By
Olusegun Adeniyi
olusegunadeniyi@thisdayonline.com
culled from THISDAY, March 30, 2006
Two weeks before the Liberian election last November, Mrs. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, then a presidential candidate, was in Nigeria to see President Olusegun Obasanjo and meet members of the business community. In the course of her visit, it was arranged for me to interview her and I recall our encounter where Mrs. Opral Benson was also present. I went with a colleague, Oma Djebah.
Since it was a friendly interview, Johnson-Sirleaf pleaded that she
would prefer not to be asked questions relating to Charles Taylor
who was in Nigeria on asylum. This was understandable given that her
visit coincided with the period the United States was putting
pressure on Nigeria to hand Taylor over to the United Nations-backed
war crimes court in Sierra Leone. And I guess it would also not have
been politically correct to offend Taylor's supporters at a time she
needed all the votes she could garner, so we played it by her rule.
But in our discussion after the interview, I sought to ascertain
whether it was true that Taylor was indeed interfering in Liberian
affairs. This was the excuse the United States was giving in asking
that Taylor be handed over; with the argument that he had broken his
asylum condition in Nigeria. Laughing, Johnson-Sirleaf said Taylor
"is like the old rogue in the village to whom every villager goes
whenever anything got missing." She said while it was convenient for
anyone to make that claim given the notoriety of the former warlord,
Taylor was not involved in Liberian politics.
That was why I was a bit taken aback when, in the course of her
recent US visit, I watched the Liberian president grandstanding
about how Taylor had become a threat to Liberian democracy and why
Nigeria must hand him over: "I have consulted with President
Obasanjo and asked him that we and the leaders of Africa,
particularly those that were involved in the arrangement that took
Mr. Taylor to exile, now bring this matter to closure. By closure, I
mean that a decision should be taken that would allow Mr. Taylor to
have his day in court," she said.
Given that Johnson-Sirleaf was in the US, I concluded that she was
either making the statement to please her host or she wanted to
trade Taylor in for dollars to aid her country's reconstruction.
Whichever way, however, it was glaring the woman was taking a
dangerous gamble on the issue. That also explains why I was not one
bit surprised when, on Monday, she said she would prefer Taylor
taken straight to Sierra Leone after Nigeria had agreed to extradite
him back to Liberia.
The Liberian leader obviously does not need a Taylor problem so
early in her administration but with pressure from the US, she had
made a demand that put Nigeria in a sort of moral burden. Taylor, it
is recalled, was brought to Nigeria in August 2003, after he was
prevailed upon to step down as Liberian president as part of a deal
brokered by the trio of Obasanjo, and Presidents Thabo Mbeki and
John Kuffuor of South Africa and Ghana respectively. It was a
controversial decision which divided Nigerians who could not
understand why a man who murdered thousands of our people could end
up enjoying our hospitality.
In my column on August 14, 2004, titled Between Charles Taylor and
History, I had supported Obasanjo's approach on the Liberian
debacle. To me, he deserved commendation while I added that history
would justify his decision: “Incidentally, many commentators have in
recent days condemned Obasanjo's offer of asylum to Taylor. But I
don't think it was an easy decision for the President hence I
believe he deserves our sympathy. He must have been aware it would
be unpopular but I think history will be kind to him on it."
My position was not popular then and may still not be today but if
there is one issue on which Obasanjo should be hailed, it is in how
he has handled the Liberian affair. What most people seem to forget
is that if Taylor had not stepped down and allowed himself to be
cajoled out of the country, there would have been no peace in
Liberia today. And when the chips were down, in confirming he was
leaving on his terms, Taylor said: "If I were the problem, which I
know you know I am not, I would step aside...I would become the
sacrificial lamb, I would become the whipping boy that you should
live".
The negotiation, which also included United Nations Secretary
General Kofi Annan at a time President Obasanjo was African Union
Chairman, was to end Liberia's 14-year civil war that spilt over
into nearby countries. With the support of Nigeria, Liberia was able
to heal the wounds of war, prepare and conduct an election that was
probably freer than the ones we conduct here, and the country is now
on the road to recovery and reconstruction, that is, if this Taylor
problem does not set back the hands of the clock.
