National Prison Reform Bill Passed by Liberian House of Representatives

I am pleased to report that on 28 April 2011, almost one year since I left Liberia, the Liberian House of Representatives passed the National Prison Reform Bill into law. The Bill aims to institute drastic reform to Liberia’s criminal justice system. Saar Gbollie (pictured), Representative of Margibi County and lead sponsor of the Bill, hailed the breakthrough, claiming that “it was a giant step [...] and history will be kind to us for ensuring a major reform in the criminal justice system of our country”.

It has been a long journey and one which included many hurdles along the way. At the time of my departure from Liberia, the Legal Prison Reform Working Group (“LPRWG”), of which I was a founding member, had just completed its work in drafting most sections of the Bill. We had spent considerable time working with a wide range of stakeholders who work in the Liberian corrections system. After each new consultation, we would update the draft Bill in line with their concerns and ideas. The day before I left Liberia to return to the UK, the Bill was submitted to the Minister of Justice for her consideration.

Almost one year later, and after a host of further stakeholder and political consultations including a report by the House Joint Committee on National Security and Judiciary, the National Prison Reform Bill was passed by the House of Representatives, with nineteen votes in favour, zero against and one abstention. The Bill will now be sent to the Senate for concurrence after which it will be sent to President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf for signing into law.

Some of the key changes which will be implemented by the National Prison Reform Bill include:

- Setting a clear set of principles governing the detention of inmates including:
o the affirmation of respect for the fundamental human rights of inmates including the prohibition on torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment;
o a commitment that life in detention should approximate as closely as possible the positive aspects of life in the community; and
o a commitment that detention should be managed so as to facilitate an inmate’s reintegration back into society.

- Mandating the separation of different groups from each other when in detention, most importantly detainees from convicted persons, and juveniles from adult inmates.

- Introducing voluntary individually tailored rehabilitation plans for convicted persons, which should, as far as applicable, include work, education, recreational activities and preparation for release.

- Setting improved standards of accommodation, clothing, food, water, hygiene and health for correctional institutions.

- Introducing new labour opportunities for inmates whilst in detention.

- Setting clear and transparent admission and release procedures as well as record-keeping standards for all information stored by corrections institutions.

- Establishing the National Bureau of Corrections as a semi-autonomous Bureau under the direction of the Ministry of Justice and reorganising the structure of the existing Bureau by:
o creating new Assistant Commissioner roles to reflect areas of real need for inmates such as institutional programs and services, probation and parole, and prison farms;
o introducing a National Corrections Advisory Board to advise the President on any aspect of the management and functioning of the Bureau;
o introducing a transparent and structured career path for uniformed and civilian personnel who work at corrections institutions; and
o introducing Local Advisory Committees to foster public participation in the corrections process by carrying out monitoring, complaints and advisory functions at the local corrections level.

While news of the Bill’s passage into law is extremely welcome, the real challenge for Liberia’s corrections system begins now. It is imperative that the standards, projects and structures set out in the Bill are implemented in the months ahead. The challenge is considerable and will no doubt meet many hurdles and frustrations; however, with the Liberian government’s extremely receptive attitude towards the civil society community, I am hopeful that progressive change is now possible for the inmates of Liberia’s corrections institutions. One day, I hope to return to see if I am proved right.

Legal Prison Reform Hits the Liberian Airwaves

Just over a week ago, the Legal Prison Reform Working Group hit the Liberian airwaves with our very own Zedrous Kokeh appearing on Liberia Women Democracy Radio (LWDR). I arranged the appearance on the show with Tamasin Ford, a BBC reporter in Monrovia training TV and radio journalists for the organisation Journalists for Human Rights. The show was part of the radio station’s ongoing Access to Justice programme, presented by Naomi Saydee. Zedrous was asked questions about the work we have been carrying out, why there are so many people locked away for so long in Liberia’s prisons without trial, and what the condition of Liberia’s prisons is like. Zedrous also took some questions from listeners who phoned in to offer their thoughts.

As with many projects in Liberia, the radio station is inhibited by constraints on power: during the first recording of the show, the power died just before we could take questions from listeners; thankfully, during a second recording of the show, the power held out.

Publicising our legal prison reform project is an important way of obtaining the opinions of the local population and improving the legitimacy of any law which is drafted. It will also prepare the stage for larger dissemination projects aimed at informing the public of any changes to the prison law that are passed by the legislature in the future.

