Chance to live in peace again
 

Justice In Taylor's Indictment 

By Alvin J. Teage 

May 3, 2004  

The indictment against Charles M. Taylor (defendant) for crimes against humanity has left an embarrassing mark on Liberia. This is the first time a Liberian has been indicted for such heinous crimes, and the defendant's soon-to-come trial before the Special Court for Sierra Leone is likely to generate more international attention. But does the indictment violate Liberia's Constitution as Mr. S.L. Lofen Keneah, Jr. suggests? 

Mr. Keneah argues in his article  (Liberia's Legal System Vs. Sierra Leone Special Court  ) that the indictment of a sitting Liberian president, as the defendant was when he was indicted, violates Liberia's Constitution. Mr. Keneah also cites the presidential immunity clause of the Liberian Constitution to support his call for Liberia to reject the Special Court's request for cooperation. (See, Liberia's Legal System Vs. Sierra Leone Special Court, New democrat Website, April 2004). It is, however, important to note that the indictment is not an issue of Liberia's legal system vs. the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Instead, it is the world vs. the defendant because the Special Court was duly established by the United Nations. And because I believe the indictment does not violate our Constitution, I respectfully disagree with the portion of Mr. Keneah's above-cited article, which argues the opposite. 

Mr. Keneah questions whether the indictment has done Liberians any good; whether the indictment sets a good or bad legal record for Liberia; and whether it was appropriate for David Crane, the chief prosecutor for the Special Court, to unseal the indictment while the defendant was in Ghana for political matters. 

The question as to whether the indictment has done Liberians any good is a little puzzling. Such a question would be more appropriate if the defendant were indicted for acts committed within Liberia. The defendant, however, is indicted for acts committed within the borders of Sierra Leone. As the direct victims of the alleged criminal acts, it is the people of Sierra Leone who should specifically ask whether the indictment has done them any good. 

I find it curious that a legal position would question the timing of the indictment's announcement. If not Ghana where the defendant was away from his instruments of torture and death, where would have been a more appropriate place? We persistently sound the continental drum about Western conspiracy regarding Africa's lack of progress. Yet Africa's military powers do nothing as a few dictators brazenly commit genocide and other gross human rights violations across the African Continent. There would be little hope for progress in our long-neglected area of justice if the resolutions of criminal violations were continuously transferred to the arena of political negotiations. 

Mr. Crane has an international mandate to indict anyone he believes bears the greatest responsibility for the terrible acts, which were committed within the borders of Sierra Leone. This means that no scheduled negotiation of showmanship, claim of confined presidential privilege, or the abandonment of nuclear programs should influence his prosecutorial decision. The defendant had a long history of using violence against innocent Liberians to achieve his demands. So, if anything, the decision to unseal the indictment as the defendant was outside Liberia shows that Mr. Crane, a non-African, is more concerned about peace in Liberia than some are willing to admit. 

Mr. Keneah places his strongest argument on the presidential immunity clause of Article 61 of the Liberian Constitution. The full sentence of the immunity clause reads as follows: "The President shall be immune from any suits, actions or proceedings, judicial or otherwise, and from arrest, detention or other actions on account of any act done by him while President of Liberia pursuant to any provision of this Constitution or any other laws of the Republic." In citing this clause to support his call for non-cooperation with the Special Court, Mr. Keneah forgets to include the words "pursuant to any provision of this Constitution or any other laws of the Republic." These words are important because they go to the heart of the presidential immunity. 

When read in its entirety, the presidential immunity clause only applies to official acts. For example, if the president orders a division of the armed forces to assist the police to restore order in an unusual case of domestic unrest and a protester dies as a result of the military action, the president would enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution. If the president, however, murders his or her spouse during the heat of an argument, the immunity would not apply because the murder was not in performance of his or her constitutional duties. No person, not even a sitting dictator, is above the law. And I doubt Mr. Keneah would argue that the alleged criminal acts in Sierra Leone were done pursuant to the defendant's constitutional duties as president. Therefore, the indictment does not violate our Constitution. 

Moreover, Liberia benefits from working with the Special Court. Cooperation is the fuel of international relations, and Liberia has reached out to other nations for assistance and is likely to do so in the future. Liberia should, therefore, acknowledge her international obligations, and honor the Special Court's properly, served requests
________