In the wake of the “Spring” revolutions taking place in several Arab countries, especially the events in Libya that culminated in the killing of the country’s long time ruler Muamar Gaddafi, several important issues of criminal jurisprudence deserve reconsideration and clarification.
In the wake of the “Spring” revolutions taking place in several Arab countries, especially the events in Libya that culminated in the killing of the country’s long time ruler Muamar Gaddafi, several important issues of criminal jurisprudence deserve reconsideration and clarification.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
The relevant issues are contained in the following questions. One, what is “justice” in a revolutionary context? This question raises the related query, thus: What is the just sanction for a dictator or a person who has misruled a polity? Two, to what extent, if at all, should the human rights of a crime suspect be upheld and enforced in circumstances in which the suspected crimes are particularly egregious? Three, in what situation, if any, is it justified to apply identical criminal sanctions to a suspected criminal ruler and his (or her) family members? Four, in view of the notion of the inviolability of universal human rights and minimally accepted ingredients of criminal jurisprudence, how should the credibility of a society’s criminal justice process during a revolution be assessed? Five, relative to the rights of a suspected criminal ruler, what weight, if any, is to be accorded the rights of the citizens of a polity to have their losses and sufferings addressed as well as proceed unhindered to design and build a desired society for themselves? I will address the identified questions shortly. Before then, I wish to provide succinctly the facts of the Libyan revolution as they are relevant to this paper.
Setting the Stage: Tyranny or Misrule as a Revolutionary Trigger
It is important to put the 2011 uprisings in Libya in proper perspective. The events, which unfolded rather quickly, led to the killing of Muamar Gaddafi on October 20, 2011. However, the ingredients for the revolution were put in place and nurtured for four decades. For forty-two years (1969-2011), Gaddafi ruled over Libya. Having taken over as the ruler in a military coup d'état, he reigned over the country absolutely. He was the ultimate authority in the country, above its institutions where he permitted such institutions. The manner of the State activities showed that he was in control of the people and their destinies. In short, in many ways Gaddafi equaled Libya.
A State organized and run absolutely is ipso facto oppressed. Nonetheless, some observers are of the view that for the most part Gaddafi ran a benevolent leadership. This view is expressed as follows: Gaddafi did a lot for Libya. Without delving into a detailed list of his achievements, it is important to ask: What exactly did Gaddafi do and at what cost to the average Libyans did he do it? For some Libyans (such as university graduates who were entitled to living apartments and jobs after school), instances of benevolence in managing and disbursing income from Libya’s immense oil earnings constitute an important component of the argument in support of Gaddafi. Also, his supporters frequently cite Libya’s foreign policy as another area in which Gaddafi made his mark for the country. The achievements deserve to be acknowledged.
Most objective observers would agree that one of Gaddafi’s most important accomplishments is that he held Libya together and led it to resist colonial/neo-colonial domination. His outspoken personality and activities challenged would-be colonial/neo-colonial forces. For these, Gaddafi deserved credit. However, for forty-two years, Gaddafi’s wishes were Libyans’ commands. Without proper consultation and consensus, Gaddafi changed fundamental State institutions and symbols to suit him. As an example, he changed the country’s flag. He also had the national currency redesigned to display his dominance. It is doubtful that he needed to dominate and rule his country for so long, and so brutally, to resist external would-be colonizers.
With the enormity of the powers he usurped and concentrated in himself, it seems reasonable to expect Gaddafi to achieve a lot more for his country than he did. Rather, on numerous fundamental issues of State, he chose to promote selfish or sectional interests over the interests of the general citizenry. The fact that he decimated Libya’s existing institutions, persecuted and expended potential contributors and successors to the country’s leadership significantly weakened Libya. Consequently, post-Gaddafi Libya has had to begin anew to plan, put in place, and nurture State institutions and processes, including those on criminal justice, human rights, and the rule of law in general.
Thus, Gaddafi’s positive contributions to Libya’s resistance to colonial/neo-colonial subjugation notwithstanding, for forty-two years he ruled over millions of Libyans as a dictator. Such totalitarianism, regardless of any elements of benevolence embedded therein, is ipso facto a form of misrule. That misrule was bound to end, perhaps in a revolutionary outbreak, because Gaddafi had foreclosed less extreme options.
I now proceed to examine in some detail each of the five questions posed in the introductory section of this article. From one to five, the following are the issues in the questions, along with the responses to them.
