Discussion on several Pictures on UPSURGE OF CRIME RATE

PICTURE - 1

The crosscutting nature of human rights is a constant source of heated arguments between and among intellectuals while politicians, industrialists, businessmen and scientists carry on with their occupations. Negotiators produced the CPA in August 2003. Politicians implemented it until January 2006 with UNMIL and other international community participants providing the enabling security, administrative and financial environment and wherewithal. These were the preconditions to the birth of Liberia’s present democratically elected Government under President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. Hardly a year in office, the underlying challenges bound to confront any team of leaders that assume responsibility of restoring a normal, credible and functional state system after nearly twenty years of chaos and disintegration are proving to be almost insurmountable. Are these birth-pains leading to the new Liberia everyone is dreaming of or is Liberia giving the last breath?

HRPS takes a clear stand: Whatever the case may be, the rights of the Liberian people must be safeguarded. What those rights are is the question this paper endeavours to investigate. The first place to look is in the Constitution where under Chapter VIII, Article 21 (a) states:

“All persons are born equally free and independent and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the right of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of pursuing and maintaining and security of the person and of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, subject to such”

Equally relevant in this regard for Liberians, since Liberia is a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is the last sentence in its preamble which states thus:

“Realising that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he/she belongs, is under responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognised in the present Covenant.”

HRPS is fully cognizant of the specific unique state of affairs in many respects concerning Liberia. As of March 2006, 85% of Liberians were unemployed; 80% lived on less than US$1 a day; Only 57.5% could read and write. 46% of the population consisted of children aged under 15 - i.e. unless subjected to child labor abuse was dependent/unproductive. If the elderly, handicapped ill are added, the dependent proportion of the population approaches 55%. These statistics tell us that government has hardly any resources with which to meet its part of the Social Contract alluded to by an unnamed author of a long article on behalf of the FORHD national NGO on September 20 and 21 in the Inquirer daily. HRPS knows that the State’s mechanisms to collect revenue, enforce the law or to provide basic services in most parts of the country disappeared during the war years.

UNMIL has deployed considerable resources and thought to accompany both the TNGL and the present leadership in trying to resuscitate local authorities, the police, prisons and the justice systems. An external study to find out how UNMIL has faired so far vis- a-vis its mission was conducted in January and published its findings in March 2006. The general conclusion of that survey was that in security matters 90+% of the respondents found the job done was very good job despite some cautions on specific points – 92% judging the LNP training programme as having been very good even though confidence in the new police was a different matter which would take time to create; 88% stated that UNMIL helped to improve the awareness of human rights and UNMIL radio was accorded a very high mark. “UNMIL …improved human rights by bringing peace to Liberian through increased security, disarmament and enabling people to have freedom of movement.” Interestingly, it is the national NGO FOHRD cited above, which took a prominent part in the evaluation exercise of UNMIL in January 2006 that came up with some damning remarks both the GoL and UNMIL over the unattained goals. Liberians are presented as innocent onlookers who must be given more assistance instead of so much being lavished on ineffective expatriates. In the name of peoples’ rights we run the risk of encouraging laziness if not a form of blaming syndrome. That would be an unfortunate result of our efforts. Elsewhere external assistance is known to produce the dependency syndrome if the “do no harm” approach isn’t conscientiously applied.

The ongoing debate, triggered by the Justice Minister’ statement of September 4, 2006 is apparently fuelled by ideas selectively snatched from major documents such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau’ Social Contract, from the specific socio-political context in France around the mid- eighteenth century (1762), the UDHR 1948, the CCPR 1966, the Liberian Constitution of 1986, the CPA and probabaly Security Council Resolution 1509. Regrettably, but prominently, one crucial source whose Preamble mentions Monrovia and Liberia in the preamble’s second paragraph does not even seem to cross the discussants’ mind – This is the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights – 1981. Within this region, any discussion on human rights is incomplete without reference to this authoritative instrument.

To many, Rousseau is definitely a source of great inspiration in terms of the ideas of individual and collective rights … how much an individual concents to or requires of government or political authority. Essentially Roussaeau admonishes that the best way to enjoy the individual rights by members of society is by each surrendering to the collectivity for the latter to protect the individuals’ interests. Writing on Government he wrote:

“ …in times that require a swiftness which a bureaucracy cannot attain, it is important to act quickly and in one or two ways: appoint one or two magistrates to act as a government, or place one man above the law – a dictator. Both are only temporary solutions and as soon as the danger that catalyzed the change in government abates, the officials must abdicate their position. This is in keeping with the general will because the safety of the state is of foremost concern and suspension of laws and due process is sometimes, albeit rarely, the only method to ensure this.”

