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.