Issue in Question 1: “Justice” in a Revolution and Just Sanction for Dictatorship or Misrule
Gaddafi’s killing in the hands of the revolutionaries who fought against him for months and finally toppled his forty-two-year regime raises this question: What does “justice” mean in a revolution, such as Libya has witnessed? This leads to the related query, thus: In a revolutionary context, what is the just sanction for a leader who has misruled his polity?
There are internal and external components to determining whether a leader has misruled. The leadership facts on the ground, the inputs of citizens subjected to the relevant leadership, as well as the credible and related perspectives of foreign observers should be considered. Regarding the leadership facts in particular, to determine whether a leader has misruled means to contemplate several factors including the following (not in any particular order). First is the method by which the leader assumed office (was it democratic or not?). A second consideration is the leader’s length of stay in office (is his stay in office in line with democratically enacted laws specifying term limits, for example?). Third, the leader’s observance (or not) of the rule of law has to be taken into account. Fourth, his government’s effectiveness and efficiency levels are important (has his regime capably performed the duties of the State and met the citizens’ needs, and at what cost?). Based on the foregoing considerations, a democratically elected leader, who confines himself to the term limits of his office, governs by the rule of law, and performs his State duties and satisfies the citizens’ needs at reasonable costs, has ruled well. On the other hand, an unelected or initially elected ruler that exceeds or seeks to exceed a term limit illegally or for selfish reasons, rules on whims and caprices rather than the rule of law, and ignores or fails to do his duties to the State and the citizens, has misruled his polity. For instance, in 2006/2007 President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria attempted to change the Nigerian Constitution 1999 to enable him seek an illegal “third term” in office. Eventually, he failed because of the widespread negative reaction to his plan.
How do the foregoing leadership elements apply to Gaddafi’s rule over Libya? In consideration of the facts that he seized the Libyan State power by force (unelected), ruled for forty-two years (far beyond reason or a rational term limit stipulation), ruled Libya according to his devises, preferences, or whims and caprices, rather than the rule of law, while ignoring Libyans’ long quest for freedom and self-determination, Gaddafi certainly misruled his country. I have already acknowledged that in his long reign he recorded some concrete achievements for Libya, especially in foreign policy and some aspects of managing the country’s vast earnings from crude oil. However, those gains pale when one considers what Libyans lost because of Gaddafi’s tyranny and idiosyncrasies.
It comes to this. The form of justice (death) that Gaddafi received at the hands of the Libyan revolutionary fighters on October 20, 2011 is based pure and simple on his long dictatorship or misrule over Libya, as summarized in the foregoing. Based on their experiences and circumstances, the citizens were justified to treat Gaddafi the way they did. His handling was a just (fair) sanction especially when one also considers the future of the country. If not permanently removed from Libya, Gaddafi – along with his associates and supporters – would continue to threaten the revolution.
Issue in Question 2: Upholding Human Rights in Particularly Egregious Crime Situations
The human rights of crime suspects are to be maintained, even if an alleged crime is particularly egregious. Fundamentally, for many jurisdictions, this rights standard is based on the principle that an accused person is presumed innocent until guilt is proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Even if the presumption of innocence is not a component of a particular criminal jurisprudence, the human rights of all accused persons should be preserved to ensure fair hearing and decency in the criminal justice process. The relevant human rights in a criminal justice process include the expectations that a suspected criminal should be arrested on a valid ground, following proper procedure, and processed legally until he is proved guilty of a criminal charge.
The rule of law and international human rights standards recognize and mandate acceptable treatment of criminal suspects. At the same time, however, the crime suspect who is sought to be arrested and processed according to the rule of law is expected to make himself available, discontinue resistance, and stop putting other people’s lives in danger.
Before his death on October 20, 2011, Gaddafi was facing particularly serious criminal charges. The charges before the International Criminal Court (ICC) stemmed from his activities against Libyans. Despite the denials by Gaddafi’s supporters and their claims that foreign interests were behind the charges against him, the fact that ordinary Libyans waged a revolutionary war against him supports the view that his foreign political enemies did not manufacture the charges. Rather, Libyans share the egregious characterization of Gaddafi’s alleged criminal activities.
In spite of concerns about the apparent partiality and self-interest of such international bodies as the ICC (mainly under the control and doing the bidding of the West), Gaddafi’s aggression and rights abuses against Libyans are undeniable. However, when Gaddafi rejected the criminal charges against him and refused to give up to recognized criminal justice authorities (such as those of the ICC), and instead continued a war against revolutionary Libyan citizens thus killing many of them, he exposed himself to danger, including death.