While the statement made by the Minister of Justice was clearly far from coming anywhere near what is expressed above, Article IX of the Liberian Constitution on Emergency Powers (of the President) is definitely in the same vein, yet this is not to suggest that the citizens’ rights are being derogated. The features which make the ACHPR a unique human rights instrument is its clear and “Rousseaulike” insistance on the inseparability between individual and collective rights enjoyment. It states:

Consiidering that the enjoyment of rights and freedom also implies the performance of duties on the part of everyone;…

1. Every individual shall have duties towards his family and society, the State and other legally recognised communities and the international community;

2. The rights and freedoms of each individual shall be exercised with due regard to the right of others, collective security, morality and common interest…” The individual shall also have the duty:

3. To serve his national community by placing his physical and intellectual abilities at its service;

4. Not to compromise the security of the State whose national he/she is;

5. To preserve and strengthen social and national solidarity, particularly when the latter is threatened…”

It is against the above specifically African – if also Rousseau’s conception of human rights as a form of formalized collective responsibility that Cllr Frances Johnson Morris’s outraged tone needed be received. Isn’t good governance participative democracy? Isn’t the empowerment of civil society through enhancing peoples’ involvement in the decision making processes on issues affecting them?
Does Government’s admission to having limited resources or trained personnel and calling on those who put it in office to support its initiatives constitute a breach of contract or a human rights violation? If, as the long article in the Inquirer cited above argues, security and the crime rate have reached unprecedented levels in Liberia’s history, is this not ground for the Minister to resort to some extraordinary measures to check the law breakers? As responsible citizens, shouldn’t constructive criticism consist if coming up with alternatives ideas to those from the government? If we disapprove of neighbourhood watch teams or vigilante groups, what propositions are made?

Our contribution at this point in time on the sensitive subject of ‘vigilante groups’ could be to facilitate sober high level exchanges of views by providing a neutral oasis in Monrovia. We could invite approximately 20 discussants from civil society’s different walks of life – Lawyers, Human Rights defenders, Religious leaders, Traditional leaders, Student representatives, medical Doctors, Business men, etc… Using the special US$ 400 scheme of funding or a little more for this special meeting – the UL could be a venue or perhaps another place. We could indirectly help guide the thoughts and have a healthy debate on the way forward - free of political or ideological attacks and counter attacks. This could be done in such a way as to have journalists and the television service cover. The event should not take place in PAP.

Reasons for the above approach:

As stated in the first paragraph, human rights are not a distilled, pure and colourless substance. This discussion involves economics, politics, business, history and every subject fused together. Everyone must say what they want and all are entitled to their views. We should avoid trying to be judges in this – from the human rights view point so and so is right but so and so is wrong etc….

Our work continues to be important and neutral the way we work and our credibility is vital. On this political discussion resulting from the Minister’s statement we should take advantage of the vibrancy and help different voices to be heard. We will have played a useful role.

PICTURE - 2

I would suggest considering the following points for defining overall position on vigilante groups:

• Human rights law protect the right to life and security of person, however there is no international human rights instrument upholding vigilantes’ concepts , because:

•vigilante undermines all democratic principles as it operates outside the constitutional / human rights framework and formal judicial system:

• Vigilantes define violence as the normal and legitimate solution to problems.

• It supports community mistrust to criminal justice system and law enforcement and provides a justification for extra-legal violent actions.

• The human rights framework of the formal criminal justice system is fundamentally opposite from the model of instant, popular justice

• Call for vigilante reflects the degree to which due process remains an alien concept for many and implies a lack of education about due process.

• Society should operate under the rule of law and not under the rule of the mob

• The danger of ‘vigilante’ in times of political transformation and reconciliation as Liberia is emerging from a past characterised by violence and repression

• Liberia faces new challenges in building a new democratic society and vigilantes is build on a culture of violence and lead to violence even if justified as 'filling a policing gap' due to police inefficiency, corruption and failures of criminal justice system

• A state of law cannot be built on people taking matters into their own hands.
• The failings of the criminal justice system - the inefficiency, inaction, lack of resources and inadequate training, as well as corruption must be addressed directly.

PICTURE - 3

Thank you for the time devoted to this crucial matter. Your quick response is also very commendable. We shal discuss. In actual fact every recommendation you make I buy.

