When President Michel Martelly was asked whether he would
pardon or prosecute those accused of committing crimes against the Haitian
people, he answered that he preferred pardoning offenders, but that he would
not meddle in the Haitian Justice System. Whether or not people who are renowned
for crimes against humanity are brought to trial in Haiti depends not only on
whether President Martelly grants them amnesty, but it also depends on whether Haiti is a signatory to international treaties
requiring that they be brought to justice.
It may be comforting to some that their fate is partly in the hands of
President Martelly, a person reported by the Miami Herald to be surrounded by
close associates of former brutal regimes. Putting past colleagues on trial may
present a conflict of interest for those associates.
Formal Haitian Justice is adapted from Roman Law but Traditional Haitian Justice is
rooted in Ginen custom stating that you reap what you sow. This is commonly
said as ou fè byen, ou wè byen. Ou fè mal,
ou wè mal. Si w fè mal, ta kou l ta, w ap peye sa kanmèm. This principle of justice is without a statute
of limitation and is embraced by the UN on matters of crimes against
humanity. Although, the offer of amnesty
departs from this time honored principle of justice rooted in Haitian culture,
there may be valid reasons to avoid putting some suspected criminals on
trial. International agencies concerned
with justice have brokered deals of amnesty for numerous criminals in exchange
for ending their grasp on power or to avoid additional deaths from their murdering
of would be witnesses. President Preval
has suggested that high profile suspects should be put on trial by the world
court because Haiti cannot protect witnesses from the wrath of their
sympathizers. In the interest of peace,
it may be advisable not to hold these trials in Haiti. President Martelly has voiced
opposition to these trials, but has not said if the avoidance of social turmoil
is his rational for wanting to circumvent them.
President Martelly’s proposed pardon of suspected criminals seems
to be rooted in the notion of “let bygones be bygones”. For this reason,
Martelly has mentioned granting amnesty, a term originating from the word
amnesia meaning to forget. Traditionally
in Haiti, forgetting the past is viewed as a vice and is termed manje manje bliye. To remain in line
with traditional notions of justice, one needs to remember the past and punish wrongdoers.
Punishment does not mean cruelty. It does
not even mean jail time. One possible punishment is the use of the
perpetrators’ wealth to compensate families harmed by their regimes. Another possible punishment is barring them
and their close associates from ever holding public office because people who previously
robbed the treasury should not be entrusted to be its custodian.
President Martelly has floated the term reconciliation with some suspected criminals, a term meaning to
once again have a harmonious relationship. The term reconciliation is appropriate for a couple who reunites after a
period of separation. It is not appropriate for the Haitian people who never
had a past consensual and harmonious relationship with those accused of
violating their rights. In some cases, the worst crimes committed in the country,
were committed by agents of former governments. The very people entrusted to
uphold the law, were its worst violators.
Should these criminals be granted a pardon, it should be done without
denial. It should be done in full recognition of the facts without inventing a
glorious past.
Immunity and amnesty for state sponsored crimes is not
without precedent. In 1994, at the
Governors Island’s Accord, the Haitian government in exile brokered a deal with
the US to grant amnesty to the de-facto government that was in place in Haiti. Today,
President Martelly’s proposed amnesty is in keeping with what presidents
generally do. Presidents like granting
amnesty to former leaders because they fear they may need the same ticket out
of jail should they be accused of violating the law. Despite various international agreements, the
international community has not always been a steadfast advocate for bringing
some reputed criminals to trial. The
international community has often facilitated granting amnesty to leaders by
way of exile into countries where they were never put on trial. For many of
these accused leaders, the real issue is not whether they will be given amnesty,
but rather will their amnesty continue.
Based on Haitian traditional notions of justice, amnesty is
inappropriate because we must know what occurred in our past in order to
redress wrongdoings. Pardons granted without
trials or without confessions are vacant. Should President Martelly want to
pardon suspected criminals, he must have them confess their crimes so that we
the public and the families of the victims can have knowledge of what happened.
Suspects can opt out of a pardon to
defend their honor in court. It may be more honorable to be cleared of
wrongdoings through the front door of the courthouse then to accept pardon from
charges through the backdoor.
Should suspected criminals be pardoned and allowed to live as
free citizens, then so be it. But, at a bare minimum, they should not be
allowed to participate in elected or nominated public office. Such an approach
would meet traditional Haitian standards of justice requiring that we not forget and that punishment be an indispensable component for redressing past
wrongs.
|
