The controversies raised by TRC's "Final Unedited Report" has kept many Liberian communities on edge with family members and friends inadvertently finding themselves on the opposing sides of what many predict will be Liberia's new basis for division, unless caution and prudence are exercised by stakeholders.

Overall, notwithstanding the community hubbub, there had been a loud silence on the matter from Liberia's political and civic institutions.

Now, they are coming from the cold - from the Liberty Party's (LP's) cautious "initial statement" this week, the Liberia Action Party (LAP) is braving the storm, venturing where many political heavy-weights dare not go. "But what is it saying?" seems to be the lead question.

The Analyst Managing Editor, Stanley Seakor who attended the party's Press Conference yesterday has been finding out just that.

LAP Standard-Bearer Cllr. Varney Sherman says he stands ready to defend President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf at the Supreme Court if that is what it will take to guarantee her participation in the ensuing 2011 presidential elections.

He described the Liberian leader as "my political partner" and noted he would be compelled to petition the Supreme Court to overturn any decision that will seek to prevent her from partaking in politics for 30 years as being recommended by the final but unedited report of the TRC.

The former presidential contender of a coalition of political parties in the 2005 presidential and general elections made the vow in an "Initial Reaction to the Final Report of the Truth & Reconciliation Commission" he released to the press yesterday.

Threat of Legal Redress and Confidence in Pres. Sirleaf

"In my estimation, the Supreme Court will certainly be very busy with constitutional challenges to this recommendation should the National Legislature make any attempt to implement it. And I can assure you that you will find me standing tall in the Supreme Court, in defense of President Sirleaf, my political partner, if that day ever comes," Cllr. Sherman said in the statement. He said he would go to this extent to defend the Liberian leader not only because she was his political partner, but also that his confidence in her integrity, capacity, ability, commitment and performance as president has not been shaken by the TRC's Final Report.

He gave no details, but he noted: "my assessment of President Sirleaf's love for our common patrimony and her ardent desire to contribute to its development and the development and security of its people, using all her energies and resources, as demonstrated through 3½ years of her stewardship of this country, continue to carry very high marks, which nothing in the TRC's Report affects."

He traced his relationship with the President to the early 1980s and revealed that occasional political differences between them have not strained that relationship but that it has rather been rekindled at an even more trusting and more highly committed level.

"I am confident that it will grow even stronger as the years go by. So the TRC's Final Report is a non-issue insofar as our personal relationship is concerned," he said.

He said this was why he would not sit idly by and watch the political career of President Sirleaf, and others summarily accused and charged by the report, go down the drain. The foremost legal practitioner said unless conscientious Liberians objectively analyze the TRC report, point out the numerous flaws that dot its determinations and recommendation, and help point the way forward, the Liberian peace process would be in jeopardy.

The report: fatally flawed, more divisive than conciliatory, and inconstant with law, TRC mandate, and the will of the people

"It is my considered opinion, both as a matter of law and political considerations, that this recommendation [for political banishment for 30 years] of the Final Report is fatally flawed and lacks any legal or political efficacy," he said. According to him, President Sirleaf concession that she supported the NPFL financially from its initial stage did not make her or any supporter of the civil upheaval liable for political exclusion.

More than anything else, he said, that was because the laws of Liberia forbid legal punitive action for an act alleged to had been committed by a suspected offender prior to coming into force of a law making that act criminal or a violation. That aside, he said, the issue of political exclusion of so-called war financiers and supporters was raised several times at peace negotiations over the last 15 years and that it was defeated each time it came up.

"The first major indisputable evidence of these overwhelming decisions is when the heads of the warring factions became members of the governing council (LNTG II) headed by the late Professor Wilton Sankawolo and LNTG III headed by Madam Ruth Sando Perry," he said. According to him, the issue of whether persons who participated in the civil war, protagonist or supporters, should participate in the political governance of Liberia was squarely presented to the Liberian people themselves at the July 1997 special elections and the 2005 presidential and legislative elections.

"The people overwhelmingly endorsed their participation when they elected former President Charles Taylor as the President of Liberia and President Sirleaf then carried the second highest number of votes," he said, noting that the Liberian made the second decision against political exclusion when they elected President Sirleaf in 2005. These polls determinations by the Liberian people, he said, were sufficient notification to the world that political exclusion would not heal and bridge the Liberia society, but that it will further polarize it and deepen the ethnic and class wounds.