In short, Gaddafi held on to power as the president of Libya for forty-two years because he repressed, excluded, and committed gross rights violations against Libyan citizens. In the circumstances, it would be unreasonable to expect the revolutionaries and their supporters to uphold and protect Gaddafi’s human rights.
Issue in Question 3: Criminal Responsibility and Punishment for Family Members of a Criminal Ruler
The issue here is whether it is acceptable and justifiable for revolutionaries to ascribe criminal responsibility and punishment to family members of a leader determined to have misruled his polity. To judge such family members fairly, it seems appropriate to consider the facts as they apply to each member. Thus, for example, it would be unfair to attribute to a ruler’s son (A) the sins (crimes) of another son (B). It follows that a son who is suspected of crimes should be pursued and held to account as an individual, unless the children operated jointly in the commission of the crimes. However, where all or many members of such a family have benefited from their father’s crimes, the members can be pursued and held accountable as a group.
Gaddafi had eight children (seven men and one woman). Before his death, virtually all his male children had various criminal allegations hanging over them. The crimes supposedly emanated from their positions as Gaddafi’s children. At least two of the children were high-ranking officers in the Libyan military and security forces. They were accused of using their positions to commit crimes against humanity and other crimes against Libyans. Those of his children that were not in the military and security forces had access to Libya’s wealth and resources. The children were accused of various crimes committed under Gaddafi’s protection.
In view of Gaddafi and his children’s central roles in Libyan affairs over his forty-two-year reign, it seems just for the Libyan revolutionaries to place those of Gaddafi’s children involved in crimes in the same category as him. Pursuing and treating those children as the revolutionaries treated Gaddafi was quite in order. In any case, for as long as their father ruled over Libya, his children benefited immensely from Libya’s riches and other advantages of his dictatorship. In fact, before he was overthrown and killed on October 20, 2011, Gaddafi was grooming one of his sons to rule Libya after him. After overthrowing Gaddafi, why should the revolutionaries not subject his children to the detriments, losses, and pains of the revolution?
The following observation is appropriate at this juncture. The immeasurable corruption inherent in the absolute power Gaddafi held for forty-two years over Libyans apparently blinded him from properly protecting his children and the other members of the Gaddafi family. Through his leadership style, Gaddafi exposed his children, grandchildren, and other family members to great danger. It is puzzling that he failed to understand this grim consequence for his family. Perhaps he understood the danger to which he exposed the members of his family but, because of the advantages his dictatorship offered, he recklessly continued as he did for forty-two years. In any case, by his rule, Gaddafi labeled his family. Now, the danger to his children and other family members is real. Therefore, no reasonable person should be surprised that the violent resistance to Gaddafi’s rule has claimed the lives of some of the dictator’s children and grandchildren, while the others live in fear – on the run or in exile.
Issue in Question 4: Proper Criminal Justice Standard in a Revolutionary Atmosphere
What standard of criminal justice is expected in a society experiencing a revolution? To answer this question accurately, citizens’ experiences and perceptions within the society as well as the assessments of foreign observers are useful. The absence of a credible criminal justice system based on human rights and the rule of law contributed to the birth and growth of the Libyan revolutionary opposition. Many international observers, groups, and organizations recognized the Libyan citizens’ experiences under Gaddafi, and thus supported the revolution against him.
However, some international organizations, including the United Nations Organization (through its human rights arm), Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, have expressed concerns and argued that the killing of Gaddafi sends a wrong human rights signal. The international bodies believe that the killing strongly indicates that the new Libyan authorities are not likely to uphold due process and human rights for all Libyans [see The Guardian (Nigeria), “Gaddafi: UN Rights Office Seeks Probe of Manner of Death”, October 22, 2011; Huffingtonpost.com, “Gaddafi Dead: UNHCR Calls for Investigation”, October 21, 2011; CNN, “U.N. Calls for Gadhafi Death Investigation”, October Share this on:
FacebookTwitterDiggdeliciousredditMySpaceStumbleUponLinkedIn
21, 2011]. These organizations are of the view that the revolutionaries should have protected Gaddafi and upheld his right to a fair trial in a court of competent jurisdiction (local or international, especially since he had been indicted before the International Criminal Court).
The concerns expressed by the international organizations deserve to be addressed. However, in gauging the proper criminal justice standard in a revolution, the totality of the circumstances confronting the revolutionaries ought to be considered. As continues to be the situation in Libya, it takes time after a revolution to set up and run a credible criminal justice system to protect human rights. This is especially so where the erstwhile regime ran a system that lacked the rule of law.
