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.