"THE LIBERIAN PEOPLE HAVE DECIDED, NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE; the TRC's Final Report cannot set aside the Liberian people's verdict. Political power is vested in the Liberian people, not the TRC; and the Liberian people have exercised that power by deciding that those who supported warring factions may participate in the political governance of Liberia," Cllr. Sherman emphasized.

Due to its disregard for the people's opinions, he said, the report's recommendation for political exclusion is best described as political mischief, noting that it was fair to refrain from branding it "seditious or treasonous" because it was unlikely to have any effect on the political process.

Another basis for calling the report flawed, he said, was its disregard for the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA), the spirit of which he said, was not punitive sanction for so-called wrongdoers, but pardoning and the healing of the unprovoked wounds inflicted by misguided individuals on poor and innocent Liberians.

"While I do not and will never condone human rights violation or the violation of international humanitarian law, or any law for that matter, I have no doubt that genuine healing and reconciliation of the Liberian people is not fostered by a recommendation that their elected President be barred from holding appointive and elective office in Liberia," he clarified. He then described the recommendation as "more divisive than reconciliatory", noting that it also was "clearly inconsistent with the primary legal regime which authorized the establishment of the TRC". According to the LAP standard-bearer, no provision of the CPA authorizes the TRC to investigate and indict persons who violated the criminal laws of Liberia.

"Yet the TRC's indicted supporters of warring factions of egregious domestic laws violations and recommended a ban on them from holding appointive and elective offices in Liberia," he observed. He said even as to human rights violations and the violation of international humanitarian laws, it was never the intention of the drafters of the CPA that support of warring factions "ipso facto made you a violator of the human rights of the Liberian people or a violator of international humanitarian law".

He then argued that in other countries where a process similar to the TRC's work was undertaken, it was those who personally perpetrated human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law or who carried the greatest responsibility for human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law that were singled out for sanctions.

Mr. Sherman, who conceded to not being a criminal lawyer, said the TRC report stands in violation of Article 81 of the Constitution which provides for the exclusion of a Liberian citizen from political activities for five year only upon treason conviction. He said what was most shocking about the report's recommendations was that it chose to ignore the advice the former Chairman of the Sierra Leonean TRC, Bishop Humper, given during the Virginia final determination of the TR process.

"Bishop Humper, the former Chairman of the Sierra Leonean TRC, cautioned our TRC that unachievable recommendations should be avoided. Our TRC's recommendation that President Sirleaf and others who supported warring parties in our civil conflict should be barred from holding public office ignored this caution," he said.

Legislative Perspective - Town-hall Meetings Required

In addition to where Cllr. Sherman stands on the question of the political banishment of individuals alleged to have supported warring factions, his initial reaction also addressed key questions in the report regarding the perspective of how the National Legislature should deal with the political issue that the TRC's recommendation presents.

First, he said, the National Legislature needed to take into consideration the spirit of the TRC's mandate as it performs a diagnostic analysis of the final report to see where possible problems of implementation and efficacy lurk. In this regard, he said, it was crucial that each legislator hold a town-hall meeting with his or her constituents to request their guidance on this matter.

"But these town hall meetings should be in addition to a thorough legal analysis of the efficacy of these recommendations; my initial comments should not suffice," he advised. He said what matters in the end of the analysis and determination exercise was for the law of the land and the wishes of the majority of the Liberian people to be completely reflected in how the National Legislature disposes of the TRC's Final Report.

"And I have no doubt that for the third time, the Liberian people will decide that supporters of warring factions should continue to participate in the political governance of Liberia," he predicted Where necessary and required in order to set the record straight regarding what the Liberian people think about the report, he said, a referendum-style inquiry may be adopted by the National Legislature.

"In fact, it might just be instructive that members of the National Legislature conduct this direct consultation with their constituents on all the recommendations of the TRC; for, the objective of these recommendations should be the 'healing and reconciliation' of the Liberian people. Nobody knows better than the Liberian people themselves what is good for their 'healing and reconciliation'; and nobody ought to substitute their judgment for the Liberian people's judgment on this one," the initial report concluded.

The LAP standard-bearer did not say what his "initial reaction" to the TRC report stands to gain, neither did he say what points subsequent reactions would address. But observers say his initial reaction represented a significant departure from the loud silence that had engulfed the nation since the TRC released its report recommending sweeping retributive actions against war-faction leaders, their lieutenants, and their supporters - living or death.