Currently, Libya largely lacks a criminal justice system based on the rule of law because Gaddafi worked for forty-two years against such a system. Gaddafi’s “legacy of repression” is widely recognized, even outside Libya, thus: “During his 42 years in power, al-Gaddafi ruled with an iron fist, stifling individual freedoms and any form of political dissent. Thanks to al-Gaddafi, Libya’s public institutions were rendered largely inefficient or, like the criminal justice system, used as tools of repression. The country lacked an independent civil society, a free press or political parties” [Amnesty International, “Libyans Must See Justice After Death of Colonel al-Gaddafi”, October 20, 2011]. Considering Gaddafi’s dominant role in creating a Libya that lacks the rule of law, it is mistaken, if not duplicitous, for Gaddafi’s family members, sympathizers, or anyone else to blame the Libyan revolutionaries for the absence of a credible criminal justice system to process Gaddafi. By failing to enthrone a criminal justice system based on the rule of law during his forty-two-year domination of Libya, Gaddafi ensured the jungle justice he received on October 20, 2011.
Issue in Question 5: Contextualizing a Ruler’s Rights and Those of the Citizens in a Revolution
The issue under this heading can be framed as follows: Relative to the rights of the rebellious citizens, how important are the rights of a ruler who is challenged in a revolution? It seems apposite that where the two sets of rights conflict, those of the citizens should prevail. For one thing, the citizens’ rights apply to and protect far more people than the rights of the individual ruler. Thus, Libyans’ individual and collective rights to rid their country of Gaddafi and other known oppressors were and remain paramount. It is quite reasonable, expected, and consistent with justice in the Libyan circumstances for the country’s revolutionaries to remove Gaddafi – forcibly if needed. The same should apply to those prominent officials who had helped him to obstruct law and justice in the country over the past forty-two years. It was imperative for the revolutionaries to remove Gaddafi along with the old and oppressive order to allow a new and just Libyan union to be established. Now, having unburdened Libyans of Gaddafi, his regime, and associates, the revolutionaries have given the citizens an opportunity to build a new Libya the people desire and deserve.
Other Pertinent Issues
In addition to the five questions posed and answered above, several other aspects of the Libyan revolution require consideration. These aspects, along with the elements provided while answering the five questions, led to the form of justice visited on Gaddafi on October 20, 2011. Altogether, the Libyan scenario, which included the following dynamics, made the Gaddafi treatment inevitable.
The International Dimension and Spontaneously Recognized Immorality
The foreign component of the Libyan revolution is critical for understanding Gaddafi’s ouster from office. It is important to recognize that the rebellion that removed him had more than a foreign flavor or influence. In fact, the revolution seemed to enjoy wide international sympathy and even active support due to Gaddafi’s forty-two-year grim law and human rights record. Nigeria, for example, in justifying its support for the Libyan revolutionaries led by the Transitional National Council, stated that over forty African countries supported the revolution against Gaddafi [The Guardian (Nigeria), “Ex-Libyan Leader’s Death Vindicates Nigeria, Says Govt”, October 22, 2011].
In particular, the West (through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – NATO) actively supported, financed, and participated in the war against Gaddafi and his loyalists. Thus, unlike previous Libyans-only violent rebellions against Gaddafi, the NATO backing for the revolutionaries ensured that Gaddafi would not survive the 2011 uprising. It is doubtful that Gaddafi would have been overthrown without NATO’s participation in the war. Similarly, as previous foreign military attempts against him (such as the United States military attacks against Gaddafi in 1986) demonstrated, international assaults alone were unlikely to overthrow Gaddafi. Ultimately, with both the local and foreign oppositions merging in 2011, Gaddafi’s fate was sealed.
In view of their full and active participation in the war that killed Gaddafi, the West (NATO) is at least remotely responsible for his death. However, does this mean that the West is to be condemned for Gaddafi’s apparent extra-judicial killing? Asked differently, does Gaddafi’s killing amount to an unjustified taking of a criminal suspect’s life, as the United Nations Organization (UN), Amnesty International (AI), and Human Rights Watch (HRW), among others, have argued? At the heart of the international concern is whether Gaddafi deserved the death penalty and, more importantly, why due process and the rule of law had not been followed before his execution.
