The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) Appeals Chamber upheld sentences for three former RUF leaders on October 26th. Wayne Jordash was lead defence counsel for Issa Hassan Sesay who received a sentence of 52 years. He spoke to IJT’s Karl Dowling.

By Karl Dowling

In upholding the RUF judgement, the court dismissed 96 defence grounds for appeal. Why was that?
We hoped that the appeal chamber would take some action, but in large part the grounds were simply ignored. In the most significant instance in relation to Mr. Sesay, an annex which was attached to the grounds of appeal, containing 300 new or amended charges that had been disclosed to the defence throughout the prosecution case was simply dismissed because the appeals chamber argued that we had gone over the page limit.

What about the trial as such?
The indictment [is] the least specified indictment at any tribunal. The accused was constantly bombarded with new allegations. The fact that prosecution witnesses were paid was ignored by the trial chamber subsequently ignored by the appeal chamber. Ex-rebels were cross-examined very robustly and their evidence didn’t stand-up to proper scrutiny. Nonetheless, the trial chamber accepted [it] without offering any explanation. The Sesay defence called 60 witnesses, our defence case spanned 7 months, and in a judgement of 800 pages the defence case was mentioned in 16 paragraphs. So the defence case was dismissed in 16 paltry paragraphs. If academics and legal experts study that judgement and see those types of features in this process they will arrive at the same conclusion as I have - that this really was not a satisfactory process.

Do you feel that Sesay and his 2 co-defendants were used as scapegoats in this trial?
Once the very top commanders Sankoh, Bockarie and John Paul Koroma could not be arrested or put on trial the focus became somewhat concentrated on these three. Given so much money had been spent on the court and given the court was set up principally to try the RUF, then clearly what was required from the judges was a careful and rigorous application of principle to ensure that politics stayed out of the equation. In my view it is difficult to argue that this trial really was a trial of legal principle.

As international tribunals were set up to fight impunity some argue those appearing before the tribunals are instantly assumed to be guilty. How can this be tackled?
The predominant view throughout the courts and in the public in general is that the accused must be guilty and this is the atmosphere in which the trials are contested. You could deal with that by having a registry, which is rigorous in abiding by the defence rights and you have competent and professional judges who do the same, who guard the process in a way that makes sure that those emotions, and understandable emotions, stay out of the court arena.

In what area do you feel some tribunals fail or succeed in comparison to the others?
I would say that the ICTY is by far and away the most impressive of the tribunals because there’s a degree of transparency. It’s located in The Hague where obviously there is a good deal of international scrutiny. The further you go away from that transparency the less fair these courts - it seems to me – become. The general perception among the legal community is that there is a hierarchy of competence in the jurisprudence starting with The Hague, moving down to the ICTR, moving down to the Special Court and to an extent the jury is still out on the Cambodian Court. This is not coincidental. It coincides with the degree of scrutiny.

Download the print version of the International Justice Tribune 93 (PDF file)

Subscribe to the International Justice Tribune