For those of us who have always been sceptical about the intentions of the military in Guinea ever since Captain Dadis Camara unconstitutionally took power last December, the recent carnage in Conakry where troops shot dead scores of innocent civilian protesters came as no surprise. I have always argued that Camara and his cohort should not be trusted. When he grabbed power after the death of President Lansana Conte, the current military strongman made platitudinous statements that threw many off guard – including the African Union (AU) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). “The Armed Forces have decided to put an end to disorder, restore authority of the state, fight against corruption to reinforce democracy and fight against poverty,” he said.
This statement must have been the one that clouded the judgment of the AU and ECOWAS because even though these two bodies immediately suspended Guinea after the coup, they agreed to work with the regime to return the country to civilian rule. That was a mistake. As I said, from the beginning the soldiers had no intention of handing over to a civilian regime. They were going to perpetuate themselves in power, I argued. And true to form, Camara said he was going to contest the presidential election in 2010. This was what gave rise to last month’s demonstration that led to the shootings.
Everyone was wrong-footed by Camara and his gang when they took over. Guinean civil society groups and even political parties gave their support to the coup-makers when they should have exercised strong resistance to the unconstitutional change of government. The West Africa Early Warning and Early Response Network noted: “By harping on the issues that the people want to hear, the junta succeeded in winning the masses [over] to [its] side.”
How could Guineans have been so easily fooled? The military has never been on the side of the people. The soldiers were the enforcers for Conte when he was alive. They never had any compunction in shooting at and killing protesters who were tired of Conte’s dictatorial regime.
The sad thing is that Guinea has been a country where the authorities regularly act with impunity and they have always contrived to get away with it. There has been too much pussyfooting when it comes to dealing with the authoritarian nature of life in Guinea. This was the point made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, who said she was appalled by reports that women were raped, and members of the opposition were arbitrarily arrested and had their homes looted during the violent suppression of the mass demonstration. She said “the blood bath must not become part of the fabric of impunity that has enveloped Guinea for decades”.
She is wise to the nasty ways of the Guinean authorities who, in the past, have usually promised to carry out inquiries into shooting occurrences only to fudge the outcome. Indeed, Pillay particularly noted the specific human rights violations that were carried out by the government in June 2006 and February 2007 and nothing came out of the official inquiries.
“An independent Commission of Inquiry was established to look into those events,” she said, “but, due to a lack of political will, it never functioned. Its failure to do so could well be a factor in Monday’s violence and it is essential Guinea does not repeat this failure.”
One can understand why she has now called for independent and impartial investigations into all human rights violations, “so that all those responsible for carrying out summary executions, rapes and other human rights violations are brought to justice”.
So what is at stake here now is the credibility of the AU and ECOWAS. The lack of political will, which Pillay mentioned in the case of Guinea, is also a major fault inherent in these two organisations and that is why the continent still has leaders who could not care less about the way they treat their citizens. Given Guinea’s track record on human rights, the AU and ECOWAS should have taken a more robust stance against Camara last December for failing to allow the constitutional process to take its natural course. This called for the president of the national assembly to assume power after Conte’s death and to allow elections to take place 60 days later. So, in not letting this happen, Camara was in contravention of the AU declaration that frowns against unconstitutional changes of government.
This was enshrined in the Declaration on the Framework for an OAU Response to Unconstitutional Changes of Government that was adopted by African leaders during their summit – then under the aegis of the OAU – in Lome in July 2000. It listed four main areas under which unconstitutional changes of government may occur: military coup d’état against a democratically elected government; intervention by mercenaries to replace a democratically elected government; replacement of democratically elected governments by armed dissident groups and rebel movements; and the refusal by an incumbent government to relinquish power to the winning political party after free, fair and regular elections.
ECOWAS’ additional Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance of 2001 also condemns the action of Camara. However, he appears to be thumbing his nose at the AU and ECOWAS. Camara and his military colleagues have finally shown their true colour.
Guineans have never really had a free hand in electing their leaders since independence in 1958. Sekou Toure ruled with an iron fist for 26 years before he was replaced, by Conte, a soldier who grabbed power on Toure’s death and who equally ran Guinea just as his predecessor. Camara has followed suit, and going by trend in that unfortunate country, we could expect more of the same tyranny.
This is why it is now up to the AU and ECOWAS to respond decisively to the current turmoil in order to save Guineans from another 25 years of terror. If they don’t act, we should expect a massive upheaval in the country, which would lead to another sustained period of instability in the region. Is that what Africa wants right now?
Desmond Davies is Editor of African Prospects, a monthly digital magazine.
By Desmond Davies
ADVERTISEMENT