Even in full appreciation and support for due process and the rule of law, it is imperative to consider always the situation on the ground in order to assess appropriately a course of action. In the Libyan case, an observer especially a foreign entity, such as the UN, AI, or HRW, must not lose sight of the self-defense rights of Libyan citizens against the predatory Gaddafi regime. Surely, the citizens’ rights override Gaddafi’s rights, especially considering his idiosyncrasies in the past forty-two years. Thus, it is reasonable to take the view that the totality of the Libyans’ experiences under Gaddafi’s rule and the citizens’ circumstances in the revolution made it impossible to apply international criminal procedural and other human rights standards to Gaddafi.
Edwin Madunagu, a respected columnist for The Guardian (Nigeria) newspaper, has strongly criticized the international role in the Libyan revolution. He stated:
It [was] expected that NATO was going to kill Gaddafi that way. There is nothing to jubilate about the death of Gaddafi. No African leader is jubilating except people like the American President, Barack Obama, British Prime Minister, David Cameron, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy. It is shameful that Africans don’t have self-pride … The crisis in Libya is beyond the issue of the tenure elongation by Gaddafi. How long has Queen Elizabeth of England been in power? The Labour and the Conservative parties have been rotating the post of the Prime Minister of Britain between themselves for so long, is that not greed? [The Guardian (Nigeria), “Ex-Libyan Leader’s Death Vindicates Nigeria, Says Govt”, October 22, 2011].
Madunagu went on to say that it was not the Libyan rebels that killed Gaddafi but NATO who masterminded the bombings of Libya.
Related to Madunagu’s criticism is the fact that currently the citizens of Syria and Yemen are respectively revolting against their governments, essentially for the same reasons that Gaddafi was overthrown and killed: dictatorship and misrule. So far at least, the West has not been willing to intervene against the President Bashar al-Assad (Syria) and President Ali Saleh (Yemen) regimes. This can reasonably be interpreted as an example of the West’s double (or multiple) standard in dealing with dictators and bad rulers – intervening against or supporting challenges to its enemies (such as Gaddafi), fearing or avoiding confrontation with formidable/strategic detractors (such as al-Assad), while refusing to intervene or even protecting its friends (such as Saleh). Such real or perceived inconsistency undermines confidence in the West’s actions.
However, I agree with Madunagu’s sentiment against Africans looking too much to the West to solve Africa’s problems and shape its future. This visionless and rather lazy tendency especially of our rulers is manifested in virtually all aspects of public life across Africa. Of particular note, in the area of law and justice, various African States have unjustifiably and irresponsibly acquiesced to and promoted Western jurisprudence as superior to and a replacement for African law and justice ideas and practices.
In agreeing with some of Madunagu’s criticisms of the revolution that ousted and killed Gaddafi, I take issue with two aspects of Madunagu’s condemnation. One part of his disapproval highlighted the fact that Queen Elizabeth of England (and her family) have been in power for too long. Madunagu offered this fact as similar to Libya under Gaddafi. To be sure, I strongly oppose any set-up that entitles a person, family, or a small group to dominate their peers on the pretence that the person, family, or group has been divinely chosen over all others. I believe that people consigned to such an inferior position or role in their society have a right to resist and remove, by force if need be, the authors, enforcers, and beneficiaries of the inequitable arrangement. The English people are certainly entitled accordingly – to remove or modify their leadership. Having said this, the king or queen of England exercises ceremonial powers. The country’s elected government led by a Prime Minister (PM) exercises the executive powers. So, the situation in England is strikingly different from what obtained in Libya under Gaddafi, where he held absolute powers. In fact, for decades, Gaddafi abolished the position of PM. Even while the position existed, he absolutely controlled the activities of any person he appointed to the PM’s position.
On Madunagu’s criticism that the Labour and Conservative parties in the United Kingdom have been rotating the PM’s position between them for so long, the fair answer is that the difference between England and Libya under Gaddafi is that, unlike English political rulers, Gaddafi took steps to prevent all meaningful oppositions to his regime. He outlawed dissent and went after Libyans that criticized or were regarded as threats to his regime. As with other dictatorships, his goal was to control Libyans absolutely for as long as possible. In England, on the other hand, laws permit the activities of opposition candidates and groups. Periodic elections are organized and held. Political opponents are allowed to canvass for and receive votes in elections. Overall, credible elections results are published and the winners assume their offices. It is conceded that the Labour and Conservative parties have great influence among the English people and thus it is extremely difficult for a third party to defeat them in elections.