Overall, the radio show was an extremely fun as well as productive experience; hopefully, it will be the first of several appearances in the coming months.

Liberia Holds Landmark Access to Justice Conference

Last week, I had the pleasure to attend a National Conference on Enhancing Access to Justice in Liberia. The three-day conference was held in Gbarnga (about 4 hours outside of Monrovia in Bong County) and was organised by the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Supreme Court of Liberia. There was a large turnout with the President of Liberia the most notable attendee. It would be too long to give a full and comprehensive report of the conference in this post; instead, I will limit myself to a few observations and notable moments that took place.

1. Background: Liberia’s Dual Justice System

The National Conference represented the culmination of 14 months’ work for the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Judiciary, during which time a Legal Working Group of Liberian legal experts, with the support of the UN, the Carter Center and the United States Institute for Peace, had evaluated the status of the justice system in Liberia. Interviews were conducted with various stakeholders across the country including local communities, local chiefs, lawyers and judges to name a few.

The Legal Working Group found that there are two systems of justice in Liberia: a formal system and a customary system. The formal system involves a court process similar to that found in the US and Europe. The customary system involves the local chiefs in their respective villages using traditional methods to resolve disputes between community members. Both systems aim to ensure that local communities live in peace and try their best to prevent individuals from taking the law into their own hands.

Liberians tend to prefer the customary system, which is viewed as focusing on reconciliation, as opposed to the formal system, which is viewed as focusing on punishment. In small communities, reconciliation is important since people need to live and work together and imposing solutions which focus on retribution can lead to a breakdown in community relations.

The key question which had to be addressed at the National Conference was the following, “How can Liberia’s two legal systems operate without conflict?”

2. The President’s Speech: Teasing Out The Issues

The President of Liberia’s speech was the highlight of the opening day of the conference. The speech was particularly useful since it set out some of the central problems that exist within both the formal and customary systems.

The President explained that the formal system suffers from inaccessibility, corruption and delay. For most Liberians, it is simply impractical to access the formal court system: as a result of the low number of courts across the country, the distance required to travel to reach a courthouse is usually too far, transport is too expensive or simply not available, and the road network is badly damaged. In addition, the perception of many Liberians is that the formal court system is corrupt – judicial officials receive insufficient salaries and so usually ask for money in order to dispense justice, a practice which leads to the perception that justice in the formal system is reserved only for the rich. Finally, cases often become trapped in the formal system and can take far too long to be resolved: as the President emphasised, “justice delayed is justice denied”.

Although the formal system has its faults, the customary system also has its own difficulties. After emphasising the positive aspects of the traditional system (the high regard that communities have for their chiefs and the emphasis the system places on consensus-building and restorative justice), the President posed the question, “Can the rule of law be applicable in the traditional system?” There are several aspects of the traditional system which are at odds with the Liberian Constitution as well as international standards. One challenge for the conference would be to reconcile the customary system with these standards.

The President closed her speech by explaining that she was in attendance not so much to talk but to listen. In particular, she looked forward to listening to the experts present who would be able to reveal how the justice system in Liberia operates in practice. She urged the participants to take the debate to the next level and work towards a common solution.

3. Two Interesting Debates

(a) Trial By Ordeal (Sassywood)

The use of trial by ordeal or “sassywood” is common within the customary justice system. The term “sassywood” is used to describe a variety of traditional methods which are used in trials at the local level. In its report on perceptions of justice in Liberia, the United States Institute for Peace identified three categories of usage of sassywood: first, it can be used to identify guilt; secondly, it can be used to ensure that the truth is spoken; and thirdly, it can be used to “get rid of the witch” and allow individuals to become mainstream members of the community again.

As recently as 2008, the Liberian Supreme Court ruled that the use of sassywood is unconstitutional and therefore illegal under Liberian law. However, the practice remains common in many communities. Several forms of sassywood are considered particularly controversial because of the potentially harmful and sometimes fatal impact on the recipient. The challenge for the National Conference was to find a mutually agreeable way forward that would satisfy the chiefs who support the practice and those stakeholders who wanted to see an end to the practice in all its forms.

In the end the participants agreed to categorise the different forms of sassywood into “good sassywood” and “bad sassywood”. Bad sassywood was defined as those forms which inflict physical pain or death. My colleague Kartik Sharma who was observing the subgroup which looked into this issue later explained to me how some of the different forms of sassywood are administered.

