He is the first head of state to be indicted, tried and convicted by an international tribunal. The crimes for which he was convicted ranged from acts of terrorism, murder, rape, pillage, sexual slavery, inhumane acts, including mutilations and amputations, outrages upon personal dignity, cruel treatment, recruitment, enlistment and use of child soldiers, and enslavement.

The Special Court for Sierra Leone, a hybrid of Sierra Leone and international law, was first established in 2002 to try ‘those who bear the greatest responsibility’ for the appalling atrocities committed during the 11 year rebel war in Sierra Leone which started in 1991 when a group of RUF (Revolutionary United Front) rebels crossed from Liberia into Sierra Leone and started terrorising the people. The Court’s quest to pursue international justice has not been without difficulty and controversy.

Following the deaths in 2003 of Foday Sankoh, the infamous leader of the RUF, and his psychopathic henchman, Sam Bockarie, there were calls for the Special Court to be disbanded before the trials had got underway. Sankoh and Bockarie were undoubtedly the two most responsible for the atrocities and their deaths, (Sankoh’s whilst in detention in Freetown and Bockarie’s in Liberia, ironically on the alleged orders of Taylor), robbed the Sierra Leone people of seeing the two brought to justice for the havoc they had caused. Sankoh had in fact already been found guilty of treason and sentenced to death in an earlier Sierra Leone Court but it was the international community, led by the US and UK, who had insisted on pushing through an ill-conceived peace agreement which left Sankoh as a de facto Vice President and in charge of the country’s diamond wealth. When Sankoh reneged on the terms of the peace agreement these same countries then pushed for him to be tried as a war criminal.

The calls to disband were ignored and the Court pursued its quest to prosecute others for the atrocities. Johnny Paul Koroma, the head of the military junta which had removed President Kabbah in 1997 was indicted but he fled the country and disappeared. Chief Sam Hinga Norman, one of Kabbah’s ministers and widely regarded as one of those most responsible for defending the people and restoring peace and democracy to Sierra Leone, was also indicted but he too died in detention before his trial was concluded. The trials for nine other members of the three warring factions, the RUF, the AFRC/SLA and the CDF were concluded a few years ago and these nine are now serving out their long sentences in a prison on the other side of the continent in Rwanda.

But these nine were generally regarded as lesser figures in the conflict and therefore much hinged upon the trial of Charles Taylor, whose support for the RUF prolonged the conflict. The manner in which the Court’s Chief Prosecutor, David Crane, unveiled Taylor’s indictment nearly derailed the delicate negotiations which were taking place at the time in Ghana to persuade him to stand down and bring an end to the equally bloody conflict in Liberia. The Ghanaians ignored the indictment and handed Taylor over to President Obasanjo in Nigeria as part of the peace process and Obasanjo held him in Nigeria despite intense international pressure from many, including the US Government who issued a $2 million bounty for his capture. Obasanjo finally handed Taylor over to Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf upon her election as Liberian President in 2006. She immediately passed him over to the Sierra Leone Special Court who whisked him off to The Hague to commence his trial, which dragged on for the past four years.

The Taylor conviction is hailed as a justification for all the Sierra Leone Special Court’s efforts. In welcoming the conviction, Brenda Hollis, the Court’s present Chief Prosecutor, claimed: ‘Today’s historic judgement reinforces the new reality that Heads of State will be held to account for war crimes and other international crimes. This judgement affirms that with leadership comes not just power and authority, but also responsibility and accountability. No person, no matter how powerful, is above the law.’

Some have questioned this claim. It has been pointed out that Taylor was not the only head of state involved in the Sierra Leone conflict. They note that the origins of both the Sierra Leone and the Liberian conflicts emanated in Libya under the guidance of President Gadaffi. They also note that some of the arms and ammunition for the RUF passed through the neighbouring West African country of Burkino Faso with the supposed agreement of President Compare. However, neither of these two heads of state was indicted.

It is also pointed out that in setting up the Special Court a waiver was granted against indicting members of the peacekeeping force including the West African force, ECOMOG, who according to the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission were responsible for 1% of the atrocities. (According to the TRC, the RUF were responsible for 60.5% of the atrocities, the AFRC/SLA 16.6% and the CDF 6%). It’s also worth mentioning that the US Government, one of the strongest supporters of the Special Court, had concluded a bilateral agreement with the Sierra Leone Government to ensure that no US national could be brought before the Court.

Undoubtedly, alongside the deployment of British troops, Taylor’s removal, allied to the imposition of the embargo on the sale of ‘blood diamonds’ through the passing of UN resolution No. 1306 contributed significantly to ending the Sierra Leone conflict. During his presidency the export of ‘Liberian’ diamonds increased twentyfold, even though Liberia has far less diamond resources than diamond rich Sierra Leone. One of the highlights of the Taylor trial was the appearance of the supermodel, Naomi Campbell, to explain her gift from Taylor when meeting him in South Africa of a cache of diamonds – ‘dirty-looking stones’, as she described them. According to some press reports, Taylor amassed around $800 million in his personal bank account during his presidency while the Liberian economy plummeted.