The English situation is similar to the stranglehold that the Democratic and Republican parties hold over the United States. However, while acknowledging the shortcomings of the US political system, it would be inaccurate to equate the political and legal rights of US citizens to the rights of Libyans under Gaddafi. The guaranteed and enforced electoral and other rights of US citizens vastly outpace the limited rights Libyans enjoyed during Gaddafi’s forty-two-year rule. Nonetheless, the fact that English laws and other institutions of the country allow and protect oppositions significantly distinguishes England from Gaddafi’s Libya.
On a related issue, the broad-based local and foreign oppositions to Gaddafi’s domination of Libya give credence to an important aspect of natural justice: objective and universal validity of morality. The United Nations-mandated multinational military efforts by NATO, along with widespread condemnations of Gaddafi and his regime and other expressions of support for his overthrow, evoke the natural law thesis that morality has objective and universal validity, thus that most human beings spontaneously recognize immoral behavior when we are confronted with it. It is safe to state that because of his immoral rule over Libyans, Gaddafi was thus spontaneously recognized inside and outside Libya.
However, notwithstanding the broad local and foreign support for the Libyan revolutionaries, there were notable international dissensions. Countries such as Russia, China, Brazil, India, and South Africa disagreed with the operation and accused NATO of breaching the United Nations mandate on the basis of which NATO fought against Gaddafi. Surely, the five named countries are influential around the world. In fact, two of them (Russia and China) constitute two-fifths of the veto-armed “permanent members” of the United Nations Security Council. This means that they wield considerable influence and powers in the highest security organ of the UN. Thus, Russia, China, and the other countries that opposed the war against Gaddafi were in positions to influence the events in Libya as well as other countries and organizations.
Russia, China, Brazil, India, South Africa, and the other countries that supported or sympathized with Gaddafi demonstrate that however spontaneously recognizable the immorality of Gaddafi’s rule was, there were people who failed to recognize its depravity, chose to ignore it, rationalized it, or otherwise played it down.
At this juncture, the following point should be made. No human being has a right nor should he be permitted to rule over a country for forty-two years. Any person that attempts or purports to do so should expect to be removed forcibly – even violently if necessary – as was done in Libya. In addition, it is reasonable to expect such forcible removal to negatively affect the dictator’s family members, even cost them their lives. Furthermore, sometimes as happened in Libya, foreign assistance is needed to aid homegrown revolutionaries to actualize the needed change.
Thus, despite the shortcomings of the English, United States, and other Western systems, asking for or accepting non-African assistance to rid victimized African nations of their bad rulers does not undermine the African course. External support does not necessarily compromise an African country unless the backing becomes an excuse for a form of re-colonization. In Libya’s case, control of the country’s vast petroleum reserve is something to watch. Already, speculation is rife that NATO and the West intervened against Gaddafi to gain control of or influence access to Libya’s oil. Time will tell whether the Libyan revolutionaries will turn over the country (or its rich oil resources) to Western interests.
Focus on Africa: Important Justice Lesson from Libya
Many rulers around the world can be likened to Gaddafi because of the longevity and brutality of their regimes. To the extent that the rulers have held on to power contrary to the rule of law, and have thus ruled illegally, immorally, and/or violently, it is proper to place them in the same category as Gaddafi. Additionally, a common theme among the rulers likened to Gaddafi is the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of their regimes. In general, they have failed to meet even the basic infrastructural and security needs of the citizens. This should not surprise a reasonable observer because in each of the affected countries the regime has excluded, with deliberation and impunity, capable and well-meaning citizens from the affairs of the State. Each regime’s desire to preserve itself against challenges, rather than legitimate State interest, informs the exclusion. In Africa, the rulers of Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, and Zimbabwe, among others, readily come to mind. Nigeria constitutes a different version of the misruled countries and will be addressed separately below.
Edwin Madunagu’s criticism of the international involvement in the Libyan revolution also made a point that “African leaders” are not jubilating at the overthrow and killing of Gaddafi [The Guardian (Nigeria), October 22, 2011, ibid].
As I indicated above, the responses among African leaders vary: some support the international involvement in Libya, while others oppose it. There is little, if any, doubt that political calculations and other narrow interests have guided many African leaders in their responses. Thus, it can be argued that many of those African rulers that support Gaddafi’s ouster do so to align themselves with the West and be in the West’s good books, to avoid the Gaddafi treatment, rather than because the rulers are siding with good against evil. However, I further submit that the other African leaders who are not celebrating are not doing so because, considering their lawlessness and misrule over their various countries, they fear that Gaddafi’s fate could befall them.
