By Julius T. Jaesen, II
Ambassador Lewis Garseedah Brown, II has been nominated, confirmed by the Liberian Senate, and appointed and commissioned by the President as Liberia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations. He once served in the same post from June 2016 to August 2018. Brown successfully negotiated with the Security Council, a one-year extension of the mandate of the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL), to help support Liberia’s transitional elections in 2017, and after 57 years, got Liberia elected to chair a Committee of the General Assembly. On Brown’s watch, Liberia chaired the committee on Conferences, and was elected Vice President of the 72nd Assembly.
Even Brown’s harshest critics will agree that the diplomat is imminently qualified to represent Liberia at the UN, especially as the nation bids for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council, after 65 years. However, a few so-called advocates for justice continue to spare no efforts to portray Brown as anything from a “war criminal” to a “war profiteer”. The portrayal reek of deception and hypocrisy. Some of these “advocates”, who are lawyers, have reasons to know they are proceeding wrongly, and the facts on which they should rely do not lend themselves in any legal or moral support to their claims. In fact, the claims are unfair, illegal and unjust, drawing serious questions about their own commitments to the rule of law, and the wisdom behind calling themselves “advocates for justice and rights.”
The advocates contend that Brown was named in the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), for the alleged commission of economic crimes. This, they argue, purveys the perception of guilt, for which President Boakai ought to deny Brown equal right to work as provided by the Liberian Constitution, if the international community is to take the Liberian government’s request for support to establish the war and economic crimes court (WECC), seriously.
Firstly, no member state of the United Nations has privately or publicly questioned Liberia’s choice of representation, nor can any country will itself to do so. Similarly, Liberia cannot question the choice of representation of other nations at the UN. Secondly, Amb. Brown is not known to have been indicted of even a traffic violation let alone an egregious criminal offense, nor has he ever been found guilty of having committed one.
Therefore, to impress that Amb. Brown is guilty merely on being named in the Final Report of the TRC, including after a decision of the Supreme Court of Liberia declared punitive recommendations of the same TRC as illegal, unconstitutional and universally abhorrent, is to attempt to reinvent the wheel of justice concerning Brown. This is not how the international community works, nor expects Liberia to act, in exchange of any support it may wish to provide to Liberia. Upholding universal rights and adherence to the rule of law are always a better guarantee for international support, especially to establish a court whose duty it must be to obey the law in setting the innocent free and punishing the guilty.
All member states of the UN subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948. Article 11 of the UDHR states: “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.” This universal presumption of innocence for Amb. Brown is relatively stronger because merely being named in a report, cannot be reasonably said to amount to an indictment or a “charge with a penal offence,” a decidedly legal action which grows out of an investigation that the so-called charged person is made aware of.
The Liberian Constitution (1986), the bible for any advocate for justice and rights, does not only uphold the universal right to be presumed innocent but forbids punishing anyone, by denying them rights, privilege or freedom, except a court orders same after due process of law. Cited in part, Article 20 (a): “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, security of the person, property, privilege or any other right except as the outcome of a hearing judgment… and in accordance with due process of law.” Article 18: “All Liberian citizens shall have equal opportunity for work and employment regardless of sex, creed, religion, ethnic background, place of origin or political affiliation, and all shall be entitled to equal pay for equal work. Article 21 (h): “No person shall be held to answer for a capital or infamous crime… unless upon indictment by Grand Jury…”, and that all accused persons “…shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Turning to the Final Report of the TRC concerning Ambassador Brown, strangely, nowhere in the entire 344-page narrative of the TRC Report is there a single mention of the name Lewis Brown with reference to either a suspicion or accusation of wrongdoing. No alleged victim pointed to him directly or indirectly for their unfortunate plight. Said Brown recently at the public hearing to confirm him: “I have never been told or confronted by any one claiming to represent the TRC why my name was listed in its ‘charge sheet’ when there is not a single mention made of me throughout the preceding narratives from which the so-called charges and recommendations should have been drawn.” Brown went on to say: “I have been told of no referenced investigative or audit report establishing any basis for attempting to accuse me of the commission of a so-called economic crime.”