There will be few tears shed for Taylor’s plight, not least in Liberia itself, where he subjected the people to a bloody conflict for years. Taylor’s election in 1997 was on a platform of in effect ‘if you don’t vote for me I’ll go back to killing you!’ It is somewhat ironic that for these crimes in which he was clearly more directly involved, he has not been held to account.

However, does Taylor’s conviction really deter other criminal heads of state, as has been claimed by the Special Court and its supporters? Taylor’s conviction had been preceded by that of President Milosevic by the Special Court for Yugoslavia (the ICTY) but Milosevic died before his trial ended. The ICC trial of ex President Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast will now follow. The ICC’s indictment of President Omar al-Bashir does not appear to have had much effect on him and the situation in Sudan, and the ICC’s indictment of Joseph Kony has seemed to prolong the conflict in northern Uganda.

The ICC is still celebrating its first conviction of the Congolese warlord Thomas Lubango. There are currently over two dozen people indicted by the ICC for war crimes or crimes against humanity – all of them African. This focus on Africa has incurred the wrath of many African leaders. The Rwandese President, Paul Kagame, has dismissed the ICC as a new form of imperialism created by the West. Charles Taylor’s defence counsel, the Jamaican born British QC, Courtney Griffiths, has said that the process risks being viewed as ‘neo-colonialism’.

Have the activities of these courts of international justice made it easier to resolve conflicts, as has been claimed? When attempting to resolve conflicts it is usually necessary to persuade both sides of the conflict to cease fighting and killing, lay down their weapons and negotiate a peaceful agreement. Often this will require not only understanding, patience and skilful diplomacy, but also some form of concessions such as pardons and/or amnesties. The activities of the ICC and the Sierra Leone Special Court have demonstrated that such provisions and assurances negotiated on the ground in good faith become meaningless once the juggernaut of international justice comes on the scene. What incentive, therefore, will there be for some of those to stop fighting?

Sentencing for Charles Taylor has been set for 30 May and subject to any appeal he will serve his sentence in a British prison, at a cost of some £64,000 per annum to the British tax-payer. It has been estimated that his trial alone has cost $50 million, within an overall cost of over $200 million. Has it been money well spent? Supporters of the Special Court will say that justice comes at a price but for the victims of these terrible atrocities, the poor people of Sierra Leone, who continue to eke out a living in one of the poorest countries in the world, they may have other views.

Peter Penfold

Justice Ayoola who was speaking at the inauguration of the National Anti Corruption Volunteer Corps equally lamented the move by members of the Assembly then to increase their allowances in the midst of what he described as large scale unemployment, poor living conditions and increased poverty.

Expectedly, that outburst attracted a lot of reactions from many quarters and from the Assembly itself. Nothing however seems to have changed since then as the Lower House of the NA continues to be mired in one form of corruption or the other.

It will be recalled that the first major scandal that rocked the House was in 1999 when the then Speaker was exposed by The News Magazine of certificate forgery and perjury; the allegation made him to resign and preempted his impeachment in the early life of the Fourth Republic. Also, the first female speaker of the House, Mrs. Patricia Etteh was also forced to resign in 2007 in order to avoid being removed for an alleged contract scam totaling N268million ($1.7million). The probe of the power sector by the House is still fresh in the minds of many Nigerians. The power probe under the chairmanship of House member, Ndudi Elumelu had in its report indicted former President Olusegun Obasanjo of misappropriating $10Billion allocated to the power sector. Elumelu who became an instant celebrity had in a sudden twist of fate, turned into a villain , and is facing trial today for allegedly stealing N5.4 Billion (US$34.2 Million) meant for the Rural Electrification Agency alongside some of his colleagues while the immediate past speaker of the House, Dimeji Bankole and his deputy, are also today facing trial over alleged contract inflation.

Despite all these scandals and the image battering, members of the House appear impervious to such negative images. Recently, ignoring all these, members of the lower house increased their quarterly allowance from N15million (US$95,100) to N27million (US$171,200) which is an 80% increase. This is apart from other benefits that include a hefty salary, vehicle maintenance allowance and fuelling , allowances for personal staff, allowances for entertainment and utilities. The increment was brazenly done even as President Goodluck Jonathan had in January this year announced a cut in salaries of all political office holders.

Only recently, the most embarrassing scandal of recent times was exposed when the House Committee on the Capital Market was investigating the circumstances that led to the near collapse of the nation’s capital market. The chairman of the committee, Herman Hembe had accused the Director General of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Ms Orunmah Oteh of compromising the regulatory position of the Commission by engaging the services of a staff of one of the banks it was supposed to be investigating as an adviser to the Commission. The committee also accused the Director General of ignoring extant laws on how much a chief executive could spend , pointing out that in one such instance , N825,000 (US$5,230) was spent on food and refreshments in a day by the Commission, while N30million (US$190,425) was expended on hotel accommodation for the Oteh in eight months . All this was dramatised on live television and it appeared members of the House were enjoying taking the head of SEC to the cleaners. Suddenly the tide changed the next day when Ms Oteh point blank, took on the chairman of the House Probe Committee, accusing him of lack of credibility and the moral justification to accuse her of any breach of extant laws. She alleged that Herman Hembe had collected a business class ticket and the sum of N5million (US$31,700) from SEC to attend an occasion overseas but that he did not go, neither did he return the amount collected. She equally put the members on the receiving end when she accused the committee of soliciting for the sum of N39million (US$247,300) from the SEC in order to facilitate the probe of the capital market by the committee.

