“We Don’t Know Him”: A Pretext for Political Persecution

"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. ⁸ Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love." (John 4:7-8, ESV)

In systems where corruption is rampant and power is exercised without meaningful supervision, pretext often becomes a weapon of political persecution. Among the most revealing phrases in such environments is deceptive words: “we don’t know him.” It appears an assertion of unfamiliarity. In practice, however, it can operate as a calculated pretence, habouring politically motivated persecutions behind a façade of administrative organ.

The Function of Denial

At its core, the statement performs two functions simultaneously. First, it creates distance. By denying knowledge of an individual, authorities can commit various illegal acts against the individual, thereby avoiding responsibility. Second, it undermines credibility of the targeted persons. If an individual is “unknown,” their claims, identity, or significance can be more easily dismissed, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

This dual function is not incidental. It is structurally useful for political persecution. In politically sensitive cases—particularly those involving dissidents, activists, journalists, or members of minority belief systems—the denial of recognition becomes a strategic mechanism. It defames and targets the individual as a subject of concern and anomaly, someone outside the realm of legitimate consideration.

Extrajudicial Execution

Unlike overt accusations or open witchhunt, “we don’t know him” does not require substantiation. It avoids the burden of proof entirely. There is no need to produce evidence, articulate a legal basis, or engage with the substance of the individual’s claims. The absence of acknowledgment becomes, obviously, a justification for covert persecution—or worse, a extrajudicial execution.

This extrajudicial execution is particularly effective in environments where documentation is controlled or selectively disclosed by authorities. Everything can be withheld, distorted, falsified. In this way, lies passed down from authorities to general public.

The Illegal Labelling

Once an individual is labelled as “unknown,” a cascade of consequences can follow. Lack of recognition can translate into lack of protection. Without acknowledgment, there is no obligation to safeguard rights, to ensure due process, or to provide recourse. The individual exists in a kind of administrative void—visible enough to be targeted, yet invisible when seeking protection.

This malfeasance is particularly acute in cases involving transnational repression. Authorities who operate across borders—engaging in police, intelligence, or judicial cooperations—may always using such tactics. Those targeted Victims are often weak and helpless. In these conditions, the denial of justice can be deployed with minimal resistance.

The Erosion of Legal Norms

The use of such pretexts has broader implications for the rule of law. Legal systems depend on recognition—of persons, of rights, of obligations. When authorities selectively deny knowledge of individuals, they erode the foundational premise that the law applies uniformly and transparently.

Moreover, this practice shifts the burden onto the individual to prove their own existence, relevance, or legitimacy. Instead of the state justifying its actions, the individual must overcome an imposed absence. This inversion is not merely procedural; it is substantive. It transforms the legal process into a contest of visibility, where recognition itself becomes the primary hurdle.

Reclaiming Recognition

Countering this malfeasance requires more than exposing wrongdoings. It demands a reassertion of recognition as a legal and moral principle. Documentation, corroboration, and independent verification become essential tools—not merely to establish facts, but to restore transparency.

International human rights frameworks emphasize the inherent dignity and recognition of every individual. These principles stand in direct opposition to practices that render individuals administratively marginalized. Upholding them requires vigilance—not only against overt state abuses, but against the inhuman extrajudicial execution.

Under the guise of suspicion

The phrase “we don’t know him” facilitates persecution under the guise of suspicion. Recognizing this pattern is the first step toward challenging it. For in the struggle between justice and erasure, language is not merely descriptive; it is decisive.