Home > Saddam: Folly of a Trial
by Emeka Omeihe, Lagos
FOR a couple of reasons, last week’s arraignment of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was bound to generate considerable public interest around the globe.
Not only did it mark the first time Saddam would be sighted since his capture by the invaders, it was also to afford the opportunity for another assessment of that character especially given the cheap way he was captured and humiliated. There was also the expectation that Saddam could capitalise on that opportunity to swell public sympathy to his side especially given that since his arrest, opposition against the United States and British forces has continued to mount. This has tended to reinforce the feeling in some quarters that contrary to what President George Bush and his allies would want us to believe, Saddam may indeed be popular and loved by his people. There is also its corollary that the Iraqis have serious disdain for the occupying forces.
Moreover, given that the claims on which the U.S. based its illegal invasion of that country have been found to be spurious, one is at a loss to fathom the rationale for the trial of Saddam Hussein. The matter is not helped by revelations of the embarrassing human rights abuses that have hallmarked the U.S. invasion of that country.
With the foregoing background, it was only natural that Saddam’s arraignment was bound to generate considerable public interest across the globe. The character of Saddam himself was also another issue.
Thus, when he appeared before an Iraqi court put in place by the U.S., Saddam did not betray these expectations. As defiant as ever, he asserted in answer to a question that he remained the President of Iraq, that George Bush is the real criminal and the whole process was a theatre. Saddam also questioned the law under which he was being tried as well as the competence of the judge before whom he appeared. He also refused to endorse the court papers until he had consulted with his lawyers.
Saddam further ridiculed the trial judge when he asked him when he obtained his law certificate and since when has he been recognised as a judge, before the occupation of Iraq or afterwards. To which the judge replied, "since the days of the previous regime until now" and that the former U.S.-led occupation administration had asked him to hold the trial. Saddam laughed and said, "You are trying me by order of the invasion forces." Some of the charges against Saddam included the use of chemical weapons to kill the Kurds, killing and torturing of Iraqis and the invasion of Kuwait.
The above scenario, seemed to have set the stage for the controversy that is bound to trail the arraignment and trial of Saddam Hussein. It is a harbinger of what is to follow, and the moral dilemma those who seek to try him are bound to face when the actual trial starts.
Saddam himself appeared to have kicked off that controversy through his various statements at his first appearance. By referring to himself as the President of the Republic of Iraq, he appeared to have alluded to the lack of justification in the invasion and deposition of the legitimate government of a country by invading forces hiding under very unclear and spurious allegations. He seemed to have cast serious doubt on the legitimacy of the action of the U.S. in the first instance. That also should be the interpretation of his other statement that Bush is the real criminal describing the trial as mere theatrics. Saddam also touched on the contradiction in trying him under a spurious law imposed by occupying forces that have no legitimacy for their action. He could not understand why he should be treated the way he is currently being handled when those who invaded Iraq under false claims, destroyed that country, looted its oil resources and de-humanized its citizens are prescribing moral standards which they have breached with brazen impunity.
For instance, the allegations which the occupying forces have against Saddam were bound to pale into insignificance when compared with the killings and destructions as well as the scandalous human rights abuses that have characterized that occupation. Saddam seemed to be asking why George Bush should not be arrested to account for the illegal occupation of Iraq even when the evidence used for that invasion has been proved to simulated to achieve pre-determined goals. That is the moral dilemma Saddam would seek to play up in his current predicament. And he is bound to attract considerable support in this regard.
The question that seems to crop up from the above scenario is how these charges are related to the initial claims on which basis the U.S. invaded Iraq despite disapproval by the international community. And when have human rights abuses, the alleged killing of citizens by rulers and the invasion of the territorial integrity of another country become the justification for a foreign government to also invade another? And what was the relationship between these charges against Saddam, and the initial allegations on which the U.S. invaded that country, killing and maiming defenceless citizens and rendering once a prosperous people refugees and destitutes. The answer to these posers is that they have nothing to do with the initial reasons that were offered for which America bluntly refused to heed the pleas of the world to allow the United Nations sort out whatever problems that Iraq purportedly posed to world peace. Even the various inspection reports which evidently showed that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in that country were discountenanced because Bush had made up his mind on what to do. They did not impress him because he was set on a vengeance mission and all manners of allegations have to be floated to justify a pre-determined goal.
Today, it has become very clear, that Bush had other motives other than to stave off the alleged imminent danger which Iraq posed to the American citizens who must at any rate be protected even if it involves the extermination of citizens of other countries. These are some of the contradictions.
But more fundamentally, the question that has been thrown up by the trial is the propriety in America setting up a court to try Saddam and how fair that trial will be. The argument is that George Bush violated the territorial integrity of Iraq by invading and destroying it, killing citizens and rendering its economy prostrate. Bush rendered once a prosperous country prostrate and occupied it by force. Bush has personal grouse against Saddam and may have been propelled by the desire to redeem the humiliation, his father suffered in the Gulf War of the 1990’s. He may indeed have been propelled by vegeance to attack Iraq and dislodge Saddam Hussein. Is it fair for the same Bush to set up a court, supervise over it and we expect Saddam to get fair hearing. Is it not a cardinal principle of law that an accuser, cannot be a judge in his own case? This is the moral question the trial of Saddam barely three days after the U.S. purportedly transferred power to a stooge in Iraq is bound to raise. Since the invasion was purported to be an international endeavour, the appropriate thing would have been to hand over Saddam to the UN and have him tried under established international law. Saddam may have had this in mind when he queried the law under which he was being tried. The point that must be made here is that the U.S. has no justification for prescribing the standards under which Saddam would be tried. It is an aggressor, and accuser and as such cannot be a judge in its own case. The trial judge let the cat off the bag when he admitted he was told by the invading forces to conduct the trial. And he may also have been appointed by them since Saddam doubted his certificate. If he was appointed by them, Saddam cannot get fair trial. It has been suggested that the new leadership may re-introduce death penalty. In which case Saddam could as well face such a capital punishment. But it will really show the character of the U.S. if that came to be. The fact of the matter is that Saddam is not that evil that Bush has made him to be. He is not hated by the Iraqis as events have since shown.
At any rate, if there are any shortcomings which his regime represented, the showings of the U.S. have not proved any better. The U.S. hurriedly staged, a show of hand-over but nothing has really changed.
What we expect is a real transfer of power to the Iraqis through a free and fair election that should be mid-wifed by the U.N. The current trial of Saddam lacks credibility and cannot satisfy the true test of justice.