A Liberian adage goes, “[t] he truth hurts!” The truth exposes and illuminates. The truth when told and handled properly heals for some; brings closure to others, while in the same breadth bestowing the International Human Rights Principles of the victims’ or surviving family members’ right to know what happened (See UN Principles for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights Through Action to Combat Impunity).

Public hearings potentially lead to truth telling, and truth telling can create one unified national narrative. It helps to establish an accurate historical record and rectify the history; amplifying historical truths thereby undermines falsehood permeated over time to assume the status of actual historical truths.

Thus, the told truth creates one shared history for a shared future in a post conflict society like Liberia. One major goal is to put the whole nation’s consciousness onto one page. To that end, the Commission must employ varied means in its operations, including public and private hearings.

Truth telling via public hearings such as underway in Liberia invariably inaugurates equal opportunity dialogue of myriad characterization. By way of goals, not only does a public hearing serve an investigatory function for a Commission so as to confirm the stories told in statement taking, interviews, research and other enquiries; they posit to accomplish several cardinal goals:

First and foremost, public hearings provide a platform for victims or survivors to tell their stories, thus putting a human face to the incalculable abuse and rights violations suffered. This then makes it difficult for perpetrators and guilty institutions (such as former warring factions, militia groups, dictatorial regimes, government forces, etc) to deny the violations and abuse suffered, or the impact thereof.

Consequently, a process of national debate and dialogue ensues. This kind of national discussion of the issues emanating from these hearings serve to accentuate healthy consultative process not only amongst commissioners and policy makers as to what justice and reconciliation measures should be included in a Commission’s findings, recommendations and report on the one hand. But also the general public’s desire, on the other, to engage in a dialogue about the right way forward to ensure due process for justice, accountability, reconciliation, reparations to victims, and rehabilitation and reintegration of perpetrators.

In the case of the Liberia TRC for instance, in order to accomplish those goals, the Liberia Truth and Reconciliation Act (hereinafter the TRC Act) mandates the Commission to create a “forum for both victims and perpetrators to share their experiences.” (See TRC Act).

This near sacred forum should ensure that victims are not only treated with dignity, but that their dignity are restored and ensured as they share their stories of painful past human rights violations and abuse with the whole nation and the world. By so doing, “victims succeed in exposing the truth of past violations…” (ICTJ doc, 2007).

As they expose human rights violations and abuse suffered during the conflict, they exact “empathy from the general public, the Commission and policy makers. By their courage to testify in such a public manner; in the full glare of the national and foreign media, as well as local and international observers, they launch critical social and political issues pertaining to the conflict into the country’s consciousness.” (Ibid, 2007).

In recent days, there have been intense recriminations, debates, and discussion galore at the naming of popular Liberian musical darling, Michael Davis (alias Sundaygar Dearboy). While the musician will have his chance to clarify his alleged complicity in the atrocities he has been accused of to the Commission, the fact that he was named, underscores the nature of the conflict. It illustrates how former players to conflicts can assume new identifies and social or political roles in post conflict societies, whose former identities, such as happened with Mr. Davis, when revealed, shocks the consciousness of the nation and ignites myriad emotions and indignation.

Further, public hearings can serve as acknowledgement of abuse and violations. Here for instance, during the first week of the Liberia TRC hearings in Monrovia, we witnessed, heard, and read about testimonies of certain alleged perpetrators. For example, Mr. Joshua Milton Blayee, who is also known as ‘General Butt Naked’ formerly of the ULIMO-J warring faction, has willingly acknowledged his roles in the conflict in Liberia during his testimony at the hearings before the TRC.

Blayee’s claim that he performed fetish acts and buried a “juju” pot in the Executive Mansion for protection of the former president Samuel Doe and his cohorts, if confirmed, would serve as an indisputable example of the utility of public hearings leading to an acknowledgement of issues emanating from the root causes of the conflict. Alas, Blayee has now assumed a new identity—the self proclaimed evangelist, who not only claims to since have been saved by the Lord, but that he is now saving other souls.

Additionally, it is important to note that others have also recently acknowledged their respective roles in major events in Liberia during the conflict. Another instance was the former National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) fighter N. Allen Nicholas’, also known as Arab Devil, revelation of the actual culprits of both the Carter Camp and Duport Road massacres, a key historical fact which had eluded Liberians until this testimony and important function for the Commission’s work. In this vein, these public hearings will serve as educational and public awareness vehicles about events that transpired during the conflict that have remained a mystery..

The President, Mrs. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, asked on behalf of the Government of Liberia and foreign governments, for the forgiveness of the Liberian people, and urged all to cooperate with the process by their participation. (See presidential remarks at TRC hearings opening ceremonies, January 8, 2008).

This kind of high-level official comment as made by President Sirleaf, is an acknowledgement that something horrible happened that was a violation to not only against the whole nation but also to certain victims or survivors, for which political leaders must acknowledge to begin recovery and healing.

Undoubtedly, accounts about events and how they transpired and what or who were responsible for those events will be a basis for further debates, if not recriminations. This is good because it would help the Commission understand the needs of citizens, preferences for transformation, healing and recovery. The accounts will then be incorporated into its findings, final report, and recommendations.

Importantly, public hearings serve to enhance the work of the Commission since the perception of its transparency is made apparent to the public during these hearings. The perceived transparency in the eye of the public only helps to demystify and simplify the process to the general public.

It helps the public get a better sense of what will be contained in the Commission’s final report and findings, since the common people’s voice obtained through the hearings would invariably form part of the final report.

