’S JURISDICTION TO PROSECUTE JOHNNY PAUL KOROMA FOR WAR CRIMES COMMITTED IN

Chile Eboe-Osuji and Angela Ifeyinwa Nworgu

Introduction

Over the years Nigeria has established a reputation as a provider of military personnel for international peacekeeping operations of the , the Organisation of African Unity (as it then was) and its successor, the African Union, as well as the Economic Community of West African States. From the Congo (in the 1960s), to Lebanon (in the 1980s), to Rwanda, , Sierra Leone and Sudan in more mod- ern times, there is scarcely any international peacekeeping operation in which Nigeria has not registered participation and presence. Such participation and presence has oft en entailed harm and loss of lives to the Nigerian soldiers involved. Oft en, such harm and loss of lives resulted from war crimes committed by parties to the confl icts. For instance, on 1 October 2007, Nigeria’s national day, the world and Nigerians were treated to the sobering news of the murder of 10 African Union peacekeepers in Darfur—seven of whom were Nigerians.1 Similar homicidal casualties were infl icted upon Nigerian peace- keepers in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Th e victimisation of Nigerian sol- diers in this way quite naturally compounds the broader human tragedy and general questions of criminal conduct that formed the original premise of the given peacekeeping operation in the fi rst place. International peacekeeping operations have traditionally been ani- mated by a sense of—if not always expressed as—responsibility to pro- tect human lives ensnared by armed confl icts in various parts of the world. Th ere was seldom a peacekeeping operation that was not moti- vated by the need to protect civilian populations from the suff ering, the maiming and the killings that were infl icted upon them by warring sides—oft en their fellow citizens on opposing sides of confl icts driven by ideology or ethnicity.

1 See ‘Sudan Rebels Kill 10 Darfur Peacekeepers’, Th e Washington Post, Monday, 1 October 2007, p. 15. 840 part five − chile eboe-osuji and angela nworgu

Th ese questions of self-interest (arising when its citizens are victims) and humanity (arising when civilian wards of peacekeeping operations are the victims) oft en engage the attendant question of Nigeria’s role in the prosecution of war crimes committed abroad by foreign nationals. Th e question is not academic for Nigeria. Th is is given, rst,fi the global campaign against impunity for serious violations of international humanitarian law; secondly, the ability of Nigeria to undertake such prosecutions, in view of its relative economic ability to do so; and, fi nally, the comfortable vocational capacity to conduct such proceed- ings given the large number of legal professionals among its citizens. Although equally applicable to other peacekeeping missions, the focus of analysis in this discussion will be limited to the prospect of a Nigerian prosecution of Johnny Paul Koroma, the one time head of the Sierra Leonean junta, for war crimes committed against Nigerians under his junta regime in Sierra Leone.2 Th e need for the discussion is particularly important given the imminent winding up of the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the possibility of Koroma’s ‘resurrection from the dead’ in hopes of enjoying impunity thereaft er.

Theories of responsibility in international criminal law

As Koroma is the special focus of analysis, there are three particular theories of liability to be examined in regard to him. Th ey are as follows: • joint criminal enterprise; • superior or command responsibility; • criminal breach of duty; and • direct perpetration of the war crimes.

Joint Criminal Enterprise In the jurisprudence of international criminal law, one useful mode of criminal responsibility against which Koroma’s conduct may be viewed is the mode of joint criminal enterprise (JCE). While some common

2 Th e records of the proceedings of the SCSL suffi ciently established a clear pattern of war crimes committed against Nigerian soldiers. See Prosecutor v. Brima & Ors (Judgment) 20 June 2007 [SCSL Trial Chamber II], paras 902, 904, 907, 908, 909, 911, 1241, 1582, 1750, 1753, 1755, 1757, 1779 and 2058.