In
addition to competing narratives, another interesting conundrum the TRRC is
constantly faced with is a series of interrelated demands made by some segments
of Gambian society. All too often, demands like truth before reconciliation,
justice before reconciliation, or truth and justice before reconciliation are
made on Gambian media circles. The absolute terms in which these demands are
tabled before the TRRC in the public domain suggest a linear process where one
thing must happen before another can, and that we must have truth and justice
before any talk of reconciliation. Truth, justice and reconciliation are
rendered mutually exclusive and isolated occurrences that must happen one after
another. Yet, as we hope to demonstrate below, a good measure of truth has been
generated by the TRRC and reconciliation cannot wait for justice because
justice as criminal prosecutions can only happen after the TRRC submits its
recommendations and ceases to exist.
There
is no denying the fact that a lot of the truth about human rights violations
that happened in The Gambian between July 1994 and January 2017 has been
unveiled through the TRRC’s public hearings. A good measure of the truth about
circumstances and specific details surrounding the July 22, 1994 coup and the
arrests, detentions and tortures of former PPP ministers has been unveiled.
Similarly, a lot of hitherto unknown truths about the November 11th incident,
including the burial site of at least seven of the victims, have been uncovered
by the TRRC. Ditto truths about the January 1995 arrests and detentions of Sadibou
Haidara and Sanna Sabally, the June 1995 murder of Ousman Koro Ceesay, and the
1996 Denton Bridge incident involving UDP supporters and security forces. Also,
we now know truths about the painful experiences of Gambian media and
journalists, including the murder of Deyda Hydara that we did not know before
the TRRC. Truths such as how Deyda was put under surveillance, closely
monitored, followed, and shot dead by agents of the state from a speeding car
are now public knowledge. We now even know who pulled the trigger. Truths about
the activities of the Junglers and what happened to people like Ndure Cham,
Haruna and Marcie Jammeh, and the 56 West African nationals, among others have
also been revealed by the Junglers themselves. More recently, the TRRC has
uncovered hitherto unknown truths about the experiences of the survivors of the
April 10 and 11, 2000 student demonstrations, and the victims and survivors of
sexual and gender-based violations.
Taken
together, the 114 witness testimonies Gambians have heard so far reveal several
truths about a regime under which due process and the rule of law were key
casualties. Thanks to the confessions of perpetrators and the harrowing stories
of victims, there is no denying the truth that during the period under review,
Gambians were arbitrarily arrested and detained, tortured, sexually abused, and
often extra judicially executed. There is no denying the truth emerging from
witness testimonies that such fundamental rights as the right to be charged or
arraigned before a court of law were unlawfully denied Gambians and that once
under detention, victims were subjected to some of the cruelest forms of
inhumane treatment mostly by their fellow Gambians. Along the same lines,
through the TRRC hearings Gambians now see the damaging extent to which
political power and office were personalized in this country.
In
the light of all of the above, we can clearly see that calls for truth before
reconciliation are a bit too unfair. Of course, some who make this demand are
perhaps referring to individual truths that must be told before victim –
perpetrator reconciliation can take place. And that is a perfectly legitimate
demand. Although some victims may choose to reconcile with their tormentors
even if their tormentors do not speak the whole truth, it is reasonable to
expect that most victims will never consider reconciling with a perpetrator as
long as the perpetrator refuses to tell them the specific truths they need to
have healing and closure. And that is a perfectly legitimate position to take.
What is problematic is that some who demand truth before reconciliation render
their statements in such categorical terms as to suggest that the TRRC must not
carry out any reconciliation work at all until the truth is known. But exactly
what truth remains rather vague in this formulation, because as we can see
above, a lot of very important truths have already been revealed through the
TRRC’s public hearings.
Equally
problematic is the justice before reconciliation or no reconciliation without
justice demand. This demand too, is rendered in absolute terms that suggest a
strictly linear process in which justice must happen before reconciliation. It
is clear that those who make this demand understand or choose to understand
justice mainly as the criminal prosecution of both alleged and confessed
perpetrators. For this reason, some elements of procedural justice (of which
criminal prosecution is a part) and other forms of justice such as social
justice, poetic justice, and restorative justice (among others) happening
within the TRRC process are ignored by those who demand that we must have
justice before reconciliation.