What we have a a difference is the appreciation of the specific urgency or crisis context where special measures may be needed, and the normal governance situations which would not necessitate special measures. Indeed the special conditions must be given a limited duration. Please see CCPR Article 8 (c) and the Liberian Hinterland Laws Article 49 para 5 on this. Dr. Dankwa touches on this delicate issue too.

What I would categorically disagree on with you is the following bullet point you make:

· Call for vigilante reflects the degree to which due process remains an alien concept for many and implies a lack of education about due process.

I fear that such a statement betrays ignorance on the part of aliens to Africa and African traditional judicial concepts. First I invite you to find an African who speaks the language to translate for you these two proverbs: "Tosala gwa kawala ...." and " Enkima tesala gwa kibira". The language is Luganda from East Africa but some equivalent should exist in Liberia's nearly thirty native languages.

In my first document I gave examples of cases where security and peace in rural communities where the received "western" or modern services existwere restored and citizens'rights protected by the community. It would be wrong to imagine that any other approach to peace or dispensing justice is inappropriate except that known by those who wrote the instruments at the time of their writing. Please take a serious note of the added value brough to the general human rights understanding by the ACHPR which lays equal emphasis on dutie and rights as opposed to the "western original tendency to overly insist on peoples' rights. Fortunately, a deeper reading of Rousseau vindicates my view.

Instead of us been theoretical about the issue on the formation of vigilantes in communities to help combat crimes, can we take a moment to look at the realities on the ground? Before President Serleaf left for the United States recently, she made a nation wide addressed in which she acknowledged the upsurge of crime and insecurity in the country, and further disclosed publicly that, they (government and its functionaries) know the people perpetrating such crimes and that they are watching them closely. This suggests that the recent upsurge of crime and insecurity in Monrovia and other places in the country is well orchestrated. It also suggests in my opinion that the arm robbery may not be for the booty alone, but been done with sinister motives. I stand to be corrected.

PICTURE - 4

Let someone tell me if these are not facts in today’s contemporary Liberia:

Fact #1: That the Liberia National Police is unequipped and most under staff to combat the wave of crime unfolding now in Monrovia.

Fact #2: That with such limited national budgetary appropriation for security for 2006-2007; the problem of insecurity in Liberia will remain for a long time probably the next 2 to 3 years. That is, if the budgetary appropriation continues to take the 2006-2007 trend.

Fact #3: That we all acknowledge that it is a national and international requirement that it is the responsibility/obligation of government to provide security for its general citizenry.

In passing, let me reveal that Liberia has a history of government oppositions doing everything possible in making sure that the incumbent leadership does not succeed in the implementations of its electoral promises. Hence, they will do anything thinkable and/or unthinkable in undermining the incumbent, even if it is at the detriment of the entire population.

So to speak, Kitty’s bullet points on this issue in my opinion are all correct, but realistically, they are only applicable and/or made practical in wholesome functioning societies. That is to say, the Minister of Justice called for the organization of vigilantes in communities is not a sign of weakness but is in consistency with the present day’s realities and resources available to government.

It is a fact that Criminal Gangs do exist in Monrovia. This is evident by the multiple report of arm robberies, the multiple deaths and forceful taking away of others properties due to arm robbery, and the general state of fear and insecurity that has grasp the Monrovia population also because of same.

Now, acknowledging that it is a fact that government is incapable of providing absolute security for its citizenry; as evidence by the present realities and further by utterances made by public officials responsible for national security, what should the citizenry do?

In answering my own question, I will say that if it is agree that self-preservation is the first law of nature, than I see nothing wrong with the formation of vigilantes who will intercede for government’s limitation until such times when government will be capable of handling its role as national security provider. The protection of the life’s and properties of the citizens in my opinion is paramount, and as such, if government have short falls in executing its mandate as protector of these inalienable rights, than let the citizens organize themselves in an orderly manner, under the supervision of the MOJ, and fill in the gap of providing security for themselves. In my opinion, Vigilante today in Liberia is an equivalent of the American Home Land Security established after 911.

PICTURE - 5

1. I have worked here for almost two years and this is not the first time that I read or hear an argument or comment from you based on your belief that the so called "aliens to Africa" do not understand African reality and try to force Africans to adopt to "western concepts".

2. Please remember that human rights are universal and human rights law is applicable in all those countries that ratified international human rights documents regardless of their geographical location or cultural background.

3. Do not deny the fact that there are African traditional judicial concepts that are actually in violation of international human rights law. And I am not saying this because I am a so called "alien to Africa" but because I firmly believe that all human beings are entitled to have the same rights and the same protection of the law may they be coming from a Western or an African background. Being an African does not mean that one deserves less than any who are "aliens to Africa".

