Sorry for my slowness last week. I was away from the internet during the day on my training course. I know the delay can be frustrating as the sooner comments are posted, the more debate that can be generated. Hopefully this week it will be better now that I am fully back on board.

That said, I did not post some comments of readers last week because they did not comply with the terms and conditions – either because they attacked other readers, or else they caused legal problems due to copyright concerns (in fact, I wrote you a little note yesterday, Noko5, asking if there was a way you could reframe your great post on Issa Sesay for Andrew, to ensure that it was attributing the source of the information or simply linking to the site where it already exists in order to avoid a copyright problem. If not, no problem — I can find the source and post a link on your behalf — but it was helpful as a pointer towards information about Issa Sesay).

Best,
Tracey

Thank you for your comments. I just want to point out to you that the manner in which the Liberian government carried out recruitment in order to buttress its forces in defense of the nation and its borders is the Liberian Government and liberian people prerogative. Moreover, the matter that you commented on is not in dispute, so it is immaterial to this case.

Justice has never been a one-way traffic! The accused deserves justice, the victims deserves justice and even the society whose laws where violated deserve justice! Given the role that the accused appeared to have played in bringing about peace to Siereleone, with the knowledge and consent of AU, ECOWAS and the UN, it seems to me most strange that he now is facing trial for that same role.

Consequently, if the accused is convicted, I forsee a scenerio where relations would be strained between the UN on one hand, and the AU and ECOWAS on the other. Besides, if I am a president of a small country and a neighbouring country is engulfed in war, I would not waste my time attempting to broker peace on behalf of the international community. The case of Charles Taylor will be my precedent! This is the lesson from this trial!! In times of war, do not bother yourself being a peace maker or keeper, just stay AWAY!!!

Quite recently the African Union (AU) declared that member states should not cooperate with the ICC on the arrest warrant that the court issued for Sudanese President, Al Bashir. The AU believed that the court is targeting African leaders. The Libyan leader kaddafi, especially regarded the court affairs as a “new world terrorism.”

There has been widespread concern raised on the position of the African Union, with a predominant view that the organization is attempting to shield impunity. I choose to differ. I believe that the African leaders main concerns are about trust and fairness. A case in point is the ongoing trial of the former Liberian Leader, Charles Taylor who was indicted for crimes while sitting in office. There are two main issues with the Charles Taylor situation. Firstly, the original indictment has been change three times since it was first issued six years ago. Secondly, the prosecution has not provided substantive evidence to link Charles Taylor to the alleged crimes.

In the first instance adopting various version of the indictment leaves room for questions that only the prosecution can answer. But a broader perspective of this scenario would be whether the court expects to repeat such practice and how often? Why would the court, given the high profile nature of the Taylor case (trial of a sitting president) be so indecisive on the charges to be levied as evidence by the numerous version of the indictment? In a related development, the prosecution released the original indictment to the US Government three months before it was officially unsealed. Is this a common practice of the court? Who authorized the disclosure of the original indictment to the US Government? To what extent does this practice speak to the independence of the court as its statute stipulates? Is it legitimate to inquire if similar scenarios are expected in the Al Bashir situation?

In the second instance, it is a common observation amongst legal experts and analysts that the prosecution did not present strong evidence to link Mr. Taylor to the allegations levied against him. Instead, the prosecution paraded more crime-based witnesses in order to, according to analysts, obscure the main deficiency in its case.

Hence the AU could have grounds to raise suspicion on issues of trust, sincerity, fairness and independence of the court. By releasing the Taylor indictment to the US Government prior to its official unsealing, the court made itself vulnerable and opened room for concerns that the AU is raising. Would it be legitimate to conclude that the court was seeking approval from the US on the contents of the original Charles Taylor indictment?

While it is legitimate for civil societies to advocate justice for crime victims, I believe it is equally fair for these organizations to advocate fair and impartial trial of the accused. The AU, in my view, is not shielding impunity but serving to protect the rights of the accused and ensure that the court remains independent. I believe that the AU concerns are genuine and the court should arrest these irregularities or inconsistencies soon, else we do not know the extent to which impact of African Leaders actions will have on the future of the Court.