But while the committee chairman had continued to deny any wrong doing, alleging that it was the SEC that made a proposal of cash advance to the committee, documents continued to be bandied around by both the House Committee and SEC, each accusing the other of wrong doing. And as the battle of integrity continues with both parties calling on the anti graft-agencies to wade into the imbroglio, for now it is obvious that the SEC had inflicted a far more deeper cut on the House Committee on the Capital Market which had since been replaced after Hembe had resigned. And for now, and in view of the numerous scandals that are fast becoming a trade mark of the House of Representatives, members of this committee have been judged and found guilty by the court of public opinion.

The writer, Shui’aibu Usman Leman is the secretary general of the Nigerian Union of Journalists.



In Ivory Coast last year, incumbent president Laurent Gbagbo’s rejection of the victory of his political challenger, Alassane Ouattara, led to a four-month standoff that brought the country to the brink of renewed civil war. Hundreds of thousands were displaced, and thousands were killed. Last spring in Nigeria, following news that incumbent president and southern Christian Goodluck Jonathan had won the presidential contest, anger in northern states originally directed at the ruling People’s Democratic Party mutated into religious and ethnic violence that left an estimated one thousand people dead.

Yet, for Americans, elections are a good thing. They define democracy. In school, American children learn about the gradual expansion of suffrage to almost all citizens. Americans also think that elections are decisive, which means that, at least in theory, if a candidate wins office by one vote, he or she wins. But there is a deeply ingrained respect for the rights of losers—and a recognition that they might be the winner next time. Americans are not keen on power sharing, even if a poll is close. Instead, the losers wait for the next election and try again.

This willingness to relinquish power and wait patiently for the next election is rooted in shared American values and well-developed civic identities (in spite of current divisions in Congress). Further, there is the expectation that elections in the United States will happen—no matter what. It is well known that during World War II, Americans did not postpone elections, and there were elaborate arrangements to allow those serving in the armed forces to vote. Accordingly, Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to a fourth presidential term, defeating New York governor Thomas E. Dewey. But few probably remember that presidential elections were also held on schedule in the United States during the Civil War, with Abraham Lincoln defeating General George B. McClellan. The contest was real: Lincoln thought he would lose.

Hence, it is no surprise that, in the postcolonial era, official U.S. policy in Africa has been to do what it can to promote free, fair, and credible elections. In Nigeria, for example, the United States has contributed millions of dollars toward elections since the restoration of civilian government, mostly in support of Nigerian and American nongovernmental organizations working to make elections meet international standards. In Ivory Coast, the Obama administration provided generous support to the United Nations as it organized the November 2010 elections.

However, unlike the United States, many African countries are profoundly divided, with longstanding grievances, weak institutions, and nascent, if any, national identity. This is compounded by the preponderance of “winner takes all” politics. When losing an election means losing access to patronage, competitors are willing to risk anything. They will mobilize divisions within society, whether ethnic, religious, or regional, to protect their access to state wealth and power. An abundance of unemployed and often uneducated youth is a particularly destabilizing force, easily manipulated by politicians seeking to intimidate or attack rivals.

Some observers have suggested that in the African context, the emphasis on elections is an example of Western cultural imperialism, of the West’s imposing its value system and political practices where they may not be appropriate. Critics will argue that for elections to work there must be a sense of national identity, the rule of law, a certain level of education, and sufficient economic development to allow voters to make a free choice and not feel beholden to their boss, patron, or ethnic leader. These prerequisites are incomplete in much of sub-Saharan Africa.

The trouble with this argument is that Africans themselves wholeheartedly embrace elections as a way to express their will. Indeed, in Ivory Coast the electoral turnout was unprecedented: at least 80 percent of registered voters cast their ballots. In Nigeria in 2007 and 2011, turnout was low—because of the widespread perspective that elections would not matter and a fear of violence. But, in the past, turnout has been high. In fact, given the opportunity, Africans are likely to vote with enthusiasm.

So, if Africans embrace elections, who are outsiders to say that they are inappropriate? The discussion of “Asian values” more than twenty years ago advanced the notion that despite countries’ economic progress, “cultural” barriers to democracy and elections existed in such places as Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand. Yet look at where many of these countries are now: there is little question they are more democratic than during the height of the “Asian values” debate. They are not perfect democracies, but then neither is the United States, France, or the United Kingdom.

