Not Just Norman's Public Testimony

Concord Times (Freetown)
OPINION
December 11, 2003
Posted to the web December 11, 2003

By Joseph Kamanda
Freetown
No body saw it coming but when it landed, it was like a heavy volcano. It has
erupted and the scars are all there for us to see. They tell us that both the
Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Special Court were set up to
address the issue of impunity but what we are seeing now is something
different.
The TRC has requested that indictees from the Special Court should appear and
testify before the commission.
Special Court has dragged its feet on this and finally, they have turned down
all calls particularly for Chief Sam Hinga Norman to publicly tell his story by
word of mouth, oral tradition as our forefathers had done.
This has not gone down well with both the TRC and thousands of enlightened
Sierra Leoneans who have been following the work of both institutions and, it
has encouraged members of the society to question the independence and
neutrality of the Special Court.
Belief was that both the TRC and Special Court should be complimenting each
other in terms of achieving national healing and reconciliation. However, it
was not until after Bishop Humper and his team requested for Norman to appear
and publicly testify before the commission but was turned down by the Special
Court that people began to realize that though both were on the same journey,
yet they were using different routes to reach their destination.
It is no secret that that both institutions have been at loggerheads over the
appearance of indictees, chiefly Sam Hinga Norman to testify before the TRC.
It has been a bone of contention and the various Press Releases making claims
and counterclaims at each other have really kept us aufait as to the gravity of
the situation within the Jomo Kenyatta road institutions.
For the TRC, their task of collating an impartial and well-documented
historical fact about Sierra Leone's turbulent times would be deemed incomplete
if Norman, Issah Sesay and other key figures to the crisis were not allowed to
say their bit. In the absence of Sankoh and Johnny Paul, Bishop Humper would
have celebrated and called for an increase in ' offertory' if he had had Norman
or Sesay testify. Sensibly enough, people have appeared and testify against
Norman and Issah and getting their own side of the stories is like tossing a
coin up on air and allows it to fall with either its head or tail.
Unfortunately, Special Court does not want this. It might jeopardize Norman's
chances to a free hearing, they have argued but what bits my imagination is the
prosecutor's statement that he was not going to use any evidence from the TRC
to build his case.
If this is so, then why this fuzz? Norman stands indicted for war crimes.
Whether he is guilty or not is not for me to say now but when both institutions
began throwing daggers at each other in a bid to prevent us from having the
fact, then it becomes a serious cause for concern.
But wait a minute; has Humper himself not denied saying that the Special Court
has never hampered his commission's work? Was this not challenged by Concord
Times with promises to produce the cassette which had the interview in which
the Rev. Bishop had made that claim? Why is he crying wolf now or is he only
realizing now that preventing Norman from publicly testifying before the TRC
was tantamount to disrupting the set goals of Humper and his commission?
TRC has given several reasons why Norman should appear but it seems the Special
Court was not impressed.
Their position on this is clear; the former CDF Coordinator could only give his
testimony in written form under oath and behind closed doors This is a
decision, which the commission has already rejected against the background that
if the war veteran should testify through a written statement, then Sierra
Leoneans will be denied their rights to Norman's story, as that will also put
the Special Court's impartiality in doubt.
On the part of the Special Court, its president, Geoffrey Robertson argues that
to allow the Norman tell his story by a written statement is an assertion of
his right to a free speech.
This is the stumbling block. The commission which has carried its task on to
this point transparently with the ever presence of the media wants Norman to
testify openly as others have done.
How can the Special Court, having promised maintaining Human Rights now stops
Norman from openly testifying for reasons best known to them is someone's
guess. Or is it because of Cranes's global publicity that all the indictees are
guilty and they will never see the light of a free day?
A word of caution to the Special Court is for them to allow the former Internal
Affairs Minister testify publicly to the commission no matter how many big
heads his story will roll into the cells of the Special Court.
A major blunder for the Special Court will be its gross failure to uphold the
dignity and Human Rights of an individual especially Norman to testify.
Let them realize that you still have thousands and thousands of Sierra Leoneans
who still revered Norman as a hero of the decade long civil war.
Today, America has literally sealed the lips of many a country not to handover
US citizens to face war crimes.
If we can foolishly fail to copy the American example, follow them blindly and
we handover our own heroes to the Special Court, why then should they not do us
a favour by allowing Norman to testify? Is the Special Court a sacred cow?
Unfortunately, we have surrendered our sovereignty to the Special Court and
they now have reason to throw twist and turn us like coil.

   

  ==============================================================================
 Copyright © 2003 Concord Times. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica
                          Global Media (allAfrica.com).
  ==============================================================================