A watershed for justice and constitutionalism in Africa was marked by the April 26, 2012 verdict of the Sierra Leone Special Court which convicted Charles Taylor for aiding and abetting war crimes. The court, sitting at the Hague, was established in 2002 with the mandate to try those who bear the greatest responsibility for crimes against humanity during the conflict in Sierra Leone. His conviction raises few fundamental questions on the coherence of Africa’s constitutional paths and the continent’s ability to do true justice within its own borders. This article thus examines the said judgment in the light of its implications for international justice and its significance for Africa.
Taylor was a former president of Liberia. He was arrested in Nigeria following a request by the Liberian President Johnson – Sir Leaf that he be surrendered to the Special Court pursuant to the warrant of arrest issued against him.
As a leader of the National Patriotic Front of Liberia and later as President, Taylor was alleged to have acted in concert with members of the Revolutionary United Front Armed Forces Revolutionary Council, AFRC/RUF Junta or alliance and/or Liberian fighters, including members and ex- members of the NPFL (Liberian fighters). Specifically, in that capacity, the accused was alleged to have assisted, encouraged, directed and/or controlled the above-mentioned warring factions in conducting armed attacks in the territory of Sierra Leone from November 30, 1996 to January 18, 2002 (the indictment period). The attacks included terrorising the civilian population, including burning of civilian homes, murder, sexual violence, physical violence, illegal recruitment of child soldiers, abduction, forced labour and looting.
In proving their cases, 94 witnesses testified for the prosecution, including three expert witnesses with 782 prosecution exhibits tendered. The defence opened its case on the July 13, 2009 and closed on November 12, 2010, having called 21 witnesses, including the accused, who testified for seven months. After 420 trial days over the course of three years and 10 months, the case was formally closed on March 11, 2011. In delivering the judgment, the court, presided over by Justice Richard Lussick,unanimously found Taylor guilty of aiding and abetting the commission of the following crimes which included acts of terrorism, murder, violence to life, rape, sexual slavery, outrages upon personal dignity, violence to life, other inhumane acts, conscripting children under the age of 15 years into the armed forces and enslavement.
Implication for international justice
Taylor became the first Head of State, since the post World War Two Nuremberg Trials, to be convicted by the international court. Some have argued that this judgment represents an “end to impunity” while others, includingsome other perpetrators of egregious crimes, argue that the judgment symbolises the triumph of power politics over justice.
One notes that it has been alleged that the prosecution failed to establish two of its main charges: i.e that Taylor had effective command and control of rebel forces in Sierra Leone and that he was part of a joint enterprise. This part of the judgment will be closely studied by lawyers and other scholars of international relations, especially in light of its implication for similar trials such as the trial of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
However, notwithstanding whatever acclaimed odds, Taylor’s indictment has established a very fundamental principle to the effect that a serving Head of State is not immune from prosecution. And that singular principle has taken the jurisprudence of war crimes to a new height. The indictment of former Ivory Coast leader, Laurent Gbagbo, and Omar Al bashir of Sudan, are a manifestation of the effect of Taylor’s precedent. The conviction of Taylor will further galvanise the international court to intensify the pursuit of both men.
Lessons for Africa
Granted thatTaylor’s trial and conviction represent a slight shift in favour of constitutionalism, respect for human rights and good governance in Africa, other pertinent issues of veiled neo-colonialism are also evident in the trial and ultimate conviction. First, the conviction has further highlighted legitimate concerns that Africa has been somewhat converted to a testing ground in which international tribunals are made to test the efficacy of concepts that have not been applied to other parts of the world. Secondly, the fact that justice had to come from the international courts, as against domestic African courts, further cast Africa’s institutional capacities, to effectively govern and do justice within its borders, in critical light. Taylor committed his offences in Liberia and oughtto have been brought to justice by his own people in Liberia in the domestic courts. The reason for this impossibility can be attributed to the lack of strong institutions to effectively deal with Taylor’s subversion of justice in his country and neighbouring Sierra Leone.
Further, the conviction of Taylor should be a wake up call to Africans. This is a glaring example of the failure of Africans to govern themselves effectively. The fact that the International Court has to be used to deal with issues that ought to be dealt with by Africans is a manifestation of our collective failure. Thus, to rush to the Hague for others to solve our problems raises questions about our political independence and jurisprudential effectiveness as a whole.
The conviction also raises questions on the commitment, of other nations outside Africa, to subject their leaders and officials’ activities to the scrutiny of international jurisprudence. Nations, like the United States, who have shockingly refused to be part of the Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court should be pressured to do so. That way, every nation would have submitted the actions of their leaders, be it local or foreign, to the scrutiny of the international community and international jurisprudence. While Taylor’s conviction may be justice for Sierra Leone and Liberia, it smacks of veiled neo-colonialism for the International Criminal Tribunals to be strong enough to indict and pursue African leaders while being patently weak to indict and pursue other genocidal leaders of non-African descent.
But notwithstanding the back and forth debates, Taylor’s successful prosecution should inform African rulers, particularly dictators and tyrants, that they cannot escape from justice by hedging their bets on a crabby domestic legal system. The world is truly shrinking and the era of impunity is ebbing, albeit sluggishly.
Adedayo Adedeji