Examples of bad sassywood include the following:

- Sassywood Tree: A drink is made from the sap of a sassywood tree and given to the accused. It is believed that the drink will make you ill if you are guilty.

- Hot Cutlass: A cutlass (a type of sword) is heated until red hot and then placed on the skin of the accused (usually on his feet). It is believed that only the guilty will feel the heat and be burned by it.

- Banana Tree and Needle: This involves cutting the bark of a young banana tree. The tree is then spoken to and informed about the crime that has been committed. Needles are then stuck into the tree. Within a short period of time it is believed that lightning will strike the guilty individual in the community.

- Kola Nut: This involves making a liquid out of a kola nut and giving it to the accused to drink. It is believed that if you are guilty, the nut will make you ill.

- Sitting Among Driver Ants: The sassywood doctor pours some kind of liquid onto the ground which attracts driver ants. The accused is made to sit amongst the ants. It is believed that the ants will only bite you if you are guilty.

Examples of good sassywood include the following:

- Traditional Mat and Drum: The sassywood doctor goes into middle of village, places a mat on the ground and starts playing a drum. It is believed that the guilty party will automatically be drawn to sit on the mat.

- Clear Paper: This involves taking a piece of clear paper, folding it in half, placing a pencil in the middle of it, and performing ceremonial incantations. The name of the guilty party is supposed to appear on the paper.

- Chicken Egg on Black Thread: Two people stand a few feet apart holding a black thread. Then various people come and try to balance an egg on the thread. You have to move the egg from one end of the thread to the other. It is believed that if you are guilty the egg will stay up no matter what you do to it.

- Water in a Clay Pot: People put their hand in specially prepared water in a clay pot. It is believed that if you are guilty, your hand will have leprosy, although apparently the infection can be reversed. This practice was categorised as good sassywood because of the ability to reverse the infection.

Beyond categorising sassywood practices, it was also agreed that good sassywood should only be taken voluntarily and administered by a government tested and certified sassywood doctor.

(b) Women’s Rights

The issue of women’s rights was rasied at various points during the conference. Some participants pointed out that several traditional practices were in need of urgent review including: forced marriages; fathers abandoning their wives and not providing for their children; women being considered the property of their husbands; and the ability of men to have multiple wives. In response to the last point, one irrepressibly animated chief, Zanzan Kawor (pictured), exclaimed that he had 12 wives, over 30 children, and provided for all of them: in fact, he claimed that this was the reason for his success. He dismissed others telling him how to live his life.

In the end, consensus was only reached on the need for greater gender-balance within the judiciary and a greater role for women in the customary decision-making process. While these are important points, it is disappointing that the participants could not reach resolution on the other marginalising practices.

4. The Way Forward

The end of the conference resulted in a number of recommendations being ratified by the participants. These recommendations will now be studied by the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Internal Affairs in order to make the necessary legal and policy changes.

The conference provided a vivid example of how traditional cultural practices can clash with international human rights standards. Most striking was the way that the local chiefs were open to updating some of their practices in light of these standards. While there is a long road ahead for ensuring that Liberia’s traditional practices fully conform to international standards, the conversation has begun and I believe the national conference represented a big jump in the right direction.

5. Kola Nut Ceremony

On a final note, on the morning of the closing day of the conference, I attended a traditional kola nut ceremony. A group of chiefs sat at the head of the group in attendance. After everyone in the group had been introduced to the head chief, we all stood up and huddled close together over a plate with a number of Kola nuts on it. The plate was blessed by the chief and passed around: each member of the group then ate at least part of a Kola nut. The nut itself tasted quite nasty, a bit like bitter herbs, but the ceremony itself was enjoyable and it was great to see the chiefs in their traditional environment.

MSP Human Rights Workshop

Last week, the James A. A. Pierre Judicial Institute, in association with GTZ, held the MSP Human Rights Workshop for magistrates, city solicitors, public defenders and other assisting actors who work together on the Magistrates Sitting Program (MSP).


