By Shahrazad Kablan.
Washington DC, 15 December 2012:
I was perplexed with so many conflicting emotions that engulfed me as I heard of . . .[restrict]the questioning of the former chairman of the National Transitional Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil by a Benghazi military prosecutor over possible involvement in the murder of the General Abdul Fatah Younis.
General Abdul Fatah Younis had served as head of the free forces during the revolution against the Qaddafi regime.
The Benghazi military court had accused Jalil of political irresponsibility, abuse of authority and endangering the unity of Libyans during the revolution.
While I respect and admire Mr Jalil for his cooperation to set an example of a new formed concept in Libya of no one being above the law, I think the process is inadequate and it is unfair to him and unfair to us because prosecutions cannot achieve justice in isolation while our legal system is in complete disarray.
Trials of leaders help strengthen the rule of law and send a strong signal that crimes against citizens will not be tolerated in a rights-respecting society. And while I am a firm believer in the rule of law, the importance of holding people accountable for their actions, and due process, I must confess that my frustration stems from the sudden haphazard approach and the absence of a platform to regulate all legal contentions under reformed laws and regulations.
While Libya and Libyans still surmount the odds, there is little room for rational dispute over the lack of transparency in the new institutions where secret congressional votes are being rendered and intelligence bodies acting without oversight of elected officials. This also applies to the integrity commission’s vetting of ministers and office seekers and rendering subjective insubstantial verdicts favoring former Qaddafi loyalists – while condemning others as unpatriotic.
Public institutions such as the police, military, and judiciary are often instruments of repression and systemic violations of human rights in failed states and under dictatorship regimes. A country in transition to democratic governance like Libya, needs extensive review and restructure to reform such institutions so that they respect human rights, preserve the rule of law, and be accountable to their constituents.
This needs to be done by incorporating a transitional justice element so reform efforts can both provide accountability for individual perpetrators and disable the structures that allow abuses to occur.
Libya lacks a functioning legal system and lacks the capacity to effectively address any crime. Libya is in dire need of restructuring institutions to promote integrity and legitimacy, provide accountability, build independence, ensure representation, and increase responsiveness in addition to transforming legal frameworks and adopting new constitutional platform to ensure protection and promotion of human rights.
Before we start arbitrary and cantankerous trials, we must pursue institutional reform as a transitional justice measure to acknowledge victims as citizens and to build trust between all citizens and their public institutions as Libya’s future character is dependent upon uplifting its legal and constitutional morality.
Nevertheless, if Libya is bound to hold any trials, I would advocate and demand for expediting the trials of the real perpetrators of crimes against the Libyan people, such as Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi.
Shahrazad Kablan is an Education Consultant and Human Rights Activist. She lives in Washington, DC with her husband and two children.
The views expressed in Opinion articles do not necessarily reflect those of the Libya Herald. [/restrict]