“Out of respect for the TRC, and our much-needed process for national healing and reconciliation, which I know our hurting country needs, I have restrained myself from making public utterances in response to the obvious smear campaign against me, including by at least one former commissioner of the TRC. I continue to try so as not to proverbially throw out the baby with the dirty bath water. In 2003, as Chief Negotiator of the Liberian government at the Peace Conference that ended our years of fratricidal war, I and others advocated for a TRC-styled process of reconciling and healing our country. I remain fully committed to helping that process succeed, although I am keenly aware that the circumstances were obviously overwhelming and challenging for some into whose inexperienced hands this important national duty befell,” Brown said, adding: “We must now all pick up the pieces and work as best as we can to reconcile ourselves to each other, and heal our land, knowing that the justice we must all seek for the long term good health of our nation must apply to all, in equal measure.”
In an article published online and in print by FrontPageAfrica, on Tuesday, November 26, in response to why Brown was named in the Final Report of the TRC, although there exists no narrative anywhere in the report to point to reasons for his naming, former Commissioner John Stewart said: “A background investigation was conducted, and he (Brown) was cited to answer questions concerning the results of the investigations. He never appeared. And under the TRC policy, if a person cited did not appear to answer to the charges against him, then, we will assume that it’s judgment by default.” (https://frontpageaficaonline.com/liberia-war-crimes-trial/liberia-boakais-un-ambassador-pick-rejects-advocates-claim-that-his-appointment-would-deter-war-crimes-court-donors-as-un-peacebuilding-committee-visit-wraps-up/).
Firstly, Brown did testify to the TRC, being one of the first to do so, when it was not popular. Arguably, Brown was one of those who inspired others to come forward to testify (see Brown’s testimony here https://youtu.be/31nx7zclifo?si=3ygDMhrP-bxWb369). He was neither presented with findings of any “background investigation” nor investigative or audit reports pointing to a wrongdoing on his part, over his days of public testimony to the TRC, to which Commissioner John Stewart was present.
Secondly, this policy of passing “judgment by default” is not just legally problematic, for which the highest court in Liberia ruled decisively against the TRC, but also it cannot be found to have been published anywhere before now. Judgment by default is an action reserved only for courts of law, which the TRC was not. But let’s assume such a policy ever existed; why was this reason not stated in the report so Brown and all others reading it would come to the same conclusion for naming him? What is the finding of the so-called background investigation that Brown refused to respond to? Where can anyone find it, if not in the Final Report of the TRC, where it is not included?
Section 44 of the Act Creating the TRC mandates that its “report shall be detailed on all aspects of the TRC’s work, investigations, hearings, findings and recommendations for prosecutions”. This was not just important to justify tax-payer’s dollars and donor’s support to the TRC, but it would guarantee that the findings and recommendations could be relied upon for genuine healing and reconciliation of a nation fractured by years of war, corruption and undemocratic governance. Adherence to this mandate would also elevate the report to meet required legal standard for prosecution. Unfortunately, it is impossible to see how this important mandate and detailed standard for reporting of the TRC was applied concerning Ambassador Brown.
On pages 342/343 of the Final Report of the TRC, under the caption of “Economic Crimes in the Petroleum and Telecommunication Sectors”, which we cite in full, it reads: “On September 25, 2003, the Liberia Petroleum Refining Corporation (LPRC), acting under the authority of Edwin Snowe, former LPRC Managing Director and Montserrado County Senator, executed a credit agreement with West Oil Investment (WOI) for $10 million USD. The agreement designated WOI as the importer and distributor of petroleum products in Liberia in exchange for the credit. While the LPRC has not justified its decision to obtain the credit, shortly thereafter, the company made a series of suspicious payments beginning in 2003 through 2006.” (see https://www.trcofliberia.org/resources/reports/final/trc-of-liberia-final-report-volume-ii.pdf pp342-343 )
The footnote to this paragraph reads: “Documents and invoices received by the TRC regarding LPRC, Monrovia, Mar. 7, 2008; In 2008, Snowe, Sheriff and several others were indicted for crimes related to their management of LPRC, including economic sabotage, bribery, theft of property and criminal conspiracy.