The MSP was set up in February 2009 by the Liberian Supreme Court and the Ministry of Justice as an emergency method to combat the problems of prolonged pre-trial detention and prison overcrowding. The MSP places magistrates from six magisterial courts within Montserrado County in the prison compound of Monrovia Central Prison to hold pre-trial hearings six days per week (one court each day). While the MSP has been successfully processing and releasing detainees on a daily basis, there are a number of challenges facing the program that greatly reduce its efficiency and ultimately its effectiveness. As a result of the problems and obstacles affecting the MSP, the number of detainees released each day is often not able to counterbalance the number of admitted detainees; thus, the prison population remains high.

The MSP Human Rights Workshop aimed to address problems within the structures and procedures of the MSP by building on the skills and knowledge of the key actors involved in its implementation. Together with local judges and advocates, Professor Speedy Rice and four students from Washington & Lee University travelled to Monrovia to give some of the trainings. As one of the organisers of the two-day workshop, I had the privilege of observing the workshop in action. In this post, I provide an insight into some of the sessions that I was able to watch.

1. Human Rights and Rights of Pre-Trial Detainees

During this session, the Washington & Lee students outlined the rights of pre-trial detainees through a mixture of skits, games, and a formal presentation.

Participants were asked to list as many rights of pre-trial detainees as possible. However, before participants were allowed to speak, they first had to pick a card out of a hat. All cards in the hat were previously marked “Pre-Trial Detainee” or left blank. If a participant drew a blank card, they were permitted to speak. If a “Pre-Trial Detainee” card was selected, the participant lost their right to speak. The idea was to compare the treatment and human rights of citizens versus detainees. By excluding those participants who drew the “Pre-Trial Detainee” cards, the participant was made to feel like a pre-trial detainee who was being denied his or her human rights.

After the hat game, a small leaflet was distributed listing human rights that belong to everyone in Liberia. The document referred to the relevant provisions of the Liberian Constitution and Criminal Procedure Law. The students then proceeded to deliver a presentation on the nature and importance of these rights, pointing to international, regional and domestic legislation.

The session ended with a small presentation by Professor Speedy Rice on the social harms of overcrowding and why overcrowding is of concern to the entire population of Liberia. First, overcrowding increases the spread of disease from prisoner to prisoner; when they then return to their communities, these individuals are likely to spread the disease within their communities. Secondly, overcrowding can reduce the faith people have in their government to be fair as well as their commitment to the rule of law. Finally, long incarceration increases violence and the number of repeat offenders whilst decreasing the ability of detainees to reintegrate into society.

2. Roles and Responsibilities of Actors in the MSP

In this session, the Washington & Lee students asked the participants to write down their roles and responsibilities on a small card which had been handed out at the beginning of the workshop. The participants were then given some hypothetical scenarios. Examples of such scenarios included “who has the responsibility to ensure that a pre-trial detainee has a lawyer” and “if a pre-trial detainee turns up at the MSP but is not on the schedule list for that day, who is responsible for the absence of the detainee’s name”. It was quite striking how many different answers were given to each question. The session was useful in highlighting just how confused all the different actors in the MSP are both about their own responsibilities and those of their colleagues.

3. Identification of Challenges to the MSP Objectives

In this session, the Washington & Lee students divided the participants into six groups. Each group was provided with a large piece of paper on which to write what they considered to be the major challenges to the effective functioning of the MSP. A representative from each group would then present the findings of his or her group to everyone. Several challenges were consistently identified, including poor record-keeping, the ineffective transfer of cases between the magisterial and circuit courts, and a lack of consistency in the application of MSP procedures between different magistrates. This session provided the basis for the presentation of a framework on how to tackle these challenges, which the students would present later in the workshop.


4. Discussion of Rules of MSP and Mock Hearing

One of my personal favourite sessions was the presentation and mock hearing given by Judge Nata of the Circuit Court. Judge Nata spoke both eloquently and candidly about the challenges faced by the MSP as well as those threatening the integrity of the Liberian judicial system in general. At one point, Judge Nata spoke of his despair at the amount of outright lying he experiences in the courtroom, exclaiming that “it has become so bad that when someone says ‘good morning’ to me, I have to check my watch just to be sure!” He also sympathised that being a lawyer was “a lonely existence” in Liberia, especially in a system where threats and intimidation against lawyers are commonplace. However, Judge Nata emphasised that lawyers had a duty to uphold the rule of law in spite of external pressures. During the session Judge Nata clarified various jurisdictional and procedural questions relating to the MSP which the participants put to him. In addition, the session ended with two mock hearings to illustrate how all actors in the program should behave in court.

