Ambassador Lewis Garseedah Brown II, a seasoned diplomat with a proven track record at the United Nations, has been reappointed as Liberia’s Permanent Representative. His previous tenure, marked by successful negotiations for UNMIL’s mandate extension and Liberia’s election to chair a General Assembly committee, underscores his qualifications for the role, particularly as Liberia seeks a non-permanent Security Council seat. Despite this, Brown faces accusations related to his past, ranging from “war criminal” to “war profiteer.” These accusations, primarily centered around his inclusion in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Final Report for alleged economic crimes, are being leveraged by some advocating for a war crimes court in Liberia. However, a closer examination reveals significant inconsistencies and flaws in these allegations.
The accusations against Brown are primarily based on his inclusion in the TRC Final Report. This document lists him among individuals recommended for further investigation for economic crimes related to the Liberian Petroleum Refining Corporation (LPRC). Ironically, the report itself contains no specific accusations against Brown, nor does it detail any evidence linking him to wrongdoing. His name appears solely within a list, a fact that raises serious concerns about due process and the integrity of the TRC’s process. Furthermore, the report details alleged financial irregularities at LPRC between 2003 and 2006, a period when Brown was no longer the Managing Director. His tenure at LPRC ended in 1999, and subsequent administrations of the corporation have even recognized his positive contributions.
The assertion that Brown’s appointment undermines Liberia’s efforts to establish a war crimes court is equally tenuous. No international body has questioned Liberia’s choice of representative, nor would it be appropriate for other nations to interfere in such a sovereign decision. Moreover, the call for Brown’s preemptive punishment based on an unsubstantiated listing in the TRC report contradicts fundamental principles of justice, including the presumption of innocence. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Liberian Constitution both guarantee this right, and it is essential that these principles are upheld, especially in the context of seeking international support for a war crimes court.
The TRC’s flawed methodology further weakens the case against Brown. The report itself has been criticized for lacking detailed evidence supporting its recommendations and for a perceived rush to meet deadlines. The Liberian Supreme Court has even declared certain punitive recommendations of the TRC unconstitutional, highlighting the legal complexities surrounding the report’s findings. The claim that Brown failed to respond to the TRC’s inquiries is also disputed, as evidence suggests he testified before the commission, further muddying the waters of these accusations. The lack of transparency and due process in the TRC’s handling of Brown’s case underscores the need for a rigorous and impartial judicial process, rather than relying on unsubstantiated allegations.
The attempts to label Brown a “war criminal” or “war profiteer” are equally baseless. These accusations are often made without specific allegations of wrongdoing, relying instead on guilt by association due to his past work for former President Charles Taylor. Such an approach not only disregards the presumption of innocence but also echoes the dangerous practice of guilt by association prevalent during Liberia’s war years. Justice requires specific accusations, evidence, and due process, none of which are present in the current campaign against Brown.
In conclusion, the accusations against Ambassador Brown appear to be a politically motivated smear campaign, lacking in substance and due process. They are based on a flawed TRC report, contradict fundamental legal principles, and rely on guilt by association. The focus should be on supporting the establishment of a legitimate war crimes court that adheres to international legal standards, rather than engaging in preemptive punishments based on unfounded allegations. The pursuit of justice must be conducted through just means, and that includes respecting the presumption of innocence and ensuring due process for all individuals, including Ambassador Brown.