Further, alternative models of governance in sub-Saharan Africa are less attractive than admittedly defective democratic ones, particularly over the long term. The most common alternative has been military rule, where the military comes to power to “clean up” a “mess” made by civilians. But military rulers often hold on to power as long as they can and become progressively more oppressive. Hence, in Nigeria, the mild regimes of Yakubu Gowon and Murtala Muhammed were ultimately followed by the alleged kleptocracy of Ibrahim Babangida and the savage oppression of Sani Abacha. And, with one short civilian interregnum, the military kept power for a generation, all the while proclaiming that it was “restoring” democratic rule even as many of the colonels became rich.

And, despite the gloom of Ivory Coast and Nigeria, there are numerous examples of successful elections. Ghana is remarkably similar to Ivory Coast in its divisions, yet it has had a series of successful elections. Liberia was a victim of “big man” politics for years, yet the election of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in 2005 was seen by Liberians as credible, and the 2011 polls look promising. There is also South Africa, where every election since the end of apartheid in 1994 has been regarded by international observers and South Africans themselves as legitimate.

So, rather than succumbing to Afro-pessimism, what should Africa’s friends do to promote democracy and free, fair, and credible elections? Western democracies should continue to support African civic organizations that are working for credible elections, the rule of law, independent judiciaries, and democracy. These organizations often operate on a shoestring, limiting their capacity, but in some countries (Nigeria, for example) they have strong grassroots support. Western donors should provide political and material assistance to African judiciaries as well. For example, the international community should not hesitate to speak out about the intimidation of African judges or juries. On the practical and concrete side, when international donors supply word processors to a court, they assist in speeding up the judicial process—and the delivery of justice. This reinforces the rule of law.

When governments are involved in election rigging, the international community should disapprove publicly and withhold official expressions of congratulations to the victor. In the same vein, outside democratic governments should be leery of supporting “governments of national unity,” which enable “big men” who have lost credible elections to stay in power largely because they are willing to resort to violence. Governments of national unity in Zimbabwe and Kenya have done little to promote democracy or to resolve fundamental political issues. (They did reduce—though not eliminate—the violence in the short term.)

These steps are not dramatic, nor are they glamorous. For Americans, it may be uncomfortable to acknowledge that their ability to influence the growth of democracy and the rule of law in Africa is limited. It is Africans who will build both, in their own ways and with their own visions. Democracy was not built in a day in the United States. Likewise, it may take some time for Africans to develop the institutions necessary for smooth democratic transitions. But they will do it, and the United States should continue to assist in the small ways it can.

Authors: John Campbell is a Ralph Bunche Senior Fellow for Africa Policy Studies and Asch Harwood, Research Associate, both at the American think-tank, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Markets and Democracy Briefs are published by CFR’s Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy initiative. They are designed to offer readers a concise snapshot of current thinking on critical issues surrounding democracy and economic development in the world today.

Aid agencies are getting some food and medical supplies through, but many of those dying and at risk are in areas deemed too perilous for the aid agencies to operate in. The Islamist al-Shabaab movement is active in these areas and does not want Western or Christian-based organisations operating there. Aware of the hostility of the West towards it and the role of the USA in encouraging Ethiopian involvement in the Somali conflict, the movement sees any Western role as aimed against it. So the complex politics of the conflict and the actions of one movement in its own interests are endangering life.

Aid has been pledged by Britain and other Western countries and in larger amounts by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. But it just can’t get through to where it is most needed.

When the rebellion began in Libya, Benghazi was a centre of opposition to Gaddafi and he pledged and prepared to crush the opposition violently. His forces moved from Tripoli to Libya’s second city with the intention of using all possible means to wipe out dissent.

The West and the world acted. At the behest of the USA, France, Britain and other NATO members, resolution 1973 was drawn up by the UN Security Council to allow the use of ‘all necessary measures’ to protect Libyan civilians from the wrath of their leader. This was interpreted as a carte blanche for a major British and NATO air assault which destroyed Libya’s air defence infrastructure, weakened its military power and to directly attack Libyan government units and armour.

The operation has been costly and it has saved lives – thousands of them. In June, the UK ‘s Ministry of Defence announced that the operation had cost £250million – the cost could reach one billion pounds by the time the transitional authorities have complete control.

The second-in-command of the British air force, Air Chief Marshal Sir Simon Bryant, has said that coming on top of operations in Afghanistan, the Libyan mission is placing a ‘huge’ demand on Britain’s resources. In June, the head of the UK’s Royal Navy Admiral, Sir Mark Stanhope, wondered how sustainable the current military operations were, saying the Government would have to make ‘challenging decisions’ if the Libya mission lasted more than six months. We’re now in the seventh month and the Western forces are still involved in Libya.

Once the current phase of the conflict ends it is inconceivable that the British will just walk away. The chief of Britain’s armed forces and army chief, General Sir David Richards, publicly rebuked the navy chief saying the operation would be sustained as long as necessary. But for how long and in what way in coming months.

