THE POPE is guarded by them. Shakespeare’s noblest hero was of their number. And they form one of the proudest regiments of the British Army. But, despite the romance of the Swiss Guards, the dignity of Othello and the bravery of the Gurkhas, there is little love for the mercenary. In our times, the soldier who kills for profit has become the pariah few will defend.

There is a paradox, however, in the mercenary’s unpopularity. For we have seldom needed him more. The combination of this new century’s security challenges, the reluctance of most Western leaders to countenance increased defence budgets and the unwillingness of European populations to see their citizen armies bear heavy casualties, have made the role of the mercenary more relevant than ever. Britain’s diplomats have increasingly found that some of the most difficult work in international security needs to be outsourced.

It’s not just in Iraq that Western nations are sub-contracting security work to private military companies. There are many other areas of global instability where an intervention for good has been managed by private contractors. Stability in Angola was secured by hired guns. And, more strikingly, Sierra Leone was saved from barbarism at one point by mercenaries.

In 1995 Sierra Leone was at the mercy of a terrorist outfit called the RUF. Under their leader Foday Sankoh they specialised in the gang-rape of minors, the use of children to murder their own parents and the random amputation of their victims’ lips, ears and limbs. It was the private military company Executive Outcomes that defeated the RUF and cleared the way for the democratic rule of President Kabbah.

President Kabbah was, however, persuaded to eject the mercenaries before they could complete their work. Within three months he was deposed in a coup. The peace that Executive Outcomes brought to Sierra Leone could not be maintained by a UN force more than ten times as strong. Order was restored in 1999 with the help not just of mercenaries, but also the commitment of regular British troops.

If Executive Outcomes had been allowed to finish its job in the first place, innocent African lives would have been saved, a materially wealthy nation would not have had its resources squandered by torturers and the West would have been able to pocket a strategic gain without the sacrifice of precious regular soldiers. The lesson is clear. In troubled nations, where kleptocratic rulers hold power by force, the deployment of highly trained professionals from a private military company can strike a blow against barbarism. It is a lesson that has not been lost on Africa’s remaining dictators. As the fate of an Old Etonian who goes on trial in Zimbabwe tomorrow proves.

Simon Mann, currently incarcerated in Robert Mugabe’s Chikurubi prison, is a former SAS officer who, like Othello, “hath done the State some service”. He served in Cyprus, Germany and Ulster as well as acting as ADC to Sir Peter de la Billiere during the first Gulf War. Since then Mann has helped to set up private military companies, including Executive Outcomes and Sandline, organisations that have been scrupulous about operating in concert with Western policy goals while maintaining a discreet distance.

Mann is now in prison because he and more than 60 colleagues were apprehended in Harare buying arms from the Zimbabwean state defence industry, before heading for Equatorial Guinea. This tiny African State is blessed with prodigious natural resources, including rich oilfields, and cursed with one of the continent’s most horrific rulers. President Obiang is a tyrant who enforces his rule by torture, a money launderer on a global scale and an embezzler of his own nation’s wealth to the tune of millions.

MANN and his team are accused of plotting to bring down Obiang in a coup, a task which would be well beyond 70 soldiers in a police state such as Equatorial Guinea, even if they were consummate professionals. The coup accusation masks Obiang’s real fear, that Mann was intent on providing security for Equatorial Guinea’s principal democratic campaigner, Severo Moto, who plans to return to the country from exile to lead a campaign for free elections. Mann’s force, while insufficient for a coup, could well have provided the necessary security to enable Moto to galvanise the widespread opposition to Obiang’s tyranny. If Moto, with Mann’s help, had been able to secure a free foothold, then he might have transformed the country, just as Executive Outcomes helped President Kabbah to save Sierra Leone from the RUF.

The motivations of Mann, and Moto, may not be entirely pure, of course. But President Mugabe’s decision to incarcerate Mann is just what one might expect one tyrant vulnerable to democratic overthrow to do for another. Having seen how outfits such as Executive Outcomes can tip the balance for freedom in Sierra Leone, neither Mugabe nor Obiang want the example to spread.

Unless his country acts to protect him Simon Mann faces extradition to Equatorial Guinea, torture and death. That, some may say, is the sort of thing he should have thought about before he decided to take up arms for profit. Perhaps.

But those of us inclined to let the soldier of fortune take his chances should pause to consider two questions. Why has the cause of freedom in Africa, most notably in Sierra Leone, been better defended by mercenaries than by the United Nations? And will tyrants sleep safer knowing that men such as Simon Mann are dead in an African jail, or free to do the difficult jobs the international community wants done but can’t find anyone else to accomplish?

Join the Debate at comment@thetimes.co.uk