A few points about the reported reactions of President Kabbah and Shirley Gbujama to the peace agreement, which I also read on the Sierra Leone Web Page and the DHA's ReliefWeb.
1. It is strange and disturbing to read that Kabbah's government can claim to have been "absent" at the talks. One report suggested that Berewa, at least, was there as an observer. It is important to note that Kabbah's address to the General Assembly mandated the ECOWAS Committee of Five to negotiate on his behalf. His presidential spokesperson, Momodu Koroma, reiterated this point in an interview he gave to the BBC a few days before the Conakry meeting. It is the responsibility of the government to send a team of observers to the talks to monitor and influence the proceedings even if they are not formally represented at the deliberations. The president himself should have been in close touch with the talks even from far away Edinbourgh. Even the US government sent a representative. I think it does not reflect well on the government to say that it was absent at the talks. Where were all the government's people when the negotiations were going on?
2. If the government has not been briefed about the details of the agreement, I do not think it is wise to make comments on it. Upon hearing the announcement of the peace deal, I think that the government should have made all the efforts to be fully briefed before reacting to the agreement. If this meant flying to Abuja and Conakry and aborting the European trip, this should have been done. The government should be seen by Sierra Leoneans to be playing a full and central role in the process. Making contradictory or partial statements can only give the impression that it is a minor player in the process.
3. If the government has not been briefed about the details of the agreement, it does not help the situation to insinuate that the agreement may not have been signed by the parties concerned. I would find it strange that experienced negotiators, including representatives from the UN and the OAU, would fail to sign an agreement that is hailed as a framework for peace and security in the country. Having made this statement, the government should now try to find out what the true situation is and inform Sierra Leoneans about the legal status of the agreement. Ambiguity can only undermine the peace process.
4. It does not help the government's case to reject the six month transition that has been established for restoring order and constitutional rule in the country. The important thing is that the junta has agreed to cede power to the legitimate government and to allow ECOMOG to disarm its forces. This is what Kabbah's government should work on, not the technical issue of immediate restoration of his government as stipulated in the earlier ECOWAS agreement. Kabbah's security and that of Sierra Leoneans depend on whether ECOMOG will be able to massively enhance its capability in the country during the transition period. There is no national army available at the moment that can guarantee the president's security if he is to return IMMEDIATELY.
5. On the thorny issue of immunity and compensation, surely no one would like to grant immunity to people who have caused such mayhem on our country. And it is quite correct that letting people go free when they have committed offences of such magnitude may encourage others to repeat the offences. On this score, one has to balance a number of things. If one wants a relatively smooth disarmament process then something has to be given to those who have the arms, and ensure that the future security system will not encourage a repeat of such acts. The bulk of the soldiers and rebels need a package of incentives to disarm and resettle them in other activities. Such a package does not have to include the fat scholarships that NPRC officials enjoyed upon leaving office. But there has to be a package on education, training and financial support for self employment especially for the rank and file. They are not going to give up their
arms if there is nothing for them in exchange. This package should be part of a wider and focused programme of youth rehabilitation and development. The Abidjan Peace Agreement which Kabbah's government is still committed to is very clear on these issues.
Also, the leaders of the junta would not have signed the agreement if they were going to be prosecuted for their crimes. Much as I am not happy with the idea of granting immunity to the junta, I think that from a practical point of view the main problem is the failure to restrict immunity to the date when the agreement was signed. This should make crimes committed after October 23 punishable. It should have helped ECOMOG and the government to minimise further acts of atrocities during the transition.
I think Kabbah should stick to the policy position in his General Assembly speech, which rejects war crimes tribunals and upholds instead the need for a "truth commission". One can only realistically support state trials if the state itself is able to completely impose its will on the junta and its maruading soldiers and rebels. However, even if the state will not prosecute members of the junta, the point should be stressed that ordinary Sierra Leoneans who wish to seek redress against individuals in the AFRC/RUF should be allowed to do so.
Fortunately, there is nothing in the agreement which says that the AFRC/RUF should be part of a broad based government. Any attempt to foist AFRC/RUF people on the government should be resisted outright. Sierra Leone deserves better than a government that includes armed gangs and their representatives. A broad based government is of course absolutely essential, but this can be formed independently of AFRC/RUF participation. Kabbah's government should make the effort to be at the centre of the unfolding process, and to continue to win the confidence of the ECOMOG force. The two should act in unison. Afterall ECOMOG is not meant to be a neutral force: it is, and should continue to be, on the side of the legitimate government of Sierra Leone.
With best wishes,
Yusuf