This is all the TRC wrote about the alleged commission of economic crimes in the petroleum sector. Indeed, Lewis Brown was Managing Director of the Liberia Petroleum Refining Corporation (LPRC), a one hundred percent-owned entity of the Liberian Government. But his tenure ran from 1997 to 1999. He was not Managing Director from 2003 to 2006. Since Brown left LPRC, there has been no finger-pointing at him over the course of successive administrations of the public corporation. At least two succeeding administrations of the entity have bestowed laurels and honors on the former managing director for leading the moribund entity to reasonable recovery through one of its worst periods. Suffice to say, the court acquitted Snowe, Sheriff and others. Snowe, who never was a Senator of Montserrado, is now the Senator of Bomi County.
Despite its own narrative on the so-called commission of economic crimes in the petroleum sector, on pages 362 and 366, the TRC names “Brown, Lewis, Managing Director, LPRC” under two categories: Individuals Responsible for Committing Economic Crimes, and Individuals and Institutions Recommended for Further Investigation. Together, the lists include the Liberian Presidency, ministries, agencies, local business leaders and foreign investors. Effectively, the lists read as targeting the government of that period, and all those who worked or associated with it. It is strange that anyone could recommend prosecution on such basis, and with an obvious disregard for upholding even the minimal requirement for the conduct of a credible and responsible investigation.
The works of any TRC must never be seen to be short on due diligence nor deemed to demonstrate a compromise of the truth. Truth-telling is the first and most important duty of any TRC. But truth is harder to tell when personal grievances, prejudices and envy are allowed to becloud our judgments of others and the truth. Merely regurgitating street gossips as a basis for making public accusations can only undermine the credibility of a TRC, to which many tend to look, with hope, for a much-needed path to healing and reconciling a war-torn nation.
In 2008, Amnesty International criticized the TRC for its “inability to publicize its policies on reparation and prosecution, as well as the commission’s policies on protection of victims, lack of general amnesty for those that provide information, and inability to provide individual reparations.” Other troubling criticisms of the TRC included its “rush to meet the mandated deadline” for the publication of its final report. The “rush” is said to have “caused a disconnect between the names recommended for prosecution or to be barred from office and their specific crimes, along with a general lack of evidence to support claims made by the TRC.” (emphasis mine)
In January of 2011, relying on the constitutional and universal right to due process of law, the Liberian Supreme Court declared a punitive recommendation of the TRC, banning a number of Liberians from holding public office for 30 years, as “unconstitutional.” The highest court conclusively decided that the Liberian Government was under no obligation to punish any citizen by denying them rights, privileges and freedoms, to which all are constitutionally and universally entitled, simply because the TRC “recommends it.” The Supreme Court of Liberia proceeded further to strike down Article 48 of the Act creating the TRC.
Finally, a more worrying claim of the so-called justice and rights advocates against Amb. Brown is that he worked for former President Charles Taylor. Here, instructively, no specific crime against Brown is alleged, but the “rights and justice advocates” want him punished because they deem him to be guilty by association. During Liberia’s dreaded war years, guilt by association, especially on account of our differences in tribe, saw many lose their lives. Carried out by gun-wielding soldiers on all sides of the war divide, guilt by association was wrong then, and is wrong now, even when carried out by the pens or microphones of “advocates for justice,” who ought to know better.
Justice can never be achieved by engaging in injustice. Just as it was wrong to harm and kill others during the war years simply because those with guns thought them to be ‘guilty by association’ with their ‘enemies’, it is also wrong today to ask the President, whose duty it is to uphold the law, to punish anyone on otherwise specious accusation, which in the case of Ambassador Brown, lacks any factual basis or legal merit. If Ambassador Brown must wait for the courts to determine his innocence, with no stated or known details of what the so-called accusations against him are based on, then the least the “rights and justice advocates” can do is also await the courts to determine Brown’s guilt, for whatever they think he may have done.
Liberia needs to be healed. Liberians need to be reconciled. Hopefully, establishing the WECC will bring us closer to that national objective. However, exacting injustice against anyone, hoping that it will lead to justice for someone, is the recipe to undermining justice for everyone.