Following persistent international pressure, Nigeria had, at the
weekend, acceded to the demand by Johnson-Sirleaf for Taylor's
extradition back to Liberia, so he could be taken for trial in
Sierra Leone. But since Obasanjo granted her request, why was she
not woman enough to accept the former warlord back into Liberia and
decide his fate?
By asking Nigeria to hand over Taylor directly to the UN court,
according to a top Nigerian government official, she was trying to
shift what was rightly her responsibility. Yet, under the condition
in which Taylor left Liberia, with a solemn promise that he would
not be made to suffer any indignity or prosecution for the
atrocities he committed in his country and Sierra Leone, it would
have been cheap of Nigeria to have thrown him to the sharks. But by
putting pressure on our country, Johnson-Sirleaf, according to a
government official, "wants to eat her cake and still have it. She
wants Taylor out of the way but she wants Nigeria to carry the can
for that."
Fortunately, with the 24 hour diplomatic manoeuvres that saw Taylor
'missing', Taylor arrested, Taylor repatriated back to Liberia,
before he was now apprehended by UN forces, Nigeria has been true to
all her obligations on the issue without compromising our national
integrity. One, it ensured the successful end of the war by
negotiating Taylor's exit from Liberia at a most critical moment.
Two, it helped to ensure that a democratic government was put in
place in the country. And now, it has succeeded in helping, albeit
without taking responsibility, to finally take justice to Charles
Taylor.
But for those who may not know what Taylor is wanted for in Sierra
Leone, excerpts from an obituary piece on Foday Sankoh, the monster
he helped to create, in a 2003 edition of The Economist sums it up:
He was not Africa's most prolific murderer, but he was one of the
cruelest. Between 50,000 and 200,000 people died in the ten-year
civil war he started in Sierra Leone in 1991. But it was not the
number that outsiders found most shocking; it was the way Mr.
Sankoh's killers killed. A career as one of his foot soldiers
sometimes began with the new recruit being forced to murder his own
parents. Besides inuring them to barbarity, this made it hard for
them ever to return home. Mr. Sankoh had thousands of boys and girls
abducted to join the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) as fighters or
concubines. New guerrillas sometimes had the initials 'RUF' carved
into their chests, as if they were Mr. Sankoh's property.
"Before battle, teenage officers would cut their subordinates' young
faces and rub in cocaine to make them fearless. Deprived of a
childhood and raised amid horror, Mr. Sankoh's soldiers tended to
lose all moral inhibitions. For sport, some would place bets as to
the sex of an unborn baby, and then opened the mother to find out.
How did Mr. Sankoh become such a monster? He went to Libya to train
with other African revolutionaries, and it was there that he met
Charles Taylor, who was to become his chief ally. Mr. Taylor, who
had a grudge against the Sierra Leonean government and an eye on the
country's diamonds, helped Mr. Sankoh to set up the RUF...
With the arrest in Liberia yesterday by UN forces who would
ultimately ensure he gets his just dessert for the way he ruined the
lives of millions of people not only in his country but in Sierra
Leone, Taylor may end up providing international relations experts
with the case study they desired but lost with the death in
detention of Slobodan Milosevic at the Hague. Because, this time,
the embattled former warlord is on a one-way ticket out of Liberia
from which he is, all things being equal, not expected to return
alive.
The conclusion of the drama has also saved Nigeria a lot of
international embarrassment like the harsh and very unfair
Washington Post editorial of yesterday titled "A War Criminal
Escapes. The man who let him go is due at the White House this
morning," in apparent reference to our President who visited
President George Bush yesterday.
But while Obasanjo can be seen to have done what is right and noble
on this Taylor controversy, now effectively brought to a closure, at
least where Nigeria is concerned, there is a very important lesson
in it for everyone: Leaders who, out of inordinate desire for power,
help in bringing their country to ruin, would ultimately pay the
price. No matter how long it takes...