So, the decision was made and is being sustained to save Libyan lives. Yet, despite Britain being at the head of Western donors in helping to combat the famine, it seems to have accepted that an armed rebel group can dictate where and to whom aid is delivered. Far more lives are at risk daily in the region than during the Libyan conflict’s most violent phases. During his visit to Mogadishu in mid-August, Britain’s International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell MP said ‘The stark fact is that in southern Somalia the situation is deteriorating by the day. We could face deaths on a similar scale to those seen in 1991-2 if we do not act urgently now. This is a race against time.’ But he then admitted that more security was needed to protect humanitarian workers. The British government says UK support offered to Somalia to since July now amounts to £54million. But how effective can it be when the large parts of the country are off limits to aid groups and the weak Somali government?

Britain has established military links with Kenya – carrying out live-firing military exercises, army engineering projects and other military-related activities every year. The United States has military facilities at Mombasa. There is a basic infrastructure there that could be used for a humanitarian security operation – not an operation to support a government, secure resources or fight any one group – but an operation to protect and enable the distribution of aid to the hungry, sick and dying. Kenya has indicated it wants some sort of security buffer in Jubaland in the south to prevent insecurity and Islamist militias moving south towards its borders.

So why has there been no suggestion of a Western or British military role in getting the aid through and saving lives? Are Somali lives worth less than Libyan ones? A cynic would say that Somalia has no oil and so is not as important as Libya and that saving lives is not a part of the equation.

When the United States, Britain and its allies invaded Iraq, the justification was security – Iraq was accused of having weapons of mass destruction, of repressing its own population and of being a threat to regional security. No one is suggesting that WMD are part of the equation in Somalia, but the denial of life-saving aid is the worst form of repression or brutality towards your own people and the situation in Somalia is a major security threat along the Indian ocean littoral and to neighbouring countries – notably Kenya and Somalia. The piracy problem off the coast of Somalia, northern Kenya and spreading up towards Yemen and out towards Indian Ocean Islands is serious. Kenya is experiencing growing insecurity in the northern areas bordering Somalia – whether as criminal insecurity as in the cases of recent murder and kidnappings of tourists or the threat of insurgency spreading into Kenya.

New Africa Analysis asked General Sir David Richards and the UK’s department for international development to respond to these growing security and aid questions, but none was available for comment.

The 2012 presidential candidate for the opposition Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP), Julius Maada Bio, on the campaign trail in the SLPP heartland of Bo in the Southern Province in September with his supporters, crossed swords with stalwarts of the party in power, the All People’s Congress (APC). The new SLPP presidential candidate was injured in the process. In retaliation, the APC’s local headquarters was razed to the ground.

There were heated arguments over who was responsible for the violence. But the Independent Investigation Panel, headed by Awoko newspaper publisher Kelvin Lewis, found that the APC, SLPP and the police were partly to blame for the confrontation. While the APC and SLPP were culpable, the police were just incompetent – abjectly failing to nip the violence in bud. The media, too, were equally responsible because of their irresponsible use of language and lack of ethical probity, the Panellists found.

Valentine Esegragbo Melvine Strasser was the world’s youngest head of state when, at just 25, he and his military colleagues usurped power in Sierra Leone in 1992. Yet, since he lost power his country has treated him like a nobody, giving him no support emotionally, financially or physically and leaving him facing a life of poverty.

The government in Sierra Leone often talks at length about how it wants to focus on reconciliation between the different parties, bringing people closer together. How can this happen when people who were once such important personalities and drivers of progress are pushed to one side and forgotten about?

Strasser joined the military at 18 and served his country in Liberia and against the rebels of the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone. Some argue that at just 25 he was too naïve and didn’t possess the skills or knowledge to deal with the mechanism of government.

Despite his unfaltering loyalty to his country, Strasser has had a far from easy life. After spending several tough years living and travelling abroad, he moved from a position of complete power to a fallen man who faced unfortunate and stressful events over which he had no control. He has even faced rejection from his erstwhile military colleagues.

Who could have imagined that after four years serving his people this change in fortune would leave a previous head of state alone and facing poverty? Some say that it is obvious that the present government should step up to the mark and provide Strasser with the necessary help and support accorded former heads of state.

Just a small amount of financial support, medical care, and recognition of his contribution to progress would at least show some respect to one that served the country in the past; it would also go a long way in the country’s healing and reconciliation process.

Nevertheless, Strasser sees the positive side of life and acknowledges that the youth are the future. Although he no longer has a lot to offer financially, he is still willing to give his time to help people in his community better themselves. When New Africa Analysis spoke to Strasser it was very clear that he has firm views on what needs to happen for the country to make progress.

It is clear that his change of circumstances have deeply affected him as an individual, both materialistically and physically. Although you will still find him profoundly interested in Sierra Leonean politics, as well as in what is happening elsewhere around the world, you can still see the emotional scars that have been left behind after the harsh way he was rejected by his colleagues and successive governments that have failed to accord him the status of former head of state.