Overall, I believe the MSP Human Rights Workshop was a useful tool with which to enable participants in the program to identify for themselves the challenges that are hampering its effectiveness and to come together in one room to discuss how to resolve these issues. Many of the problems can be solved by the different actors better understanding each other’s roles and better coordinating their responsibilities. It is my hope that the workshop will provide the necessary impetus for the participants in the MSP to take the initiative to improve the functioning of the program and hence increase access to justice for the many pre-trial detainees desperately awaiting their day in court.

Visions of War: An Interview with Zedrous Kokeh

Over the past month, I have been working in the Ministry of Justice’s Legal Prison Reform Working Group which is set to propose substantial legislative reforms to Liberia’s corrections system. During my participation in the working group, I have had the pleasure of working with Zedrous Kokeh, a 39 year-old Liberian who is currently a law student at the University of Liberia. During the brief time I have known Zedrous, he has always been very open to talk about his experiences during Liberia’s two civil wars that ravaged his country for 14 years. Last week, Zedrous agreed to be interviewed by me so that he could tell his story to a wider audience. Below, I set out an extract of the interview.

1. Can you remember when you first heard that civil war had broken out in Liberia?

Yes, December 26th, 1989, just after Christmas. The war started in Nimba County near the border with Ivory Coast. I didn’t really realise the seriousness of what was happening until February the following year when the fighting started spreading and the tension was felt in Monrovia. Soldiers were being dispatched by trucks almost on a weekly basis; you could really feel that something quite serious was happening. Yet, it wasn’t until the war actually reached Monrovia that I considered leaving.

2. When fighting reached Monrovia, was there a particular event that made you decide to leave?

In 1990, I was living in my parents’ house, which is situated on 12th Street in the Sinkor district of Monrovia. Initially, I did not want to leave Monrovia. My parents had left. My siblings had left. However, it was not until the Lutheran Church Compound massacre in July 1990 that I realised that I had to get out.

The massacre took place on 14th Street in Sinkor, just a couple of blocks from my house. At that time, President Samuel Doe was still in power. Most of the people who were victims of the massacre were from Nimba County and had sought refuge at the church because they believed that they were targets of the Doe administration. Charles Taylor and his rebel army had recruited many people from Nimba so those Monrovians who were from that region felt vulnerable. They believed that the church would prove a safe place to stay. They were wrong. The massacre, which was carried out by Samuel Doe’s government forces, took place under the cover of darkness at night. Soldiers advanced on the church and fired on people: some who survived hid themselves between the pews. I myself was not in the church because I didn’t consider myself a target: even though my family is descended from Nimba County, I myself was born in Monrovia.

There was a curfew in place, so I had to wait until morning to visit the church compound. The whole community went to the site of the massacre to help those who were still alive to go to hospital. There was panic – people were terrified. That was my first experience of the war: I was shocked, fear engulfed me; I had to leave central Monrovia.

3. When you left central Monrovia, where did you go?

After the massacre, I left 12th street and stayed briefly on Old Road at a friend’s house for 4 days. In that 4 day period, the rebels reached Monrovia. The rebels attacked at night. When it was dawn, there was a mass movement of people to different sides of the city depending on where their allegiances lay or where they felt they would be safe or just out confusion. I moved to the rebel-held area of Paynesville because I thought it would be safe there: everybody had seen what the government had done in Monrovia and assumed that the rebels would be better people. Of course we were wrong; it was a mistake.

The first killing I actually saw occurred just after I had left Old Road for Paynesville. I was at the first rebel checkpoint. The rebels ordered us to form a queue so that we could be searched one at a time. Just three persons ahead of me there was this young guy, I guess he was around 17 years old. From his ID card I could see that he was a student at St. Patrick’s high school. This guy, when ordered to do so, emptied the contents of his bag. Unfortunately for him a booklet fell out: it was a membership book of the NDPL, which was President Samuel Doe’s political party. When this booklet dropped out of his bag, one of the rebels immediately took it. I could see that the name in the book did not match his name but the rebel assumed that it was the young man’s father. The young man pleaded that the photo in the book was not that of his father – he argued that in his haste when fleeing the city, he had run into his sister’s room and grabbed the bag in which the book was contained; he did not know who the book belonged to. The rebel did not believe him and was not interested in hearing what he had to say. He had the book in his possession; that was his crime.

