Habre extradition bid sparks fiery debate

A bid to extradite former Chadian leader Hissene Habre from Senegal to Belgium on charges of torture and political killings has evoked sweeping questions about “African dignity," impunity, and the legitimacy of a world court. Human rights groups say extradition would afford a “lifeline” for victims, while those opposing the handover say the move would be “fatal” for Africa. And both sides say the case has vast implications far beyond just Chad and Senegal, where Habre has lived in exile since 1990. A Senegalese court is due to rule on Friday on whether to uphold the arrest and extradition warrant issued by a Belgian court in September. Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade, who will have the final say if the court approves extradition, has seen increasing pressure from both camps, including from current Chadian president Idriss Deby on Thursday. Deby told reporters in Brussels, where he was meeting with European Union officials, “As there is an extradition request for Hissene Habre in Belgium, we call on [Wade] to make him available as calmly as possible, so that he can be judged.” Habre is accused of masterminding at least 40,000 political killings and mass torture during his rule from 1982 to 1990. But for many, delivering Habre to the European country is a slap in the face to Africans, a slide back into colonial times and a mark of double standards in place on the world scene. An affront to African dignity For opponents of extradition, handing Habre over to a Belgian court would trash “African dignity.” “To extradite Hissene Habre to a foreign country to be judged is a negation of African dignity that no one can endorse whatever the pretext,” Babacar Kebe, president of the Senegalese United Nations Association, said in a communique. A group calling itself “Youths for Freedom” said in a statement this week: “Africa must not turn backwards after everything this dark continent has lived through with these very Europeans who were the colonisers….It is the history of an entire people that is at stake and it would be fatal for Senegal to accept handing over this person who chose our country [to live].” Youths distributed copies of the statement to the crowd waiting outside a courtroom on Tuesday, when judges were originally scheduled to rule. But plaintiffs and human rights groups counter that a refusal to extradite and judge Habre completely nullifies any concept of “African dignity.” “We cannot even talk about an ‘African dignity’ as long as not a single African leader has lifted a finger to judge Hissene Habre,” said Jacqueline Moudeina, lawyer for Chadian torture victims and head of a Chadian rights association. “When people talk about ‘African dignity,’ it’s as if this dignity must supersede the suffering of the victims….If we want to talk about true African dignity, let’s start by judging Hissene Habre in Belgium.” Moudeina, who still has shrapnel in her body from a 2001 grenade attack allegedly orchestrated by a Habre agent, said Chadians cannot even imagine that the extradition bid would be refused. “Such a refusal would be a synonym for impunity.” Viviane Denadji, a housewife in Chad, told IRIN in the capital, N’djamena, “Senegal must extradite Hissene Habre. He killed a lot of people in front of their families.” She said that on Tuesday in N’djamena market, vendors had gathered around their radios waiting to hear the verdict. Mahamat Senoussi, a civil servant, said, “Senegal would gain by extraditing Habre; it would be a historic act. And it would be an act of reparation that would help Chad’s people reunite.” Why Belgium? El Hadj Diouf, one of Habre’s lawyers, meanwhile told reporters that he questioned the “universal competence” of the Belgian court in the Habre case, saying the court has not handled “a single significant case” up to now. He cited unsettled claims against other leaders including Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and US President George Bush. Chadians living in Belgium filed the case against Habre in 2001, after a Senegalese court said it could not judge the ex-president there. The plaintiffs are pursuing the ex-leader under Belgium’s “universal jurisdiction” principle, which allows for prosecution for crimes against humanity committed anywhere in the world. The law was repealed in 2003, but the Habre case continued because an investigation had already begun and the Chadian plaintiffs were Belgian citizens, according to Human Rights Watch. Cases have been filed in Belgium against a host of leaders and ex-leaders, including Sharon, ousted Mauritanian leader Maaouya Ould Taya, former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Rwandan President Paul Kagame, Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo and ex-Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet. A number of the cases were dropped because international law holds that sitting officials cannot be prosecuted. In the case of former leaders, the government where the person was head of state can revoke immunity, which Chad did in the case of Habre in 2002. Many who oppose extradition query why Belgium should be the forum for the Habre case, some arguing that the country has no historical ties with Chad or Senegal and moreover has its own cloudy colonialist past. Moussa Seye, a vendor in Dakar, alleged double standards. “It would not be right to deport him to Belgium,” he told IRIN. “The Belgians themselves do not respect human rights. They can’t judge him.” But rights activists say it is Chadian citizens of Belgium who are going after Habre. Belgium - because of its unique universal jurisdiction law - just happens to be the stage. Chadian human rights lawyer Moudeina said plaintiffs are not turning to Belgium the country - they are seeking justice where they can find it and that no African country would take on the Habre case. “Had justice been done in Chad, we would not have had to turn to Senegal. Had justice been done in Senegal, we would not have turned to Belgium,” she told reporters on Wednesday. “We are on a quest for justice.” But another Chadian civil servant, Amos Milengar, said it’s not Europe that should bring Habre to justice. “It’s not the west that freed Chad from its dictatorship so it must not expect to judge a criminal it helped to create. It would be morally wrong.” Human Rights Watch lawyer Reed Brody told reporters on Wednesday that the position of some Africans against extradition does not add up. “They stake their position on ‘anti-imperialism,’ but the reality is that Habre was brought to power by the [US] Central Intelligence Agency.”