The Great Trial and the Great Verdict

A Review of Local Paper Headlines Regarding Charles Taylor's Trial in The Hague 

Here are a few local paper headlines declaring and predicting the outcome of the Great Trial around the time of the verdict of Charles Taylor's trial in The Hague:

Bong Wants 'Not Guilty' Verdict for Taylor
Daily Observer: Wednesday 25 April 2012

According to this paper, various persons interviewed for a poll, are suspicious of the outcome of the trial and believe not enough evidence was presented against Charles Taylor. The paper goes on to say "From the opinion poll conducted by this paper, it can be said that Taylor's popularity among locals of Bong continues to swell, despite his being tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity."

Liberian Nostalgia for War Criminal Charles Taylor discusses something similar. It talks about "dictatorship nostalgia." Some people still remember Taylor as a charismatic and kind leader. 

The Analyst's headline (Wednesday, 25 April) was "No Cause for Alarm - Gov't says of verdict in Taylor's trial:" 

The government advised the public to trust the International Court's verdict and that justice would be done. It was important for the government to placate an 'divided' population which still contains Taylor's supporters. The paper states: "Others, mainly his supporters, have however been arguing that not only is Taylor innocent of all charges levied against him, but that the indictment violated his right to immunity as a then sitting president, that it has subordinated Liberian sovereignty to that of Sierra Leone, and that the trial was politically motivated."  Further, there are those who question the selectivity of international justice:

"They wondered why, if the international community was serious about punishing those who bore the greatest responsibilities for war crime and crime against humanity, former warlords - Alhaji Kromah, Roosevelt Johnson (deceased), George Boley, Sekou Konneh, and Thomas Yaya Nimely - were allowed to roam Liberia freely." 

The article goes on to say that explanations that Taylor was only being tried for his role in "empowering Foday Sankoh's Revolutionary United Front (RUF) to destroy Sierra Leone and decimate its population has done very little to change the minds of Taylor's supporters about justice and jurisdiction." 

Amidst this confusion, especially indignation that the international community has only "given a passive nod" to Liberia's TRC Report, the government has tried to placate the population and called on them to "remain calm, peaceful, and pray for the nation and peace." 

The New Democrat's headline "Impunity Slammed US, Britain Warn Off Long Arm of International Justice" on 30 April talks about international support for the outcome of this trial and hails the historic moment:

Washington and London are reported to be supporting the verdict as a warning to other warlords and dictators. 

Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague "said Taylor's conviction on charges of arming Sierra Leonean rebels in a brutal civil war was proof that national leaders could not hide behind immunity." 

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay also gave a statement: " the historic moment in the development of international justice meant tyrannical rulers could no longer retire on blood money." 

The US State Department also has similar comments and so did the EU foreign policy chief as well as the French Foreign Minister. 

The international community is proud of having taken to task its first head of state for war crimes, for having taken a swing against impunity, war crimes, and dictatorships. 

The same paper has a striking set of photographs of Charles Taylor entitled "Prisoner, President, Prisoner Charles Taylor & The Tragic End of A Violent, Colourful Ambition." 

The New Democrat's 27 April paper is also full of articles about the outcome of the trial. One headline reads "Life in Jail? Taylor found guilty of rape, murder, torture, looting...." and "Why will Charles Taylor be jailed in Britain?" It discusses how the UK agreed to host Taylor as a prisoner as the Dutch authorities refused to put him in their jail in case he was found guilty. Sierra Leoneans are asking why Taylor will serve a sentence in the UK instead of going to a real jail like the notorious Pademba Road jail in Sierra Leone. 

Another headline reads "Amputees' Nervous Moment." Thousands of innocent people had their limbs hacked off and apparently justice has been served to them but under the picture reads a question "Sierra Leone's amputees - what next after justice?" 

Still another article reads "Naomi's Evidence Was Critical." Undoubtedly, other critical pieces of evidence must have been presented in this trial, but it is rather outlandish to think that a supermodel's flimsy testimony was critical in such a supposedly historic trial but it clearly was:

The last article I want to make mention of is "Justice for S/Leone, Not Liberia" in the Daily Observer on 27 April. 

While Western powers are hailing the victory against Africa's Big Man Impunity, other human rights organisations are reminding everyone that crimes committed in Liberia have still not been punished. 

Global Witness warned that both Liberia and Sierra Leone need to make sure their natural resources are not misappropriated again: "The Taylor verdict comes as both West African countries struggle to restructure their natural resource industries. Sierra Leone is again exporting diamonds and has recently found oil off of its coast. Liberia - which emerged from conflict in 2003 - has adopted new forestry laws and is starting to establish its own oil sector. But reforms in both countries have met considerable difficulties." Furthermore: "In Liberia, massive new logging and plantation concessions have been awarded, several in violation of the country's laws, which risk mass displacement of local people. Sierra Leone has also attracted big investments in plantations, as well as mining. These could help the country escape its dependence on foreign aid, but may also entrench corruption and cause environmental damage." 

Tail End: Trials attract a lot of controversy and there are many many facets and angles to any case. Charles Taylor's trial for crimes against humanity is unique and represents the international community's experimentation with criminal justice for crimes against humanity. Even seen in its best light and steering away from conspiracy theories, this trial is a messy job. It is a crude analysis of a complex civil war, of intra and inter state politics, and justice. It is difficult to conclude that justice has indeed been served, even for Sierra Leoneans. It is difficult to stay away from allegations of selective justice: the head of state of one country has been singled out as a master strategist for civil war in another country while he has not, by the same token, been held accountable for crimes against his own people. The same audience which is repulsed and yet morbidly obsessed with the ugliness of a civil war - blood diamonds, child soldiers, warlords, cannibalism and so on - fails to decry the strange logic of this criminal trial which has failed to connect all the dots in the regional civil war. Why and how is the world celebrating this verdict without asking itself who bought the diamonds? Who bought Liberia's timber? Who all benefitted from this war? Further still, did not thousands of persons take part in this civil war? Can we lay blame on a single person? 

And lastly, it is difficult to swallow powerful countries' i.e. US and Britain satisfaction - nay, smugness - at the outcome for this trial. A poor country's ex-head of state being taken to task - especially when he alone was not responsible for the mayhem and was able to sell the resources he expertly plundered in his country in Western markets - is hardly a score against crimes against humanity. Richer and militarily more powerful countries like the US and Britain have caused way more mayhem in recent memory but unfortunately, architects of those misadventures will unlikely ever have to account or even apologise for them.