Harare — Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf has proved her credentials as a doer rather than a prevaricating rhetorician by acting swiftly to facilitate the extradition and arraignment of Charles Taylor for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

By taking this decision and acting on it, Johnson-Sirleaf becomes the first African leader to adopt a principled stance in confronting abuses and atrocities committed by a predecessor in an independent country.

Nelson Mandela was equally focused about what needed to be done when he set up the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1995 to deal with atrocities and human rights abuses perpetrated under apartheid and during the black people's protracted struggle against the brutal system.

However, none of the other male leaders who have served as heads of state of different African countries in the last almost 50 years has adopted this bold approach although there has been no shortage of post-independence presidents or "emperors" guilty of presiding over brutal tyrannies during which millions perished, disappeared, were maimed, displaced or succumbed to famine caused by state dereliction of responsibility.

Some of the most notorious "butchers" of Africa who either died with blood on their hands or are living on the run include Idi Amin of Uganda, Jean Bedel Bokassa of the short-lived Central African "Empire", assorted Nigerian rulers, Hissene Habre of Chad and Haile Mengistu Mariam of Ethiopia.

Predictably, Johnson-Sirleaf's decisive approach in bringing Taylor to justice has attracted criticism from some quarters and inspired conspiracy theories in others.

Some critics have accused the Liberian president of acting too hastily and pandering to the wishes of Western powers, particularly the United States.

According to some of those aggrieved by the latest developments, the Taylor saga should have been regarded as an African issue to be tackled by Africans themselves.

By requesting Taylor's extradition from asylum in Nigeria, Johnson-Sirleaf has been accused of selling her predecessor out.

Meanwhile, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, Taylor's host since 2003, has been accused of betraying him by agreeing to his extradition.

The reservations expressed by these commentators need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

The civil wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone, where Taylor fuelled atrocities by providing the Revolutionary United Front rebels with guns in exchange for diamonds, lasted for more than 14 years.

Adding to this the three years the former Liberian warlord spent in exile in Nigeria means the leaders of Africa have been aware of the Taylor issue for 17 years.

In all that time all that the African leaders and the Organisation of African Unity, (OAU), the forerunner of the African Union (AU), demonstrated was their impotence and preparedness to look the other way.

Indeed, one of the OAU's main guiding principles was non-interference in the internal affairs of member states, which in practice was a barely concealed pact for incumbents to ignore, or even support, each other's abuses of power and violations of human rights.

For anyone to now argue that there has been undue haste in tackling the Taylor saga and that it should have been solved the "African way" is simply to refuse to accept realities.

The African way has so far involved inertia, subterfuge and outright complicity with and protection of tyrants. And despite the introduction of the Peer Review mechanism under the New Economic Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), it is yet to be seen how many of the known despots and violators of human rights in power today will welcome scrutiny and accept the findings and recommendations made under this dispensation.

At the rate at which decisions have been made within the AU in the past, the world would have had to wait a very long time for action on Taylor.

On the other hand, it cannot be argued that the latest developments in Taylor's fate have not been based on decisions made by Africans.

The United Nations-backed special court in Sierra Leone that took custody of the former Liberian president after his arrest while trying to escape is an African institution. Johnson-Sirleaf is an African head of state who has every right to act according to the dictates of her conscience and in the interests of her own people and those of Sierra Leone.

Allegations have been made that her hand was forced and she curved in because of the need for funds to rebuild her shattered country, which would have been withheld if she had refused to play ball in tackling the Taylor issue.

Whether these claims are true or not is neither here nor there. In any event, that development would have been a cause for concern only if this first elected female leader of an African country had been pushed to commit a terrible atrocity. If any pressure was exerted on her, at least she was nudged towards doing the right thing.

Accepting incentives for good governance and the upholding of human rights is nothing new or shady, considering that this is the basis of the cooperation between Africa and the West vis-à-vis NEPAD.

In discussing the handling of the Taylor problem, some critics have allowed their blind anti-Americanism to colour their judgment. Some newspaper commentators have suggested that Taylor should not have been brought to justice in the manner he has because he was a product of America and that, by implication, the United States had made him perpetrate the unspeakable atrocities he is accused of.

What these supporters of the former Liberian leader are suggesting is that it is alright to disregard the anguish and suffering of those who were killed, maimed, raped and displaced under the tyranny that Taylor is accused of orchestrating so as to fix America!

That in itself would be a crime against humanity. Thank God for Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, who has shown her male peers across Africa how to do what is right regardless of how difficult is it to take such stance.