I was looking at what are called metasyntantic variables 'cause now and again I am meeting foo and bar as identifiers when learning a new programing language. In my cryptography course we also often use Alice and Bob as communication parties and Eve as the eavesdropper. I have also come across names like "Jane Doe" in novels. So this all led me to the article on the use of these names especially "John Doe" with this:
The Doe names are often, though not always, used for anonymous or unknown defendants. Another set of names often used for anonymous parties, particularly plaintiffs, are Richard Roe for males and Jane Roe for females (as in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court abortion decision Roe v. Wade).
It reminded me that we have a case here in Malawi which has raised a lot of controversy.
Look at it this way: You want to speak out against somebody who is a bully and you know once you are known that you spoke out you are in trouble. You don't wanna die young. But you know somebody has just to speak out if things are to be OK again for you and for everybody. There should be something in the law to protect you if you take that person to court. Something like hiding your true identity with a name like John Doe(Pseudo-Identity according to Grijpink & Prins). There should be a provision in the law that allows a person to "speak out" provided there is a third trusted party who knows the real Identity of James Phiri(our John Doe). If there isn't such a provision in our constitution it could be we never thought of such a case where somebody's freedom of speech could be exercised if he has a pseudo-identity.
There is also a possibility in which a representative name could be used to advance a "some cause" as we have seen in the quote above Roe v. Wade in which some group of people were speaking out on abortion. I see the case of James Phiri as a representative "Person"(I don't know what best word to use here) trying to question the legality of Muluzi standing again or not. It shouldn't be wrong to have such a representative person. We have had cases by "friends of the court". What's wrong with some 'People' representing themselves as 'James Phiri' to fight for some cause that is to question the legality of Muluzi standing again.
Whether James Phiri is using a pseudo identity or whether he is a representative person the question that I think we should be asking is: Is the cause he is fighting for constitutional(legal or whatever)?
I believe it did not matter if Roe was a real person in the Roe v. Wade case. I also believe there is nothing wrong for a person to sue somebody anonymously as long as he is safe in being anonymous. What about witnesses? They are allowed to testify without the public knowing their identity. Why should the public be interested in knowing the identity of James Phiri now? Lets wait and see what James Phiri has to say in court and support his cause if it is your cause too.