When Strasser lost power he was metaphorically thrown to the wolves and stripped of all the trappings of power. He was left to fend for himself and find whatever work he could, without the luxury of vast reserves or properties to support him. Despite the harsh treatment meted out to him, he remains positive about what he can do for his country. He believes that with his help, his community will flourish and, despite limited resources, continue to grow and move forward to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

The grandees of the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) have plumped for Julius Maada Bio as the party’s candidate for the crucial presidential election scheduled for the last quarter of 2012. It was a choice that was not expected when the SLPP convention began at the end of July. But after last-minute behind-the-scenes horse-trading, 238 of the 600 or so delegates at the convention voted for Bio.

There are those who might not like this, but horse-trading is part and parcel of the cut and thrust of politics and the democratic process. Bio himself acknowledged this when he said in his acceptance speech: ‘…we celebrate the outcome of our collective endeavour here tonight as a win-win for internal party democracy; not as a personal victory for any individual. The true winner tonight is the SLPP, the only truly democratic and national political party Sierra Leone has ever known.’

Now it is up to Bio to show the party faithful that he can lead them to victory in 2012. This, of course, will not be an easy task. He has a past that could stand him in good stead or work against him. Bio was one of the Young Turks that overthrew the All People’s Congress (APC) government in 1992 – and, for sure, APC stalwarts, whose party is currently in power, will do all they can to halt Bio’s march to the presidency.

Indeed, last year there was talk of investigating executions carried out during the period Sierra Leone was under the National Provisional Ruling Council (NPRC), of which Bio was a member. The matter was shelved, but there is suspicion that it would now be revived in an attempt to forestall Bio’s presidential ambitions.

This, naturally, has not been lost on SLPP supporters. They argue that Bio was merely in charge of the information department when the executions took place and that he was not privy to the decision by senior members of the NPRC. In any case, the argument goes, the NPRC was recognised internationally as the de jure government in Sierra Leone and as such it could have acted within the law.

Bio, obviously, must be well prepared to deal with any such investigation. The SLPP hierarchy will make sure of that. The party has taken a conscious decision to pick Bio as its presidential candidate because, even though he had antagonised some members of the SLPP, they know that his credentials could make him a formidable force against the APC.

He is relatively young and as such has the backing of many disaffected Sierra Leonean youths. But the problem with this is that he could have his work cut out in trying to rein in these young people who tend to get too restive during the hustle and bustle of the political campaign. Violence is always just beneath the surface when the paths of supporters of the SLPP and APC cross.

However, these are early days. The campaign is going to be a long, hard slug and it would sorely test the democratic process in Sierra Leone. But, in the final analysis, the leaders of both the APC and SLPP owe it to Sierra Leoneans to ensure that the country does not degenerate into chaos.

Gaddafi is only the second sitting head of state to have an ICC arrest warrant issued against him. His arrest warrant came on the 100th day of NATO’s operations in Libya, after airstrikes eased the siege by Gaddafi’s forces on key opposition strongholds. The only other arrest warrant that had previously been issued for a sitting African leader was for the Sudanese president Omar al- Bashir who is charged with genocide in Darfur.

Although Gaddafi’s warrant has been issued, sceptics are warning that he could still cling on to power. But what if NATO together with the UN managed to capture Gaddafi and bring him to the courtroom in The Hague? It could have made the way for peace talks in Libya and it would also send a strong signal to all other despots: they would not even be able to hide in their own countries. Unfortunately, it is not that easy. For instance, the ICC issued a warrant for al-Bashir’s arrest over two years ago yet he still remains in power. Critiques of the new trend of prosecuting leaders often point to Sudan. Al- Bashir managed to avoid being arrested by travelling to countries that do not recognize the Rome Statute that created the ICC. The situation in Libya is not likely to be less complicated. According to the ICC it is national authorities that are responsible for arrests. Securing arrests has proven difficult for the ICC as it has no police force and relies on member states to enforce arrest orders.

Now as the UK together with the US and France alluded that they are prepared to agree to a political settlement in Libya that would see Gaddafi remain in the country after giving up power, the ICC is worried the Libyan leader could escape prosecution. However, it is now uncertain whether the National Transitional Council (NTC), who have been recognised by several Western countries as representatives of the Libyan people, are backing the proposition. Although they have previously stated that Gaddafi could remain in the country provided that he resigns, they recently claimed that this is no longer an alternative. ‘We made a proposal, but the deadline has expired. The offer is not valid anymore,’ said NTC leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil. The NTC proposal had a two week deadline.

Is the change in stance by the Western-led coalition a divergence with the ICC or could this be the best approach to end Libya’s struggles? The ICC has fired back on the NATO countries, stating that under ICC warrants a new government in Libya would be required to arrest Gaddafi. ICC spokeswoman Florence Olara stated: ‘Any negotiation or deal has to respect UN Security Council Resolution 1970 and the ICC’s decision.’ The UN Security Council resolution 1970 states: “The Libyan authorities shall co-operate fully with and provide any necessary assistance to the (international criminal) court and the prosecutor.’

Comparing Gaddafi with Bashir, who had his arrest warrant renewed, there is nothing that suggests that either heads of state will stand trial in the near future. Despite Bashir’s warrant he is still able to travel to friendly states which have refused to arrest him.