Chiefly, one of the practical utilities of public or private hearings these bodies conduct is that these testimonies are used as future pedagogical tools “that will stimulate a permanent public dialogue contributing to national reconciliation.” (ICTJ, 2007). The Peruvian Commission called it, “stimulator of solidarity.” (Ibid).

Public reaction to TRC public hearings

Public reactions to the hearings have obviously been mixed, at least from Diaspora Liberians’ perspectives. Some have expressed total support to the process as a way forward for justice and social reconstruction; (LIMANY, Konneh, 2008) while others have expressed doubts as to its true efficacy in remedying the ills rained by years of conflict. (The Perspective, McCarthy, 2008).

Some have even gone a step further, to the extent of reiterating previous calls for the establishment of a War Crimes Tribunal (WCT). (Bushchicken, Sie Tuon, 2008). The WCT proponents have argued that the TRC may be illegal, since it was, in their views, the perpetrators (meaning warlord and active parties to the conflict) that went to Accra, Ghana, negotiated and agreed upon a TRC as opposed to a WCT, in 2003. They argue, how can the perpetrators serve as the judge, jury, finder of fact, and the accused in one vein?

This disapprobation comes at the perception that the TRC does not have the desired legal authority, such as subpoena powers to indict or bring uncooperative accused parties before it since it is not a court. (Ibid).

There is no gainsaying that these discussions are healthy and that they serve in part the very purpose for which the hearings are necessary.

This paper argues that these claims are alas inaccurate. The lack of legal authority claims are inaccurate if not misguided, as the Commission has the legal authority through a Special Magistrate, (who has just been nominated by the president) to subpoena documents, evidence, materials, individuals, institutions, and accused parties to appear before if only for fairness and due process.

In the interest of full disclosure, this author once entertained and argued similar position. At the time, without having adequately acquainted himself with the legislative instrument of the newly inaugurated Commission, The Truth and Reconciliation Act, (hereinafter the TRC Act), the author misguidedly believed and argued then that the Commission would be a ‘toothless bulldog’ and would not be able to effectively hold perpetrators accountable and at the same time effectuate reconciliation (Sirleaf, 2006).

The author did however recommend a number of measures to remedy the situation. Fortunately, having closely studied the Commission’s mandate and the potential that this Commission may be a springboard to several other transitional justice measures that would ensure the critical balancing act of recommending prosecutions in some cases, recommending amnesties where applicable, while simply promoting restorative justice principles and dialogues, and reconciliation on a national level, the author’s recommendations have been found to be in tangent, in great measures, with the legal safeguards embedded in the Commission’s robust mandate.

The Commission is not a court, thus, does not hand down judgments, or grant immunity or amnesties to individuals from prosecution. However, it has the authority to recommend a number of measures that would ensure justice, accountability, and reconciliation. This, we now believe is the right approach to a situation, such as Liberia’s. Mindful that the Commission is making history further, being the first commission whose recommendations will be legally binding upon the Government for implementation. This is significant because it speaks to the care that must be taken to ensure that the Commission’s recommendations are practical implementable ones giving this legal threshold.

The TRC’s Diaspora Project---groundbreaking initiatives abroad

Full disclosure again, this author is humbled to be intimately involved with the Commission’s Diaspora outreach efforts. The author is on the staff of an International Human Rights organization that is helping the TRC to implement its’ international agenda.

Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights has been charged with the responsibility to coordinate the programmatic functions of this effort. It has also been asked to take statements from Liberians in the Diaspora----United States, the United Kingdom, and Ghana, conduct background interviews, basic research to inform its work, and conduct thematic public hearings in the United States on three main themes.

Having taken hundreds of statements from Liberians in the named regions, the organization is currently planning and organizing a groundbreaking series of TRC Diaspora public hearings in the United States.

The organization has been authorized by the TRC to conduct public hearings on the Roles of International Actors in the conflict, the “Diaspora Experience,” and the Experience of Women in the conflict.

In preparation for this Herculean task, it has sought and engaged the TRC’s Diaspora National Advisory Committee, which comprises Liberian community leaders across the U.S. During these ongoing interactions with the community, the Advisory Committee is reporting that it too is hearing reactions and comments about the ongoing public hearings in Liberia.

Cursory examples of the comments or concerns reported as a result of the current hearings include but not exclusively caution of the Commission to ensure due process in the hearing process. Additionally that this should not be a “witch hunt,” and that not only, so-called “small fish” (non high level alleged perpetrators) should be named by witnesses, or be called to testify by the Commission.

Conclusion

Minnesota Advocates is working collaboratively with the National Leadership group of Liberians to explain the Commission’s mandate and the process to Diaspora Liberians to avoid misconceptions about the process.

In sum, if one follows closely, or if one reads the mandate critically, one would soon understand that no one is above the law; thus not above the TRC process. Consequently, the Commission has repeatedly said anyone who is named or implicated by whatever means by a witness-(es) would be called or subpoenaed to appear before it to, as Commissioner Massa Washington likes to say, “please clarify” the allegations.

---

The Author: Ahmed K. Sirleaf works for the Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights as a Program Associate. His work focuses on Diaspora outreach and international sensitization of the TRC’s Diaspora Project. He is a frequent speaker and guest lecturer on Transitional Justice and Alternative Dispute Resolution issues. Mr. Sirleaf holds an MA in International Law and the Settlement of Disputes from the University for Peace, UN mandated, and BA in Legal Studies from Hamline University in St. Paul, MN, USA. He can be reached at asirleaf@mnadvocates.org, or 612. 341. 3302, ext. 134 (office), and 651. 208. 0463 (Mobile).

---

© 2008 by The Perspective
E-mail: editor@theperspective.org

To Submit article for publication, go to the following URL: http://www.theperspective.org/submittingarticles.html