The rebels dragged him behind the bus stop and shot him 3 times. That was a particularly tragic moment for me. It was so arbitrary. Yet, my first thought was that this could have happened to me too. I also had a Doe Party membership book, which I had got from my father and unlike the guy who had been shot I had even put my photo in it so that I could travel around freely. Fortunately for me, I had destroyed the book before reaching the checkpoint. I will never forget how close I came to death that day.

4. How did war affect your day-to-day life?

A great deal. It changed everything, my dreams, my inspiration, my hope. Just everything changed. Life became difficult, very difficult. My family was separated. I had to move to a place where I had never lived before. At that time I had a son and I needed to find a means of survival; but capacity was so very low. At first, relief organisations were our only source of food – rice, oil, beans. Constantly, we would have to wait for relief organisations to come, assess the needs of the area, and then return with the food. Eventually, our situation improved slightly as petty trading began to take place between villages – we would exchange some of our rice for fish for example. But on a bad day, you could have all your food taken away by soldiers; it was extremely demoralising.

And then there were the killings. There was one killing in particular that I witnessed and will never forget. This one I remember the date because it was the birthday of one of my closest friends, 10th November 1994. We were playing scrabble; these types of games we played to keep us off the streets. Actually some of the educated fighter generals would sometimes stop to play with us and in that moment we were respected by the other junior soldiers as being known by an authority. So other junior soldiers would not harass you as much whenever one of these particular generals was in town.

Anyway, it was the afternoon. The rebels had taken 4 prisoners of war and put them in prison. That afternoon one of the generals from the Marine Bay was visiting. He asked the junior soldiers what they were doing putting the prisoners of war in the prison. He asked whether they had food for the prisoners. The junior soldiers replied that they had none. The general then ordered the soldiers to bring 2 of the prisoners out into the open. He then gave the order to execute these guys, but said they were to do so without using a gun or any kind of machine. The rebels beat these guys to death in front of civilians and children. I was one of those watching. I was horrified – talking about it now, I still get scared. The most horrifying thing of all is that while the guys were fighting for their lives, one of the soldiers took a knife and actually butchered the guy open, opened his stomach, took out the different parts (heart, liver, lung), and put them in a big pan. They cooked it and ate it. The guy who did it even licked the blood.

I was completely paralysed. But there wasn’t anything anybody could do. You’re talking about guys with guns – they were the law-makers. Only the authorities could stop something from happening. All we cared about and worried about was for the war to come to an end so that we could start to put our lives together again.

This was something that was a normal occurrence at the Marine Bay but it was our first time experiencing it. The Marine Bay general’s belief was that if you can eat a human being you will not be afraid of killing one. So they actually removed the body parts of people, cooked them, and ate them in public. The rest of the body, they just dumped it somewhere in the bushes.

5. Did you lose any close friends or family members during the war?

Yes, I lost several friends – some were killed; others died while fighting. Some went and joined the army because few had the endurance to withstand the hardship of being a civilian. They joined the rebels for the lifestyle; they saw it as the only means for making it in life. Civilians were being harassed on a daily basis. Even for those of us who started trading, as I said before, on a bad day everything could get taken away. So some people thought that the only way forward was to join the rebel army. I would say that almost 65% of people who joined the rebels did so as a way of easing their lifestyle through the better access to food, drinks, and materials that life in the army gave you.

6. After the end of the first civil war, why did people vote so overwhelmingly for Charles Taylor, the leader of the rebel army, in the 1997 election?

I think people had their minds set that Charles Taylor would be able to fix the country. This idea sent them mad. They thought that since this man had brought the country to destruction, let’s allow him to fix it. I remember that there was a rally in Monrovia where Liberians chanted, “Taylor killed my father, Taylor killed my mother, Taylor killed my family, I’m going to vote for him”. I felt it too – I guess we all got carried away – Taylor won over 80% of the vote. I voted for Taylor – I can’t really explain it.

7. When war broke out for the second time in 1999, how did you feel? Was your experience during the second war different to the first?

It was one of my worst fears. Especially having had elections, I thought that every Liberian had learned that no one can win in a war. Nobody comes out of war victorious. The idea of another war was crazy but the new rebels claimed that war was the only language that Charles Taylor would understand.

