This week the UN Security Council may ask the Netherlands to host the Special Court for Sierra Leone, established four years ago in Freetown, so that it can try its most important defendant, former Liberian president Charles Taylor, who has been incarcerated since March 29. Officially, security is the reason cited for this relocation, which would bring an end to the " Sierra Leonean model. " More than likely though, it is the result of a political agreement.
Since March 25, the day when Nigeria announced that Liberia was "free to take custody" of Charles Taylor [IJT-43], the case has seen some dramatic developments. Two days later, Taylor surprised everyone by escaping. His supporters threatened "bloodshed and chaos". Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo was called into question by members of the U.S. Congress, who asked that President Bush cancel the meeting he had scheduled with Obasanjo on March 29.

As if by miracle, on the morning of the 29th, Nigerian authorities announced that they had arrested the fugitive along the border with Cameroon. The motive behind this incredible fool's game is unknown. However, Taylor was indeed arrested and flown to Monrovia the same day. The stopover lasted only long enough for Taylor to be handed over to UN troops, who then transported him by helicopter to the Special Court in Freetown. Three years after being indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity by this half international court, the former rebel leader-turnedpresident will now face his judges. Yet there is a new twist. The judges are now asking to try him in The Hague.

The first person to announce this relocation also revealed, in so doing, the place where the decision had been made: Washington. Ignoring the court's autonomy, President Bush did not wait for the president of the special court to officially make the request before announcing the content. "There is a process to get Charles Taylor to the court in the Netherlands," declared President Bush on March 29, according to Bloomberg. "Such a process will require a United Nations Security Council resolution," he added. A U.S. State Department spokesperson specified that even though the special court will still have jurisdiction, the magnitude of the Taylor case makes holding the trial in The Hague more appropriate. A few hours later, the president of the Special Court for Sierra Leone sent a request to this effect to the Dutch government. He stated that "stability in the region" would be threatened if the trial were held in Freetown.

None of the key players is surprised

None of the key players was surprised by this scenario. Soon after, the Netherlands publicly announced its three conditions: that there be a Security Council resolution, that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, or more likely, the International Criminal Court (ICC) provide a holding cell and a courtroom, and that Taylor not remain in the Netherlands after his trial, regardless of whether or not he is convicted. Even before Taylor's brief escape, the Liberian Minister of Information had expressed the desire to have the former Head of State tried "in an environment that is not hostile," which in diplomatic language means "not in Sierra Leone." The Liberian president quickly expressed his support for the request. Then Solomon Berewa, Vice President of Sierra Leone, told the New York Times that this solution would be preferable so as to avoid being "reminded of those atrocities every day." Victim trauma has become the argument here. Speaking to the Reuters correspondent in Freetown, Berewa also said that "the intention to transfer Taylor to the Hague was not for security reasons as widely believed". He explained that there is enough security in the country to have Taylor tried but that the main issue was that the Special Court had already mapped out an exit strategy, which involved bringing their operations to a conclusion at the end of December 2006.
Already back in March 2003, the prosecutor sought in vain to have another defendant, Samuel Hinga Norman, transferred elsewhere, arguing the threat of attacks on the court by supporters of the former head of the Civil defense forces. Said one former senior court official, "We were expecting the worst with the Norman case, but nothing happened. There is still a type of paranoia. People will evoke insecurity in the region, which is difficult to gauge since the region is not very stable. But do they understand what will be lost if this trial is not held in Africa?"

The arrangements concerning Taylor materialized in October 2005. That was when the office of the prosecutor received the following message from Washington: "If you want Taylor, it will have to be outside [the region] because it's too destabilizing for the region," according to a witness to these discussions. "The chances of getting Taylor were so slim that many would have taken the deal." On October 15, the chief prosecutor carelessly let it slip to the BBC that a trial in The Hague was being considered. "A number of countries - both Western and African - take the view that perhaps the interests of peace and security could best be served by a trial outside the region," said Desmond de Silva. "It is political and could become a security issue if it is not well managed," said an international expert based in the region. "There is immediate concern about how fragile it is in Liberia. There are elections next year in Sierra Leone. There are big political moves ahead, as well as in Guinea. But in Liberia, there is also a mixture of embarrassment and anger [in having Taylor being tried in Freetown]. It is about pride, and it is about sovereignty. In addition, some revelations at the trial could have huge repercussions at home."

Realpolitik

The haste by West African leaders, especially those of Liberia and Sierra Leone, to support the idea of trying Taylor in The Hague is a sign of the desire to manage their bilateral relations carefully. "Now they're telling us that the king of destabilization in the region could still destabilize it. But the fact that an African head of state is being tried in Europe is highly offensive on a symbolic level. The 'philosophical' discourse on the tribunal has been totally glossed over by realpolitik interests," laments a former senior official of the special court. Although the idea behind moving the Taylor trial was to maintain a good regional diplomatic climate, it does deliver a fatal blow to the model Sierra Leone embodied in the area of international justice.

Several NGOs are worried. According to the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), "One of the primary motivations behind the establishment of the Special Court in Freetown - hailed as a new model precisely because of its location - was to make it more accessible and to allow for participation by Sierra Leoneans and others from the region. From the outset, the Special Court has been designed and built to conduct politically sensitive trials incountry. It has already proven its ability to manage difficult security issues," added the New York based organization, which is worried about a lack of transparency with the decision and is asking that this solution be applied only as a "last resort."
"What is so ingenious about this court is that it is located in country. It would be a lost opportunity if Taylor is transferred," added a former member of the prosecution. Former prosecutor David Crane, who indicted Taylor in March 2003 and headed up the prosecutor's office for four years, does not want to question the court that he served. However, he stresses that, "ideally it must take place in Sierra Leone. That's the whole wonderful idea about this court. I don't think the court is threatened. That's not an issue. The issue is regional instability and insecurity. It's a political decision, from both Sierra Leone and Liberia. We should see how it evolves. Political realities have modified the model. But war crimes leaders lose their luster with time."

This decision would place the United States and the African Union at loggerheads

Although this decision would clearly weaken the court's model, it would also place its main supporter, the United States, at loggerheads with the most convincing part of its discourse on international justice: placing the responsibility for trying criminals in the hands of countries where the crimes were committed. Finally, this decision would make a mockery of the African Union, which on the one hand, is anxious to maintain African sovereignty in the Hissène Habré case, and on the other hand, just when there is an operational court on the continent, agrees to strip it of its mandate.

Before Taylor was captured during his brief escape, his spiritual advisor, evangelist Kilari Anand Paul, told AFP that "Charles Taylor [had] agreed to face justice in The Hague." Appearing before the special court in Freetown on April 3, Taylor, speaking through the Principal Defender, said that he preferred to be tried in Sierra Leone in order for witnesses and his family to have better access. Already the former president seems to want to stir up trouble and use to his advantage the contradictions of those in charge of trying him.