• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

98 Truth Commissions in Africa: the Non-Case of Namibia and the Emerging Case of Sierra Leone1 MICHELLE PARLEVLIET2 In February of this year, Africa acquired its own ‘Pinochet’ when a Senegalese court indicted the former dictator of Chad, Hissein Habré for acts of torture committed during his regime. It was the first time ever that the courts of another country indicted a former African head of state. In the same month, the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe ruled that President Mugabe could be sued in his official capacity for failing to publish the reports of two commissions of inquiry into the deaths of government opponents in the Matabeleland region in the 1980s following clashes with the state security forces. Hitherto, the government had repressed the results of these inquiries, claiming their publication could spark violence between different political constituencies. Also in 1999, a number of developments happened on the African continent that indicated a concern with past human rights violations. In June, President Obasanjo of Nigeria established a commission to investigate human rights abuses that had occurred in his country between January 1966 and his assumption of power in May 1999.3 In July, the civil war in Sierra Leone ended with the conclusion of the Lomé Peace Agreement that provided for, amongst other things, the investigation of atrocities committed during the war. These developments, though small, form some counterweight to the human rights violations that continue to be committed in the various armed conflicts that pervade the continent, be it in Burundi, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Western Sahara, or Sudan. As such, these developments correspond to the inter- national trend towards addressing issues of accountability and acknowledgement 1 Obtaining the information for this article has been a challenge, and the author would like to thank Phil Ya Nangoloh, Zen Mnakapa, Avril McDonald, Larissa Fast, John Saul, Guy Lamb, Melron Nicol-Wilson, Peter Andersen, and Jeremy Sarkin for their assistance and comments in this regard. The understanding of the editors of FORUM, Frances Meadows in particular, has been highly appreciated. 2 Michelle Parlevliet (MA, Political Science; MA International Peace Studies), worked as a researcher for the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission; she is currently Manager of the Human Rights and Conflict Management Programme at the Centre for Conflict Resolution, Cape Town. 3 Tribunals of Inquiry Act, Amendment of Instrument Constituting a Judicial Commission of Inquiry for the Investigation of Human Rights Violations (Cap 447, LFN; 4 Oct. 1999); Instrument constituting a Panel for the Investigation of Human Rights Violations Under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act (Cap 447; 4 June 1999). International Law FORUM du droit international 2: 98–111, 2000. ©2000 Kluwer Law International. Printed in the Netherlands. Michelle Parlevliet 99 that arise when countries emerge from a period of violence and repression involving gross human rights violations. Since the mid-1970s, a growing number of states around the world have tried to address atrocities that were committed in their recent history, whether during authoritarian rule or in the course of an armed conflict. The mechanism increasingly used to settle past accounts is the investigation and recording of past abuses by so-called truth commissions. A substantial amount of research and writing has focused on such commissions and the quest for justice in transitional situations.4 Despite the number of commissions established on the continent, the African experience remains relatively understudied as compared to the wealth of material available on the Latin American cases.5 Only with the establishment of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) did attention turn to Africa, mostly because of the unique features of the TRC and the appeal of the South African ‘miracle’ transition. The lack of analysis of African commissions may be attributed in part to a general dearth of information and to the low international profile of the countries concerned. Nevertheless, a closer look at truth commissions in Africa is warranted. Not only will it contribute to our understanding of truth commissions in general; it may also provide us with insight as to whether any specific conditions prevail in Africa pertaining to truth commissions. The latter is especially relevant in light of recent developments, since a number of new commissions are being established or contemplated: aside from Nigeria and Sierra Leone, Guinea Bissau has decided to establish a truth commission and commissions are being considered for Burundi, Rwanda, and Malawi. This article consists of two parts, which examine two contrasting cases in Africa: Namibia and Sierra Leone. While vastly different, both cases are thought provoking. Namibia is seldom considered in the field of transitional justice, probably because it has never had a mechanism to deal with the abuses committed prior to its transition to democracy in 1990. This, however, is what makes Namibia fascinating. A clear case can be made that the lack of accountability has had lasting repercussions for the Namibian democracy, the relationship between state and citizens, and the 4 Priscilla B. Hayner, “Fifteen Truth Commissions – 1974 to 1994: A Comparative Study”, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 16 (1994), p. 597-655; James McAdams (ed.), Transitional Justice and the Rule of Law in New Democracies (Un. of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame: 1997); Neil J. Kritz (ed.), Transitional Justice: How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former Regimes, Vol. I-III (United States Institute of Peace: Washington DC: 1995); Naomi Roht-Arriaza (ed.), Impunity and Human Rights in International Law and Practice (Oxford UP, Oxford: 1995). 5 Truth commissions have been established in Uganda (twice), Zimbabwe, Chad, and South Africa..

Load more

  2

Copy Link