2i8 AFRICAN POLITICAL SYSTEMS
clan or any of its sub-groups of which the individual is a member and the specific interests of which are affected, in both cases that group acts, in a sense, as the accuser and as the judicial authority at the same time.
A distinction, however, must be made between law administered within a given group and between different groups. When a legal dispute or an offence involves two clans, the clan of the wronged person tries to obtain justice by negotiation with the clan of the offender, which, in turn, stands behind the offender and either rejects the claim or assumes responsibility for his action. When, however, a breach of law occurs within a given group and the nature of the offence is such that it affects those interests which are specific to the group and not further divisible, a restoration of the breach by compensation is obviously impossible, as it would necessitate the splitting up of the group into two units, the one which gives and the other which receives the compensation, an action which would destroy the solidarity of the group. Thus, if a person commits adultery with one of his father's or brother's wives, the usual compensation of a heifer is not paid, as a father and his sons form a property-holding unit in which the payment of compensation by one member to another member would be pointless. If a person kills a member of his sub-clan, no compensation would be paid either (among the Vugusu), as they say that the loss of life affects the whole sub-clan and not merely the immediate kinsmen. The action taken in such and similar cases furnishes a clear criterion of the nature of the solidarity that prevails within the group in question. Where it is deemed that no legal action (i.e. the imposition of a compensation) can be taken owing to the indivisibility of the common interests of the group, merely a sacrifice is performed to propitiate the spirits and a purification ceremony which frees the offender from his ritual impurity and renders it safe for his relatives and neighbours to resume social relations with him.
In the case of repeated offences, the only possible procedure is to expel the offender from the group and to withdraw from him the right for protection by the clan as well as the clan's responsibility for his deeds. The attitude towards an habitual offender thus differs fundamentally from that towards an occasional offender. Whereas the latter—no matter how serious the offence committed by him—is considered to have acted within a set of particular