My experience during the second war was vastly different from the first. I did not imagine myself living under another rebel regime, so I did everything to stay away from where the war was being fought. I did everything to avoid the war until it hit Monrovia. The first time was on June 6th, 2003. I was living in Logan Town in Bushrod Island, situated near the port area of Monrovia. The new rebels were advancing towards the port so I left; it was raining heavily and I ran to the airfield community where I stayed with a friend for a couple of months. Most of the mortars and rockets being launched did not reach the airfield.

Once Taylor left and a ceasefire was agreed, we could all return to our communities. I had lost everything – I had to start afresh; whatever we had started building in 1997 had been destroyed: we had to start all over again.

One of the things the war did to me which I hate is that it delayed my life – education, finance, everything. I did not have the opportunity to leave the country, I never had any outside support, and so a large part of my life was stolen by the war.

8. Do you support the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

Yes, I think it will set the pace for moving this country forward; it will serve as a deterrent for would-be trouble-makers; it’s going to send a message that we are a nation that should be taken seriously by the international community. I also believe that those who committed crimes during the war should have their day in court. In particular, I think a special court should be set up to try those that bear the greatest responsibility for the atrocities committed during the war. I believe that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report is one of the best documents for Liberia.

However, generally, Liberians regard this as a period of forgiveness –if you talk to people who are benefiting from those who committed atrocities, they will say let bygones be bygones and argue that we should not prosecute the architects of the war. On the other hand, if you talk to local people working in civil society and human rights groups, they will tell you that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report is the best way forward. So there is a mixed reaction. But for the common man on the street, as long as there is the silence of the gun, he is happy. Personally, I think this is wrong – those who killed people, who destroyed people’s lives and who even went to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and became more defiant and spread more lies, are now benefiting from the labours of the Liberian nation. These people need to be held to account.

9. Are you hopeful for Liberia’s future?

Yes, I’m beginning to see signs of hope. I think the election of President Sirleaf, even though her hands are not completely clean, has resulted in many improvements in Liberia.

10. Why have you decided to become a lawyer?

I developed a passion for law as far back as 1991 when I saw people who suffered hardship but had nobody to fight for their causes; there was a total breakdown in law and order; people were being denied due process. Even after 1997, more and more atrocities were being committed.

Personally, I count myself lucky: not many people who have witnessed what I have witnessed, have ended up at university. Not many people had the spirit to move forward.

An Insight into the Reform Process of Liberia’s Corrections Legislation

The Ministry of Justice, in coordination with the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) and the German governmental organisation GTZ, has formed a Legal Prison Reform Working Group to review Liberia’s corrections and rehabilitation legislation. As a member of the working group, I am gaining an insight into how the reform process works as well as the necessary steps that are required in order to undertake an effective legislative review. Although we are very much at the beginning of the process, we have created an action plan which will guide our approach to reform. In this post, I describe the approach we will be adopting. The post should be of particular interest to those who are undertaking similar reviews in other countries.

1. Review of Existing Legislation: The first stage requires the working group to undertake an assessment of the current legislation to identify areas of the law which either fail to meet local realities or have become outdated, as well as areas which are missing from the legislation altogether. For example, even a brief examination of Liberia’s corrections legislation will reveal an overly centralised and paternalistic approach to prison management. In addition, the provisions regulating access to healthcare, education and justice in the prison system are extremely vague. The disciplinary procedures within the prison place too much arbitrary power in the hands of the warden in charge and should prisoners have complaints, they do not presently have recourse to an independent complaints body. Ultimately, even a casual reader will quickly realise that Liberia’s corrections legislation is in desperate need of reform.

2. Comparative Analysis: The second stage requires the working group to undertake a comparative analysis of prison legislation and policies across the international community. An emphasis should be placed on countries with a similar level of capacity and resources. Focusing on the legislation of affluent nations when undertaking reform within a nation which has a severe lack of capacity will not take into account local restraints, customs or realities. Recourse should also be made to international documents and NGO research reports. In the field of prison reform, the best resources that I have come across are those written by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Penal Reform International, the Governance & Justice Group, Prison Fellowship International, and the International Centre for Prison Studies.

