justice vs. peace

Civil wars are common. A great number of states have gone through them at some point in their history. My parents, in fact, fought in one. They were members of the Eritrean Liberation Front, seeking independence from Ethiopia. A 30 year war raged as a result.

Yet this pales in comparison to the astonishing facts of Sierra Leone’s war. Although it was over in almost a third the time – 11 years – this war distinguishes itself as an extremely gruesome and macabre case of inhumanity. Fought between pro-government soldiers and the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), Sierra Leone’s civil war included extensive use of child soldiers by both sides. These gun-wielding children were fed drugs and made into little killing monsters without consciences. This war left limbs severed, felled to the ground, as rebels practiced systematic amputation of civilians: woman, children, the old, whomever. And to make matters worse, the rebels funded their indiscriminate attack in part by the fruits of Sierra Leone’s land: diamonds. This fact is a great tragedy considering the wealth those diamonds could have provided its people.

The rebels’ first attacks hung on lofty principles and ideals. Some of these ideals were definitely justifiable. But, sadly, a principled battle gave way to mayhem and atrocity.

Like many African post-colonial states, Sierra Leone was rife with political corruption. This was most obvious during the tenure of military leader Joseph Momoh beginning in 1985. One group opposed to Momoh’s rule included the future leader of the RUF, Foday Sankoh. Although many members of this opposition group fell by the wayside, Sankoh maintained his revolutionary spirit. Sankoh and others eventually received an education at Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi’s military training facility, and developed contact with future Liberian President and war-crimes suspect, Charles Taylor.

In addition to their justifiable concern that Sierra Leone was succumbing to ever-increasing corruption, Sankoh and his cohorts were intent on gaining greater control over the diamonds populating the country. This second interest soon became consuming: unfortunately at the cost of many innocent lives.

The war lasted between 1991 and 2002. In 1999 the government of Sierra Leone and the RUF signed the Lome Peace Accord in Lome, Togo. The agreement gave amnesty to members of the RUF and control over the diamond mines initially in dispute. It also established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a body that would collect the stories of victims and fighters while foregoing punishment. Forgiveness and reconciliation would be the guiding principles.

However, because of external pressure, the government of Sierra Leone set the Special Court of Sierra Leone up, with the help of the United Nations. It is a judicial body intent on trying “those who bear greatest responsibility” for the crimes against humanity committed during Sierra Leone’s civil war.

Of course, there is a contradiction in having both the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Special Court. While one gives amnesty to the perpetrators of grave crimes against humanity, the other seeks to prosecute and punish them. Now, although it turns out the Special Court has jurisdiction over the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it is still open for discussion whether or not this is a good thing.

The problem of accountability is great in Africa. Many African leaders have wrecked havoc without punishment. They have either been ignored, fortunately for them, by the international community, or they have been given sanctuary by neighboring heads of state. This is of course a grave situation and one that should end. And the Special Court is one body with the intention of doing just that.

The primary perpetrators of the civil war, Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh, were indicted by the cour. Some decidedly controversial charges were made as well. Members of the Civil Defense Forces (CDF), a group that fought alongside the government’s army against the rebels, were indicted as well. The arrest of one of these members, the leader Samuel Hinga Norman, was particularly stinging to the people of Sierra Leone, who saw him as a hero. But for the most part, the charges made by the Special Court were defensible. Those who bore greatest responsibility for the atrocities in Sierra Leone were tried and many have been convicted.

And yet a lot of criticism has been directed towards the Special Court. Before the Special Court gained control, Sierra Leone’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission gave a level of amnesty to many rebel soldiers and generals with the assurance they would become fellow citizens again and not enemy combatants. But by prosecuting their leaders, this very fragile peace is threatened. Some, including Peter Penfold, the former British High Commissioner to Freetown, think this is enough to justify the Special Court’s eradication. In their view the law should be a pragmatic and flexible tool, adjusted to changing circumstances. If following through on some prosecutions leads to destabilization, then perhaps the process should be scrapped.

There is also the fact that some common practices in Sierra Leone are fundamentally opposed to the prosecutorial tradition. Reconciliation, for many in Sierra Leone is more than just an abstract ideal. It includes actually bringing former-rebel soldiers into government. It is a full, and very concrete, reconciliation. And it’s one that cannot exist alongside the Special Court’s prosecutorial methods.

Speaking with Gibril Koroma, editor of the Sierra Leoneon publication The Patriotic Vanguard, and Afri-Can Magazine, he had this to say: “Each country has their way of doing things. When you look at the international justice system, it’s Western. I’m not saying it’s bad, but it might not work in all situations. It doesn’t fit.”

The local practices should at the very least be considered. And if they are overridden by an interest in meting out “justice”, at the cost of peace and stability, this should be done with great regret. But it appears this hasn’t happened in Sierra Leone. It appears one system has been imposed on a people without much regard for their opinion.

Perhaps the future can learn from Sierra Leone. A more case-by-case system of international law may one day prevail. It will be ad hoc, in the best sense possible. Its method will be dependent on the surrounding circumstances. And it will respect the wishes of the people it claims to serve.