He visited China, a country that is not a signatory to the ICC statute, on the 28th of June. Since the court issued its arrest warrant, President Bashir, who is facing 51 charges for crimes against humanity and genocide, has been able to visit countries including Eritrea, Egypt, Libya and Qatar.

He also went to visit Kenya, which signed the ICC treaty, but refusing to execute the warrant of arrest that the treaty obliges signatories to perform. Gaddafi like al-Bashir certainly has a case to answer for human rights abuses, however not everyone agrees that issuing an arrest warrant was the right way to solve the situation in Libya.

The African Union, wanting to reach a peaceful transition of power in the troubled nation, has expressed concern that Gaddafi will only intensify the civil war as he knows that leaving Libya or handing over power could result in a potential prosecution in The Hague.

The AU announced that the ICC’s decision undermines their efforts to bring peace to Libya. However, NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen argued that the court’s move highlighted ‘the increasing isolation of the Gaddafi regime.’

So will Gaddafi, like Bashir, manage to avoid prosecution? Firstly, his assets in most countries are frozen and it could be difficult for him to take the Libyan people’s money abroad to live a life in luxury. There has been a rapid development in the world over the last decade with a decrease in exit opportunities for wanted dictators. If Gaddafi gives up power now, he has in practice very few countries to escape to.

While Bashir is making new friends abroad, most recently with Chinese president Hu Jintao, Gaddafi seems to be running out of overseas associates. The Arab League has recognized the opposition as Libya’s ‘appropriate authorities’ and has also had member states such as Qatar participating in NATO’s operations in the country.

Although al-Bashir like Gaddafi has to refrain from travelling to countries that recognize the ICC, he is not threatened by any of the above circumstances.

So, how can the ICC make Colonel Gaddafi’s arrest a reality? The United Nation’s mandate is only open to military use for the protection of civilians. If NATO is to enter Libya and arrest Gaddafi, it will probably require a new resolution. It would also require ground troops, something that the coalition countries are against.

The African Union has expressed their dismay against Gaddafi. As the organisation has condemned NATO-led airstrikes on Gaddafi’s forces, experts warned that many leaders of the pan-African body could refrain from public calls for Gaddafi to go. However, the head of the AU’s mediation team on Libya, Mauritania’s President Abdel Aziz, announced in the beginning of June that Gaddafi’s departure had become essential as ‘he can no longer lead Libya’.

This was the first time a head of state on the AU panel has made such a direct public call for the departure of the Libyan leader.

Paul-Simon Handy, of the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria, said: ‘Clearly more and more African heads of state feel they can openly express their dislike of Gaddafi.’ He added: ‘The façade of unity that the AU often likes to show on such issues is cracking.’

The new decision by the UK, France and the US was made as they realised that no country wants the responsibility or trouble of hosting Gaddafi. Not even ‘pariah’ regimes in Sudan, Zimbabwe or Belarus. The ICC’s indictment of Gaddafi for alleged war crimes made exile an even less likely option.

Friendless and with the world against him it could only be a question of time before Gaddafi’s fall. Many are not convinced that the ICC arrest warrant will do any good, a notable exception is Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC prosecutor, who announced the arrest warrant for Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam and Libyan intelligence chief Abdullah al-Senussi. He stated: ‘Libya is not a state party to the court’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute but it is a member of the United Nations. Therefore, according to Resolution 1970, the Libyan government has an obligation to implement the arrest warrants.’

At the end of the day, it is up to the Libyan people to decide what will happen to Gaddafi if he gives up power. Former UK foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said: ‘This isn’t about the British position or the NATO position – it’s about what the Libyans themselves want and can live with.’ He told BBC Radio 4 Today programme: ‘It is their country and it is their future. If they can live with a situation where Gaddafi remains in the country but is deprived of power then it is none of our business to say that is unacceptable.’

By Ingvild Vetrhus

John Vidal, the Guardian’s environment editor, stated in his article ‘Famine we could avoid’ that ‘Aid agencies and governments have known for almost a year that food would run out by now. But it is only now, when the children begin to die and the cattle have been sold or died that the global humanitarian machine has moved in, with its TV shows, coordinated appeals and celebrities.’ This all seems too familiar.

Eastern Africa has for a long time been a target for Western television, and it was just here, in Ethiopia, where famine caused the death of over a hundred thousand people in the ‘80s, that Western media developed a controversial reporting style. When Michael Buerk from the BBC crossed Ethiopia’s borders in ‘84, he produced a broadcast that showed dead bodies and a three-year-old dying in her mother’s arms, the first of its kind. According to Lilie Chouliaraki, the author of the book The Spectatorship of Suffering, the broadcast became a defining moment for future reporting leading in two ethical directions. One was that it motivated Bob Geldof to arrange the successful Live Aid concerts which raised £50 million in aid. As well as confronting the audience about the reality of a world divided into rich, poor, dangerous and safe areas, it triggered people to take action. On the other hand, she claimed that it was ‘criticized for this same shock effect: for perpetuating a stereotypical view of Africa as a continent of death and war; for turning suffering into a spectacle for consumption in the mega screens of the Live Aid concerts; for ultimately bringing about compassion fatigue among audiences: ‘no more pictures of dying African children, please.’ In other words, the media effect turned the suffering children into some sort of entertainment, often referred to as ‘horror porn.’ In such reporting there is the risk of ‘othering’ the victims of famine and the population of Sub-Saharan countries, making them appear helpless and unable to care for themselves. Chouliaraki argued that this stereotyping news reporting created a template for future coverage of African disasters.