4. We are here to work for the common goal. We might have different views on some issues but it is not because of our different geographical origin or cultural background but because of our different level of experience.

5. Please in the future do not criticize the views and statements of any of your colleagues based on their geographic origin or cultural background.

PICTURE - 6

Sorry if that is the way you perceived my remarks. We need to realise some things in life though, however gifted we may be. Cultural things are complex and truly, we may be mistaken without realising we are. Sometimes we do not see obvious things because we are not from the society where we find ourselves. I know this is hard for many of us to admit, but it is true.

Let's take two very simple examples: African women are not so nervous about exposing their breast. In fact feeding of babies in public is very common. On the contrary, exposing nay part of their body from the hip down to the knees is taboo in many places. Yet, in many societies in Europe, exposing breasts not something women would do without much restraint, and in fact even a mother to feed her baby will most times try to do it away from the public. Believe me , in Europe I am ignorant of many cultural things and I would not pretend otherwise.

You may have to consider my remarks again. Just like Elaine mentioned: I know responsibilities or duties is not completely ignored in the Western presentation of human rights, but the prominence given to right in the sense of "entitlements" in the West disproportionately overshadows the responsibility side. The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights stands out in its balanced presentation of rights and duties. Even the UDHR does not bring out this aspect.

I wish your contribution was more on the substance of the subject we are dealing with. Nevertheless, you do well to express what you feel in these matters. Friedship not lost, I'm sure.

PICTURE - 7

Initially, please let me mention your following assertion "Human rights law protect the right to life and security of person, however there is no international human rights instrument upholding vigilantes? concepts , because??"

The international public law has coined the status of ?belligerent part or part in conflict? related to those insurgent groups involved in a war for the control of power between the limits of national states. But to be considered as belligerent parts or the part in conflict, these must accomplish two main conditions: a. to have control of a piece or part of the national territory, b. must to be recognized by other governments and international organizations. Please bear in mind the negotiation and signing process of the Accra Peace Agreement. These conditions were achieved.

The recognition of the part in conflict or belligerent part in this debate derives in some effects: ones recognized as part in conflict, those groups are recognized as valid interlocutors, which implies that these groups are fully entitled to sing agreements, and assume international duties, so recognized as subject of international law. This approach burst into the International Human Rights annals in 1994 with the signing of the Human Rights Agreement held in Guatemala, among the Government of Guatemala and the coordination of guerrilla groups, through this agreement was created the UN Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA) which initially had only mandate of human rights monitoring. This trend currently is applicable to the Colombia?s conflict and OHCHR office?s work, whereas the international human rights law recognize as perpetrator of human rights to others groups different that governments.

In the Guatemala case, was the first time that an irregulars group was considered and pointed as a perpetrator of human rights violations[2], in the Colombian case this approach allows to point to the paramilitary Self-Defense Patrols and the guerrilla groups as eventual perpetrators of human rights violations.

At this stage, is important to identify some referents to guide the debate such as: Does Liberia has concluded the transition period? In my opinion: not yet. Do parts in conflict has been fully demobilized and have been successfully reintegrated to the Liberian society? Again, in my very personal opinion: neither. Do the parts in conflict signatories of the Accra Peace Agreement have been recognized as subject of international public law? Yes, of course.

I sustain that the parts in conflict?s approach bring a better comprehensive framework to deal and monitor the illegal activities of vigilantes. Otherwise means that the illegal activities committed by illegal groups related to one or another part in conflict must be considered as common crimes, without that plus derivated of the quality of belligerent part or part in conflict, a condition embedded in the relations of power.

We are in a junction; on the one hand we should monitor the illegal actions perpetrated by illegal groups in accordance of the classical human rights approach, whereas the Government is the responsible for the protection of its citizens because of crimes committed. In this first paradigm we just are allowed to monitor the inaction and/or omissions done by the Government of Liberia in the protection to its citizens, in this case we?ll find that the limited resources, poverty and corruption are the facilitating conditions which prevail in this scheme. That means that our main observation will be focused in the guarantees of the due process and fair trial, therefore the main responsible as eventual perpetrator will be the Government of Liberia.

On the other hand, the approach of part in conflict allows understanding the dynamic of the political transition and reintegration of these groups. In this case we should monitor the illegal activities perpetrated by individuals and/or illegal groups, thus our attention will be focused not only in the government?s ineffective policies, but also in the illegal groups related to the signatories? parts in conflict, as well. So the object of our observation will be the ineffective public policies of government and the illegal executions or illegal activities committed by those groups. So the framework here proposed is broader and allows a better understanding of the political dynamic of the Liberian transition integrating the human right approach.