3. First Draft of Amendments: The working group members should meet regularly to discuss each clause that requires reform. Each amendment must conform to international standards whilst meeting the needs of the local population. To ensure that amendments meet local realities, field trips should be made to various prisons and meetings conducted with different stakeholders involved in the prison system. This will provide a unique insight into local restraints as well as an indication of issues of particular importance to those who work within the system on a day-to-day basis.

4. Consultation: Once draft amendments have been agreed upon by the working group, the fourth stage involves holding more formal consultations with various stakeholders in the prison system. This stage is likely to prove the trickiest part of the reform process because the various stakeholders may take opposing points of view on each of the amendments. A new draft of the amendments should be constructed taking into account the views that have been put forward during the various consultations. It may be that several rounds of consultations are needed in order for a consensus amongst stakeholders to emerge.

5. Parliamentary Approval: Ultimately, any legislative review process will fail unless there is the political will for reform. Therefore, the fifth stage requires gaining the formal backing of a Member of Parliament and raising support amongst his colleagues so that the amendments can be passed into law. The proposal is likely to be subjected to modification during parliamentary debates, although the hope of any law reform working group or commission will always be that the fundamental structure and principles of their initial proposal will remain untouched.

6. Awareness Campaigns: If the amendments are passed into the law, the final stage requires raising awareness of the new law amongst the various stakeholders and local population. This can be done by holding workshops and training sessions to publicise and explain the changes that have taken place to the prison system.

Legislative review is important as a first step to improving the corrections system of any country. It provides the basis for an integrated approach to be adopted by the government, civil society and other stakeholders in implementing prison reform projects. For example, a program to speed up trials for pre-trial detainees and thereby reduce overcrowding in prisons can only work if there is complementary legislative reform reducing the number of individuals being given custodial sentences (e.g. by decriminalising minor offences and/or increasing the number of alternative sentences that judges can render). Legislative reform also provides renewed publicity and impetus for new prison projects to be put forward by the government and civil society.

Undoubtedly, there is a long road ahead for Liberia’s prison system, but it is my personal hope that the legislative review process will mark the first step towards a brighter future for Liberia’s prisoners.

The Magistrates Sitting Program

Last week I was able to visit Monrovia Central Prison and observe the Magistrates Sitting Program. The program was set up a year ago by the Liberian Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice with the specific aim of reducing prolonged pre-trial detention and prison overcrowding. Magistrates from 6 magisterial courts in Montserrado County visit Monrovia Central Prison to hold pre-trial hearings six days a week (a different court visits on each day).

The project has certainly begun to make an impact. As of April 2009, an estimated 239 inmates had been released from Monrovia Central Prison. A recent report has even estimated that the magisterial courts order the release of an average of 3 to 7 detainees each day. This is a considerable achievement and those involved should be applauded for the hard work that has gone into the program. However, many challenges remain. For one thing, the number of detainees released each day is often insufficient to counterbalance the number of detainees admitted; thus, the population of Monrovia Central Prison continues to rise.

During my visit to the court, which is actually situated inside the prison compound itself, I was able to witness some of the challenges that the Magistrates Sitting Program still faces; it was also my first opportunity to observe a court hearing in Liberia. To my great surprise, the atmosphere inside the court was extremely informal, the judge struggling to keep order or maintain decorum: at one point, the defence and prosecution lawyers began arguing back and forth as if it were a classroom debating competition. The rules of procedure were only loosely followed and the judge had to continually remind the defence and prosecution lawyers to refer to Liberian law rather than reciting policy arguments without any legal basis. One criticism of the program has been that the prosecution and defence lawyers first read the case files on the day they arrive at court, having never met with or interviewed the detainees; given the low level of advocacy I witnessed, this point was clear to see. Indeed, the prisoner did not even attend the hearing and as I understand it, very few understand how the process works. Beyond these problems, the program suffers from inconsistent rulings between different magistrates, an overly narrow jurisdiction (over 95% of pre-trial detainees fall outside the jurisdiction of the magisterial courts), unclear pre-trial procedures, and a deficient record-keeping system.

So the challenges are clear for all to see. In addition, after a week in which I was able to sit in on some of the meetings between judges and magistrates to discuss how to improve the program, I can also confirm that progress can be frustratingly slow. Yet, with so many organisations and talented individuals working to push the program forward, I am confident that the Magistrates Sitting Program can fulfil its potential and provide an effective means of ensuring access to justice for the hundreds of pre-trial detainees that are currently trapped in the Liberian criminal justice system.