There is no question that the Libyan revolution and the killing of Gaddafi represent a lesson on what could take place in a country suffering from despotism or misrule [The Guardian (Nigeria), “Gaddafi’s Death, a Lesson to Corrupt Leaders, Says Braithwaite”, October 22, 2011; see also Tunji Braithwaite, “The Jurisprudence of the Living Oracles”, serialized in The Guardian (Nigeria), September 6-October 14, 2011]. In Africa, authoritarianism and misrule are easily identifiable. However, I will cite examples from Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria.
President Paul Biya of Cameroon has ruled the country for some thirty years. In the three decades, he has dominated the country’s politics and government despite his corrupt and incompetent leadership. He has changed the country’s constitution to allow him to seek re-election even though the constitution specified a term limit, which barred him from standing for re-election. Biya’s illegal manipulation of the Cameroonian constitution has been repeated or attempted in a number of other countries [see President Olusegun Obasanjo’s (Nigeria) 2006/2007 example (op cit.)]. Many Cameroonians as well as non-Cameroonian observers have strongly criticized Biya’s politics and government. In addition to the widespread condemnations of Biya’s series of “election” victories over the past thirty years as Cameroonian president, his regime is broadly regarded as grossly insensitive to the needs of average Cameroonians. In fact, he is known as “the absentee president” because of the amount of time he spends outside Cameroon, usually in France and other European countries. The average Cameroonian regards Biya as spending so much time outside Cameroon because Europe is where Biya has transferred the enormous wealth he and his associates stole from Cameroon. Despite his long and repeated absences from the country, Biya maintains a regime and security apparatus that is so repressive that it is able to crush challenges to his dictatorship, which masquerades as democracy. For thirty years, President Biya repressed Cameroonians. And, just a few weeks ago, he was “re-elected” for an additional term in office in another round of questionable elections.
President Teodoro Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea is in the same category as Gaddafi and Biya. Mbasogo has ruled Equatorial Guinea since 1979. As if his long stranglehold on the country is not enough, Mbasogo is widely regarded as incompetent and corrupt. And, like Gaddafi’s children, Mbasogo’s children wallow in undeserved riches and privileges, while ordinary Equatorial Guineans live in abject poverty and oppression [see Sahara Reporters, “With Gaddafi Gone, Sights Are Set on Kleptocrat President of Equatorial Guinea, Obiang and His Playboy Son”, October 25, 2011]. On his part, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has ruled his country from 1980 to the present. He has turned the once promising country into his personal estate, mismanaging the economy while suppressing dissent. Through their rules, Mbasogo and Mugabe have impoverished the overwhelming majority if their citizens while denying them of human rights.
Nigeria as a Unique Case: Arena of Lawless and Immoral Rulers
Then there is Nigeria. Relative to the other African countries cited in this article, Nigerians’ sufferings in the hands of their leaders are unique because unlike the other nations, Nigeria does not have a long-ruling dictatorship. Rather, since independence from Britain in 1960, each of the thirteen rulers Nigerians have endured spent about four years in office. Ordinarily, four years in office by a regime is not too long. However, other than duration of office, it is important to consider the accomplishments or otherwise of the leaders. It is on the issue of achievements that successive Nigerian leaders have failed woefully. They have misruled the country miserably, consistently catering to their selfish and other narrow interests at the expense of the generality of Nigerians.
Thus, Nigeria is included among the misruled African countries, not necessarily because of a leader’s longevity in office [General Yakubu Gowon (1966-1975) and General Ibrahim Babangida (1985-1993) may be exceptions], but because of massive and unrelenting treasury looting, unbridled corruption, stark selfishness, and other forms of impunity by the country’s rulers at the federal, state, and local government levels. The level of oppression and injustice that Nigerian government leaders have imposed on tens of millions of average citizens is unconscionable, unsustainable, and unacceptable. At the federal level, the president and his cabinet carry on as if they are not accountable to anyone but themselves. The state and local government leaders, being emboldened and assured by the federal example, equally operate without a care for the average Nigerian. Consequently, no government level works for Nigerians.
