Wallace Johnson Statue, Freetown, Sierra Leone (c) Mark Gee |
I
have checked the online versions of mainstream papers based in Sierra
Leone (Awareness
Times, Awoko, Exclusive
Press and Sierra
Leone Daily Mail), and in
Liberia (The 1847 Post,
In Profile Daily, The
Inquirer and Daily
Observer). Although far from
a perfect means of gathering evidence - basic internet coverage that
only a small percentage of population have access to/can afford – I
was hoping to understand whether local Sierra Leoneans and Liberians
feel that justice has been served.
Other
than stating, “Thousands
of survivors of Sierra Leone’s brutal civil war celebrated after
learning of the conviction”, the
Sierra Leone Daily Mail
only
covers
the reactions of Special Court of Sierra Leone (SCSL) officials, the
US government, and non-government organisations (NGOs). None of the
other online resources in Sierra Leone have any news on the Taylor
verdict. I also understand that there has been little
coverage of the Taylor verdict
in the printed press in Sierra Leone.
In
Liberia, all of the news outlets mentioned above have covered the
verdict in some way. As well as publishing articles in the lead up to
the Taylor verdict, the Liberian press have covered official and NGOs
responses in more detail. The
Inquirer has
dedicated most coverage to public reaction. Of a local BBC phone-in,
they report:
Reverend Jasper Nd'ganblor said, “...our concern is the peace that has been so far attained in the region whether it will hold and if it will help us sustain the peace it will be in the right direction...Liberia has gone through so much and that of Sierra Leone and we want the diplomatic tie to continue to abide instead of seeing each other as enemies.”
Julliet, women's advocate in Sierra Leone added her feelings by saying, “This verdict is with mixed feelings...Impunity needs to be addressed; justice needs to be given to whom it is due. This man pronounced war on Sierra Leone. He said we will taste the bitterness of war and we tasted it; the women tasted it. The women died; the women suffered and I am not happy at all.”
A
local vox pops found:
Mr. Varney Konneh of Monrovia said, “I hope Sierra Leoneans are happy; they wanted justice and now they have justice. I just hope they will be at peace; Liberians will remember this day, because of Sierra Leoneans; Liberians are grieving over the situation.”
“Justice has been done; there is nothing we can do about it and Sierra Leoneans are rejoicing because they think it is the right thing to do but let them know that what comes around goes around,” one Mr. Jallah said.
“I am so happy that Taylor will not be set free, I suffered in this country when Taylor was in power. My daughter was raped by Taylor's so-called ATU soldiers; today he has been punished for all the wrongs he did to us,” Madam Yvonnie Smith said.
Wheelchair merchant, Monrovia, Liberia (c) whiteafrican |
Motorists honked in the streets of Freetown, in apparent jubilation for the verdict, but next door in Liberia, tension was high....The ruling has also reportedly heightened tension between Sierra Leone and Liberia.
Whilst
the Global
Post states
that reactions in Liberia were mixed:
Taylor's war-crimes conviction is a watershed moment, said Aaron Weah, program associate at the International Center for Transitional Justice. "The verdict signals hope for Liberians who were victims of the civil war here that, five to six years from now, they too will get justice," said Weah.
So
why might reaction in Sierra Leone be so muted?
There
may well be a number of reasons for this, but it is noteworthy that
their own (show) trials of Foday
Sankoh, commander of the RUF, Sam
Bockarie, leader of the RUF, Johnny
Paul Koroma, leader of the AFRC, and Sam
Hinga Norman, head of the CDF, have never taken place. Sankoh,
Bockarie and Norman have all died, whilst Koroma has eluded capture
and may be dead.
Eight
other indictees, representing the armed forces of the rebels (RUF,
AFRC)
and government of Sierra Leone (CDF),
have since been found guilty of war crimes atrocities. These
verdicts gathered a lot less attention in the West, despite the fact
that the AFRC case made legal history by ruling on the recruitment of
child soldiers and forced marriage in an armed conflict for the first
time.
Perhaps
the most pertinent of the UK articles on the Taylor verdict and its
implications for justice, is this
one written by Mwangi Kimenyi and John Mbaku. In “Why wasn't it
Africa that found Charles Taylor guilty?, Kimenyi and Mbaku lament
the lack of institutional capacities within African justice systems
to deal with human rights abuses.
In
her blog
post for the Overseas Development Initiative, Lisa Denney writes:
The Special Court will undoubtedly have an impact on the post-conflict landscape in Sierra Leone and, of course, sets important precedents in international law and holding political leaders to account. But its short-term nature, limited scope and overwhelming ‘foreignness’ means its will have less effect on most Sierra Leoneans than reform of the country’s legal systems (both formal and informal) – which will remain long after the white four wheel drives and international staff have departed...Indeed, most Sierra Leoneans have had to resolve grievances with community members from the civil war through informal mechanisms, without the judges, robes and new court rooms that international formal legal processes have attracted.
As
of today, it is extremely difficult to
assess whether Sierra Leoneans and Liberians feel that
justice has been done. Whilst some may see justice as having been
done, others are unhappy that Taylor has not been tried for the
crimes that he committed in Liberia. More worryingly, the verdict
appears to have heightened tensions between Liberia and Sierra Leone.
What
is more apparent is that justice has been seen to be done, in terms of the Western media's ready acceptance of governments' and NGOs' views of the Taylor trial. Taylor himself has become the sole focus of the
international community's war crimes narrative, and more important than other judicial advances (e.g.
forced marriage in armed conflict).
Additionally, the SCSL cost a lot of money. As
such, donor countries would want to see some form of return to
justify the money spent on their international legal project.
Headlines
of an historic verdict may well secure future funding for future
localised, international justice projects, but it masks an important
issue; international justice should reflect local victims' sense of
retribution and redress.
No comments:
Post a Comment