By Binneh Minteh
April 10th and 11th 2000 has crystallized awareness. The brutal and inhumane nature of this event is a crucial milestone for generations in the annals of Gambian history. Its significance makes it an active subject of international concern requiring action for justice. Events on that sad day served as catalyst to uncovering the inhumane nature of the government that ordered such atrocities to be committed against innocent school children. The systematic murder of such children by trigger happy soldiers manifests a case of insensitive brutality.
It has since then remained a cause for concern to Gambians and friends of the Gambia. Actions of the government against unarmed children, was both shameful and high level cowardice. With all the opportunities open to the state operatives, nothing was done to contain the situation before it escalated to a point where innocent children were brutally murdered.
Massacring one’s own citizens simply is against established international norms, constituting an offence under international law. Government of the Gambia is therefore liable under both national and international law for the treatment of its citizens particularly in the case of those slain students. Jack Donnelley argues:
“Even traditional “realist” diplomacy which defined the national interest in terms of state power, could find no national interest that is threatened by the barbarous treatment of innocent civilians.”
Until today, Gambian communities across the civilized world are confronted with this horror. However as the Gambia government continues to pay lip service and a disregard to human rights, Gambians are left with no choice, but moral outrage. Shocking as the atrocities of April 10th and 11th the international community and Gambians in particular are fully equipped with the legal and political instruments to ensure that perpetrators of such heinous crime face the wrath of law.
It was the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (1945-1946) that introduced a novel charge of crimes against humanity. For the first time in history, officials were held legally responsible and accountable to the civilized world for offenses against individual citizens, not states and individuals who mostly were nationals. This was the backbone of individual criminal responsibility. The use of excessive force against our innocent school children is one such human rights abuse that has contributed in a total destruction of our great societal fabrics. On the sad days of April 10th and 11th 2000 over 12 unarmed Gambian students exercising their rights were shot to death by members of the security forces acting upon orders.
The good questions: Who gave the orders? Who executes those orders? What warranted the use of excessive force in a student demonstration? Who were tortured and who were shot death? continues to be the premises of a heated debate of our times
In response to the above questions, what is certain is that “The recognition in international law of the offences of war crimes, genocide, and the crime against humanity makes clear that acquiescence to the command of national leaders will not be considered sufficient grounds for absolving individual guilt in these cases (Held et al).
This foundation was laid at the International Tribunal at Nuremberg; the backbone of individual criminal responsibility and who ever must have given the orders to use weapons against unarmed students together with those that carried out the orders during the April 10th and 11th Student demonstrations could be held fully accountable and responsible. Even whereas the order given to shoot at unarmed students was a state law, it could be legally argued that such a state law would contravene universal human values, norms and ethics. International tribunals have further strengthened such validity. For example the international legal scholar Cassese argues that:
“The Nuremberg tribunals after the Second World War laid down for the first
time in history, that when international rules that protect basic humanitarian
valuesare in conflict with state laws, every individual must transgress the state
laws (except where there is no room for “moral choice”, i.e., when a gun is
held to someone’s head.”
It could therefore be legally argued that in the case of April 10th and 12th 2000 student demonstrations, military and police commanders on the ground acted with their own moral choice as they fully trained with techniques and tactics of containing riots and demonstrations and there were no guns held to their heads at the time.
Even today, modern international and national courts continue to affirm rejection of both the defense of obedience to superior orders and official position in cases of crimes against peace and humanity. As noted by Dinstein:
“Since the Nuremberg Trials, it has been acknowledged that war criminals
and criminals of crimes against humanity cannot relieve themselves of
criminal responsibility by citing official position or superior orders. Even obedience to explicit national legislation provides no protection against
international law”
It is such a legal wrangling that Gambian authorities are faced with as the brutal murder of unarmed innocent students contravenes both the Gambian constitution and international law. It could also be further argued that even whereas the Gambia did not ratify the Rome Statue until after the year 2000, the jus-cogen nature of the atrocities committed on April 10th and 11th 2000 could hold individuals responsible for crimes against humanity. There is no doubt that some may be enjoying Jurisdictional immunity but International law has further strengthened that “Jurisdictional immunity is nor deterrence from criminal responsibility”. From both a national and an international legal framework one could therefore argue that those who gave orders, and those who carried out orders to fire AK 47 assault rifles on innocent unarmed school children, could be held accountable before a tribunal of competent jurisdiction.
The term human rights are the rights that one has because one is human. Such a universal norm and value must be upheld by all irrespective of social status or part of public and private organizations. If we all have human rights because we are human, then human rights must be respected and not violated. Human rights cannot be renounced as happened on April 10th and 11th 2000 student demonstrations.
It was the inalienable rights of those unarmed students that were violated. Right may also refer to the right thing to do. For example one could say that it is right to tell the truth and wrong to lie or steal, the focus however is the righteousness of a required action and the duty-bearers responsibility and obligation to do what is right. My heart felt condolences to the family and friends of all the students who were murdered by trigger-happy soldiers on the sad day of April 10th and 11th 2000.
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot retain it." (Abraham Lincoln)
Photo: Gambian school children.
Comments