As an example, every year at the federal, state, and local levels of government in Nigeria, well-crafted income and expenditure figures are packaged and dumped in the public domain as “annual budgets”. The budgets publicize the immense income Nigeria derives, mainly from crude oil sales. Thus, each budget contains mindboggling monetary figures along with promises to solve the infrastructural and other critical problems facing Nigerians (electricity, security of life and property, education, healthcare, unemployment, good roads, potable water, etc., etc.). As quickly as they write and present each year’s budget, Nigerian leaders ignore their budget and do their main concern in government: stealing and accumulating as much public funds as possible for themselves, their families, and associates, and diverting the bulk of the stolen money to safe havens abroad. The money budgeted for infrastructural and other strategic development (capital expenditure) thereby disappears into private accounts. Oftentimes, the leaders steal even money set aside for recurrent expenditure, thus leading to incessant disruptions in paying the salaries of government employees.
It is important to emphasize that the Nigerian leaders’ irresponsible, dishonest, corrupt, and selfish handling of the country’s annual budgets is a tip of the iceberg of misrule in the country. Consider the issue of the compensation package for Nigerian government leaders. This provides another dimension to the massive official corruption in the country. Top government officials (especially the federal and state legislators, the president, governor, and their cabinet members, and the local government chairmen, councilors, and supervisory councilors) routinely concoct and pay to themselves crazy, undeserved, unconscionable, and unjustifiable salaries and allowances. The guidelines set by the country’s so-called Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation, and Fiscal Commission to prevent the illegal or indefensible “compensations” have not stopped the government leaders.
The destruction that these bloated salaries and allowances have visited on Nigerians and the country’s development led the Central Bank Governor, Lamido Sanusi, to sound the alarm that the legislators’ pays, which amount to twenty-five percent (25%) of the country’s overhead expenditure, cannot be sustained if the country is to develop. Sanusi stated thus: “If you look at the budget, the bulk of government’s revenue expenditure is on overhead, that is a big problem. Twenty-five percent of overhead of the Federal Government goes to the National Assembly. We need power, we need infrastructure so we need to start looking at the structure of expenditure and make it more consistent with the development initiative of the country” [Vanguard, December 2, 2010; Nairaland.com, November 29, 2010; Transparencyng.com, November 29, 2010]. Sanusi’s warning notwithstanding, it has remained business as usual at the federal, state, and local government levels across Nigeria.
Apart from Sanusi’s alarm, many other Nigerians have raised hell over the illegal and immoral conducts of the government leaders. One of the most prominent voices against the ruinous Nigerian leadership belongs to Chinua Achebe, the celebrated author of the novel Things Fall Apart. Achebe’s disgust with Nigerian leaders led him to reject a national award offered to him in 2004, by the then President Obasanjo’s government. In his rejection letter, Achebe identified lawlessness, corruption, impunity, and lack of accountability as fundamental errors of the government. Despite Achebe and other Nigerians’ criticisms and protests against government actions and omissions, President Obasanjo and the other leaders of his government as well as Presidents Umaru Yar’Adua and Goodluck Jonathan and the leaders of their successor governments have refused or failed to make credible changes to their destructive leadership of Nigeria. Thus, just yesterday (November 12, 2011), Achebe again rejected another national award offered to him by President Jonathan. This rejection, like that of 2004, is predicated on the state of affairs in Nigeria and the leaders’ misbehaviors. Achebe’s 2011 rejection letter tersely and conclusively states: “The reasons for rejecting the offer when it was first made have not been addressed let alone solved. It is inappropriate to offer it again to me. I must therefore regretfully decline the offer again” [Sahara Reporters, “Professor Achebe Rejects CFR Award Offer by President Jonathan”, November 12, 2011].
Summing Up
The circumstances in which Libyans found themselves under Gaddafi are incompatible with fundamental human rights and decency. With Gaddafi having foreclosed non-violent and less traumatic options for correcting the misrule they suffered, Libyans took up arms against him and his regime. The revolution culminated in his overthrow and execution on October 20, 2011. For decades, the governments of Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and some other countries have subjugated and abused their citizens and denied them of human rights. This is similar to what Libyans suffered under Gaddafi. Like Libyans, oppressed Nigerians, for example, certainly have the human right to rid their country of the oppressive rulers.
To achieve a just society based on the rule of law, honesty and accountability in leadership, Cameroonians, Equatorial Guineans, Zimbabweans, Nigerians, as well as Libyans, can decide how to permanently rid their countries of the heartless rulers. Thus, if as happened in Libya – and in various forms in Egypt and Tunisia – ordinary Nigerians assert their rights against the misrule imposed on them by Nigerian leaders, it would be fruitless and disingenuous to fault or question the citizens’ exercise of their right to self-determination. If in a revolutionary frenzy, the citizens who have suffered so much visit the Gaddafi treatment on the discredited rulers, who would be justified to second-guess the citizens?
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });