It is a common complaint in Africa that even the most heinous crimes of some
of its leaders and warlords merit barely a flicker of attention in the rest
of the world while they are being perpetrated.
As the genocidal slaughter began in Rwanda in 1994, TV viewers in Britain and
United States were transfixed by the high-speed Californian car chase that
ended in the arrest of O. J. Simpson. And for much of the 1990s, the murder
and mutilation inflicted on the population of Sierra Leone in a conflict
about “blood diamonds” was largely ignored outside West Africa until
Britain’s military intervention in 1999.
Now, Charles Taylor, the former Liberian leader — accused of backing those who
committed the atrocities — is standing trial in The Hague, the first African
leader to face a war crimes court. True to form, the world remains largely
uninformed about a trial that is throwing up legal issues that have
implications for other international tribunals.
One is payment of witnesses. For the prosecution, some of the most valued
testimony has come from “insider” witnesses, either former aides of Taylor
or senior figures in the rebel groups in Sierra Leone, who negotiated with
the Liberians to secure guns in return for supplying diamonds.
In the past year one of these witnesses, Isaac Tamba Mongor — a self-confessed
killer who admitted in court that he had burnt down villages and slaughtered
civilians — received payments totalling $4,800 (£2,400) for food, medical
and childcare expenses, visits to his relatives in the provinces and to buy
top-up cards for his mobile phone. All these payments have been made by the
victim and witness service section of the court registry. The chief
prosecutor and registrar say everything is declared and above board. The
defence is crying foul.
Terry Munyard, of Garden Court Chambers, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London,
Taylor’s co-counsel, outlines the charge sheet: “Reimbursing witnesses for
genuine expenses is entirely legitimate. Handouts to help them with school
fees and buy uniforms for their children, which has happened in some cases,
is not. Some people have approached us offering to give evidence for the
defence if we will pay them more than they are being offered by the
prosecution. Frankly, this corrodes the whole system of justice that the
international tribunals are supposed to be upholding.”
The defence also complains that press conferences given by the prosecution in
West Africa, while the trial has been in progress, have made it more
difficult to find those prepared to testify for Taylor. “When the chief
prosecutor stands up in Monrovia [the capital of Liberia],” Munyard says,
“and makes extravagant claims about Taylor and the millions of dollars he
has supposedly salted away, it clearly has an inhibiting effect on potential
defence witnesses. They fear that they will be put on some UN war crimes
list if they come forward.”
The Special Court for Sierra Leone is not the first international tribunal to
be the focus of such criticisms, nor the first where some observers detect a
legal culture clash between US and UK practices.
Taylor’s defence team comes mainly from the English Bar. The two key figures
in the Office of the Prosecutor are American. Stephen Rapp, from Iowa, is
the chief prosecutor. “In the jurisdiction I come from, witness payments can
be made by a US marshal where appropriate. But listen, we are talking about
reimbursement of expenses here. Nobody is being enriched through testifying.
“In cases where we have had to relocate a witness because of fear of
reprisals, it’s right that we should take care of things such as school fees
if their children can no longer go to the local mission school. The
principle is that nobody should be worse off as a result of testifying.”
The monetary issue of greatest concern to the special court is the continual
struggle to garner the contributions to keep it alive and functioning.
Unlike the ad hoc tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the Sierra
Leone court relies on voluntary payments from states rather than assessed
contributions from the UN.
Four states have borne the brunt — the US, Canada, Britain and the
Netherlands. “Other contributions have been sporadic,” Herman von Hebel,the
registrar, admits. “I spend about a third of my time going around with a
begging bowl. We need $68 million to complete our work by 2010 and we have
guaranteed funding of only $23 million. The present funding will last until
the autumn. It is a great worry.”
Though this is an African tribunal — albeit one sitting in Europe for the
Taylor trial for security reasons — the only financial contributor from
Africa is Nigeria. This is ironic because Taylor was given sanctuary there
for three years before his protection was removed and he was arrested.
Despite everything — the financial uncertainty, the death threats to witnesses
and an attack on the family home of a witness in Liberia — the trial is
progressing and impressing many seasoned observers. Professor Michael
Scharf, an expert on war crimes tribunals, says: “Although Taylor’s very
presence is intimidating to witnesses, he is not disrupting proceedings and
his legal team is doing an impressive job. For now, the court is setting a
good precedent for the future.”
Oh come on. In the Commercial Court it's perfectly normal to pay witnesses - it can take weeks if not months for them to review all the documents necessary and prepare statements not to mention time spent in the witness box, and it's not realistic to expect them to do it for free.
Jonathan, London,
It is ironic that the country that gave him sanctuary is contributing towards his prosecution in the SCSL (not the ICC), in which he will most likely get convicted.
C, Oxford, UK
Where is the irony in Nigeria contributing to the ICC's expenses in the Taylor trial? The author implies that the Country in which Taylor was given sanctuary is paying to see him convicted. That would be ironic. But, surely they are paying to see a fair and publc trial take place. That is different.
George, Oxford, UK