So I?m sorry, but I totally disagree with your initial assertion, the international human rights law per se cannot integrate this complexity, because the human rights standards are not related to illegal activities of the vigilantes, but in this case, is the international public law which offers that comprehensive framework, and allows the application of the human rights standards to these illegal groups. I really believe, at this time of the Liberian transition that is possible to point to the illegal groups related to the part in conflict as human rights perpetrators, as well as, the international human rights law is applicable to them.

Therefore, is urgent to ask the following question: Are we dealing with illegal activities committed by illegal groups related to the part in conflict? If so, we are in the way to apply the above proposals, and pass to another level of debate related to governance, stability and the viability of the Liberian peace process.

Please see bellow my prior comments, whereas as I suggested the analysis of the vigilante activities in two different levels: operational and politically.

PICTURE - 8

I agree with you that there are so many different cultures in the world and often we find ourselves in an environment where we do not understand clearly the complexities of social relations and cultural issues. However, law (especially human rights law) does not apply differently for people from different cultural origin. On the contrary. Law applies equally to all. Liberian governments voluntarily ratified a number of international human rights instruments. Now, let's not give them the excuse of cultural differences when it comes to the implementation of principles enshrined in those instruments. But you are right this is not the main subject of the discussion so I will stop giving comments about it. I think I have already made my point. And friendship is not lost :-)

PICTURE - 9

In reaction to the upsurge in crime rate across the country, the Minister of Justice, Attorney General of the Republic of Liberia said in a statement issued on 02 September 2005: “ We wish to reiterate our earlier call on the community dwellers, in the face of the police inability to decisively deal with the upsurge in criminal activities in the city , to organize themselves into community watch teams or vigilante groups in helping to protect themselves against these murderers who are bent on disrupting our hard-earned peace”. This statement made by the Ministry of Justice in this particular context is an endorsement of the “Vigilante groups”, “watch Teams” or “civil defence forces” .

If the Liberian Government has endorsed the Vigilante groups, it means that the Government has entrusted “watch team” with the mandate of conducting law enforcement functions to a certain extend.

Vigilante groups, as law enforcement groups or civil defence forces with clear chain of command and operational functions, should be consistent with national and international human rights standards. HRPS observed that some Vigilante groups are not abiding by human rights principles. During the Sector 1 Security Coordinating meeting held on 18 September 2006, SSS Representative Col Peter Teah indicated that some vigilante Groups are collecting 200 LD “security tax” per house to sponsor their security operation in the night. He stated that failure to contribute has resulted to violence actions against members of the non contributing house. He further indicated that some members of those vigilante Groups are “isakaba boys”. Mob justice is rampant and has become the last resort of citizens who has lost confidence in the judicial system. It appears that Vigilante Groups can undermine the realization of six fundamental rights provided by the ICCPR, ratified by Liberian on 18 April 1967:

• the right to life;
• the right to liberty;
• the right to fair trial;
• the right to presumption of innocence;
• the right to physical integrity( prohibition of torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment);
• the right to security of person;

All those rights are enshrined in the Chapter III of the Liberian Constitution. In line with the above mentioned, Liberian Government should:

• Ensure that vigilante groups meet human rights standards including the UNDHR, the ICCPR, the CAT, the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, the Chapter III of the Liberian Constitution, the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Basic Principles on the use of Force and Firearms by Law enforcement Officials.;

• Government should assess their ability to respect and protect human rights;

• Government must ensure that vigilante groups respect the presumption of innocence at all times. Suspects apprehended must be immediately turned over to LNP ;

• Government should ensure that members of vigilante groups who commit human rights abuses are brought to justice;

• Liberian Government must conduct a wide consultation of civil society 0rganizations including Human rights groups, on this particular issue.

This sensitive issue must be addressed urgently as some politicians might sponsor and convert Vigilante groups into militia, to foment political violence and jeopardize the Liberian hard-earned peace. Peace is priceless.

PICTURE - 10

I have follow closely this debate and did not comment because of the wave it is taking and wish to suggest that all of your concentrate on the substantive issues and discuss the meat of the document presented that is like what Omer, Stanley and Elaine and others did let us now make contributions and drop the arms. I wanted to make my own comment but it is one way of the other reflected in some of the contributions. Also, to big brother ...N... not all of the comments required details reactions just thank all for their contributions, no matter how it is perceived. All the best as we all strive to make Liberia human rights friendly, peaceful and democratic.