We still see images of starving children representing ‘the stereotypical way the West views Africa and Africans – as helpless victims running around naked and covered in flies,’ according to Natasha Elkington from Thompson Reuters. Starvation in Africa is not newsworthy until media organisations capture footage which resembles the images from the Ethiopian famine twenty years ago. Despite Africa’s rapidly economic growth, it seems like Westerners view on Africa remains unchanged since ‘85. What is the reason behind this?

NGO’s have over the past 30 years played a significant role in the delivery of aid to Africa as a result of Western donors’ lack of trust in governments on the continent and fears of corruption. The donors use NGOs to channel aid which have led to competition for funds. Many NGOs have claimed that because they have to prove that there is a need for money, they have to feed negative images of starving children to donors and the media in order to get the funding. How can we change this?

According to a study by the Columbia University’s Journalism Review, the ten most read news publications in the US in 2010 published 245 articles about poverty in Africa whereas just five brought up the continent’s gross domestic product growth. As poverty rates in Africa have been decreasing drastically together with the death rate of children aged under five years, clearly Africa is showing that it is capable of looking after itself?

Africa is ‘among the world’s most rapidly growing economic regions,’ according to the McKinsey Quarterly. Hence, many African countries should be able to contribute to the current crisis in the Horn of Africa. Ghana with some 1.5 billion barrels of oil and an economy that increased by 23 per cent in the first three months of 2011 is one of them. Also big economies such as South Africa and Nigeria should be able to assist their fellow African countries with aid as two of the strongest economies on the continent. No African country outside from those affected by the drought have donated aid for famine relief in the Horn of Africa except from North Sudan and most recently South Africa, which has pledged to donate £100.000.

It is difficult for international organisations to provide aid to Somalia, which is the country hardest hit by the disaster. It is ranked as by far the most corrupt in the world. The widespread corruption also affects relief industry. Last year a leaked UN report revealed that half the food aid to Somalia ended up with local UN staff and Islamist organizations. The reality is that there are forces that have made themselves rich on food supplies, among other things, to sell food on to a higher price.

Furthermore, the Islamist organization Al Shabaab, which controls a number of areas in the country, has long refused international organizations, such as the UN Food Programme, access to bring aid into the country. It is therefore important that African countries take action as it may be easier for them to reach the ones in need. What happened to ‘African solutions for African problems’?

One example of a local solution can be illustrated by the Somali Diaspora which makes a vital contribution to the country, including the daily fundraising operations by Somali television channels, such as the London-based Universal TV. The African Union is also taking action despite claims of ignoring the famine and is stepping up security to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches the ones in need. The AU’s mission is on the ground where it is working together with international humanitarian relief organisations to bring health care and water to local communities. However, more efforts are needed in order to cover the estimated £300 million needed according to UN officials to help the victims of the drought. There is a remaining 40 per cent of this figure left to fund.

Media coverage of Africa is misleading and portrays a helpless continent that is fully reliant on aid. The truth is that the continent is very rich in natural resources. Africa has everything it takes to survive without aid and assistance. The obstacles are incompetent governance and ineffective assistance industries that prevent the resources from benefitting the whole population.

The African NGO You are the Revolution stated on its website: ‘Africa… It’s where the world is growing. It’s where the world is changing. Africa doesn’t need more aid, or another hand out alone. We have the resources necessary to meet the world eye-to-eye. Most of Africa reels under oppression but has vast potential, both in its people and natural resources. Good governance is rising and new technologies being embraced making it a lure for investors and trade. It’s time to see Africa another way, as an unshackled continent.’

Jonathan Glennie from Christian Aid argued in his book The Trouble With Aid: Why Less Could Mean More for Africa, that Western governments’ aid assistance to Africa often mean more poverty, worse basic services and damage to already weak democratic institutions. A request for more aid means that the pressure for action that would really make a difference for Africa’s poor is not heard. He claimed that instead of doubling aid to Africa, it is now time to reduce Africa’s aid dependence so that countries can develop their economies and taxation systems. This way, African countries will also be able to help a neighboring country in times of need. According to Yash Tandon, the author of Ending Aid Dependence, African Governments could decrease their dependence on foreign aid by focusing on jobs and decent wages, create a domestic market and own their domestic resources, reduce the resource gap, create institutions to invest in national savings, and restrict aid to national, democratic priorities.

Africa is attractive for international business investment. Business investment may be the only and most effective way out of persistent poverty. A change of discourse about aid to Africa is necessary to prevent disasters such as the famine in the African Horn from happening in the future and prevent new horrible images of starving children. IV