In
a very real sense, the public hearings of the TRRC engender certain forms of
social justice. The fact that victims have a public platform to confront their
individual tormentors or the state, name and shame alleged perpetrators and
perpetrators, freely tell their stories, express their outrage and demand
accountability feeds into the wider Gambian social justice discourse that
currently animates the public space. The TRRC has generated a conversation on
who we are as a people, what should be the right relations between state and
society, and between the individual and the state, why human rights violations
of such magnitude could happen in this country, and how we can best prevent a
recurrence of such violations or the emergence of dictatorship in The Gambia.
Equally important, both the Commission’s public hearings and outreach
activities have generated serious conversations around social justice issues
like gender, power relations, public service and social status in Gambian
society. Social justice as a concept of truthfulness and fairness in the
conduct of public affairs is thus very much a part of our transitional justice
process, thanks in no small measure to the work of the TRRC.
And
then there is poetic justice. True, the great majority of perpetrators and
alleged perpetrators are yet to be arrested and charged with criminal offenses
because in the context of the TRRC’s mandate, that can only happen after the
Commission submits its recommendations to the government. That takes nothing
away from the fact that alleged perpetrators and perpetrators are being called
upon to render public accounts of their involvement in human rights violations.
Hopefully no one imagines that sitting on the witness chair, in front of
television cameras, and before both national and international audiences and
being asked to come clean on your part in the unlawful arrests, detentions,
torture and killings of your fellow Gambians is an easy thing for the
perpetrators. Yes, some may be economical with the truth and some may utter
outright lies and denials of culpability. But all perpetrators are nevertheless
alive to the fact that the entire country and especially their spouses, their
children, their loved ones and their friends and relatives are all watching and
listening. That experience is probably not as bad as spending years in prison,
but it is nevertheless painful and humiliating, thus representing a form of
poetic justice, defined as “the fact of experiencing a fitting or deserved
retribution for one’s actions” or in more cultural terms, suffering the bitter
fruits of bad karma under the full glare of public scrutiny. Moreover, there is
no doubt that their spouses, children, relatives and in some cases parents also
suffer a great deal of pain and humiliation both during and after perpetrators’
and alleged perpetrators’ testimonies.
And
then there is the fact of restorative justice which, within the context of the
TRRC is happening in the form of ongoing support and interim reparations to
victims, or reparative justice, defined as “measures that seek to repair, in
some way, the harm done to victims as a result of human rights violations done
to them.” So far, at least 40 victims have been benefitting from both the
services of the Medical Board set up in November 2018 at the TRRC’s request, as
well as from psychosocial and other forms of support rendered through the
Commission’s interim reparations program. To illustrate, nine victims from the
April 2000 and April / May 2016 incidents are currently being considered for
overseas medical treatment. The TRRC obtained passports for eight of these
victims who did not possess them to facilitate their travel. This is in
addition to the fact that at least three young victims are now benefitting from
full scholarships to pursue their education. Three victims, including the head
of our Victim Support Unit and two survivors of the April 10 / 11, 2000 student
demonstrations are employed full time at the TRRC. The daughter of one victim
has been provided free space at the TRRC headquarters from where she runs a
canteen providing meals, drinks and other catering services for Commissioners,
staff and visitors to the Commission. These are just some of the ways in which
restorative justice is happening as a result of the TRRC’s work.
In
essence then, the justice before reconciliation demand tends to reduce the
entire TRRC process to the occurrence of retributive justice, the criminal
prosecution of perpetrators and alleged perpetrators. Yet, as is evident from
the Commission’s various victim support and outreach activities,
recommendations for criminal prosecutions are only one aspect of the
Commission’s work, however important. Moreover, criminal prosecution of alleged
perpetrators and confessed perpetrators can only happen after all the evidence
has been gathered and analyzed and recommendations submitted to the government.
And therein lies the problem with the justice before reconciliation demand. By
the time retributive justice is meted out to perpetrators, the TRRC would have
wrapped up its work and ceased to exist as an institution. Entertaining the
justice before reconciliation demand would therefore mean that the Commission
must entirely ignore and fail to execute the reconciliation aspect of its
mandate. Such an eventuality is, of course, inconceivable; and so the TRRC can
only assure those who make this demand that the Commission will, at the end of
its work, submit recommendations for the prosecution of those considered most
responsible for the human rights violations that occurred in this country
during its mandate period.
In
conclusion, it is fair to suggest that the TRRC has indeed revealed quite a
number of important and hitherto unknown truths through its public hearings.
There is also ample evidence that certain forms of justice are happening within
the process, especially poetic and restorative / reparative justice, and that
realistically, justice as criminal prosecutions can only happen after the end
of the TRRC mandate and cannot therefore warrant the suspension of the
Commission’s work on reconciliation.
