternity dispute. The ruling is significant for several reasons; long before the National Forensic Laboratory was set up, DNA samples were sent to Europe, usually to Germany, but it was a slow process and very expensive. The case involved a 27-year-old man who had been trying to gain his rightful inheritance from the estate of his father who was killed in the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. He was pitted against someone who claimed to be his father’s brother who had taken control of the property. The last resort was to carry out a DNA test, but that involved exhuming the body and getting samples from it and both parties. Science carried the day, the young man’s DNA was a perfect match, but incidentally, it was not the case with the man who had purported to be the victim’s brother. There are many similar cases out there, of people suffering injustice that could be solved by a single DNA test. So, why not have a DNA bank just as we have our biometric records? One can expect a backlash from those who would regard such an exercise as an unnecessary intrusion by the government into their private lives, something akin to George Orwell’s Big Brother in his book, “1984”. But apart from that, think of the many possibilities in accessing the DNA details at the click of the button, especially for law enforcement. Today, with the technological advancements, there is no need of fearing that Big Brother is watching you; he already has to some extent, so why not make good use of his watchful gaze? editor@newtimesrwanda.com