They said the statement, as probably did that of LP's, was likely to provoke responses from Liberia's political and civic institutions - including the civil society organizations of Liberia and the human rights community. How soon, they would not say. See full text of Cllr. Sherman's "Initial Reaction to the Final Report of the Truth & Reconciliation Commission"

The Initial Reaction of Cllr. H. Varney G. Sherman

Standard Bearer of the Liberia Action Party

To the Final Report of the Truth & Reconciliation Commission

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Press,

My Fellow Liberians:

The work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and its Final Report are a legitimate concern to all Liberians and the robust debate about the Final Report, which has consumed the electronic and print media over the past weeks clearly demonstrates this. For those of us who are politicians or political actors, ours is more than a concern; we have a duty and a responsibility to make a diagnostic analysis of the TRC's Final Report and either implement it as a whole or implement it with the necessary modifications, keeping in mind the primary purpose for the establishment of the TRC - the promotion of genuine reconciliation through dealing with the root cause of the Liberian crisis, including human rights violation and taking measures for the rehabilitation of victims of human rights violations. Comprehensive Peace Accord, Article XIII, Sections 2, 3. Within this context, after the release of the TRC's Final Report, both when I was in the United States and since my return to Liberia last Friday, questions have been posed to me by Liberians of different persuasions on my reaction, as a political leader, to the recommendations made with respect to my new political partner, President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. Obviously, these questions have been raised in light of the merger between the Liberia Action Party, the Liberia Unification Party and the Unity Party, which was announced on April 1, 2009 - a process that is in progress even as I speak to you.

As I was not in Liberia when the TRC's Final Report was released and considering that I did not have access to the entire Final Report while I was in the United States, I elected not to give any comments before now. And even as I comment now, I should advise at the onset that these initial comments shall be directed only at: (1) the impact, if any, that the TRC's Final Report has had on the merger and our relationship with President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf; (2) our assessment of the legal and political efficacies of the recommendation that President Sirleaf should not hold public office for 30 years; and (3) our perspective of how the National Legislature should deal with the political issue that this recommendation presents. Of course, from time to time, we shall address other aspects of the TRC's Final Report and shall remain seized of its contents and recommendations throughout the legislative proceedings that will ensue and the dispensation that will thereafter be accorded to the Final Report.

With this introduction, let me state categorically and very strongly that the TRC's Final Report does not have any impact on the merger between Liberia Action Party, Liberia Unification Party and the Unity Party for many reasons. It should be recalled that when we signed the Articles of Merger, each leader of the constituent political parties emphasized that we had determined that the merger is good for Liberia and that we had made the decision to merge so that at the end of the day there will be fewer but stronger political parties, which would facilitate and promote fully functioning multi-party democracy in Liberia. Certainly, what is good for Liberia cannot be made wrong for Liberia by the TRC's Final Report; what is good for Liberia cannot be made wrong by the singular action of any person or persons; what is good for Liberia will persevere and withstand any onslaught. And I remain confident that the merger of the Liberia Action Party, the Liberia Unification Party and the Unity Party is good for our fledging multi-party democracy and will prove to be a political milestone for generations to come.

Personally, my confidence in the integrity, capacity, ability, commitment and performance of President Sirleaf as President of the Republic of Liberia has not been shaken by the TRC's Final Report; my assessment of President Sirleaf's love for our common patrimony and her ardent desire to contribute to its development and the development and security of its people, using all her energies and resources, as demonstrated through 3½ years of her stewardship of this country, continue to carry very high marks, which nothing in the TRC's Report affects. Our personal relationship, which started as far back as the early 1980s and which, irrespective of political differences from time to time, has been rekindled at an even more trusting and more highly committed level, continues to be very strong; and I am confident that it will grow even stronger as the years go by. So the TRC's Final Report is a non-issue insofar as our personal relationship is concerned.

Now, if the recommendation of the TRC's Final Report banning President Sirleaf from holding elective or appointive office had any appreciable level of legal and political efficacy, then the Final Report might have placed a dent in the merger of our political parties; it might have undermined my confidence in President Sirleaf; it might have materially adversely affected our personal relationship. But it is my considered opinion, both as a matter of law and political considerations, that this recommendation of the Final Report is fatally flawed and lacks any legal or political efficacy. Let me first address the political efficacy of the recommendation that President Sirleaf should not hold elective or appointive political office for 30 years. The Final Report of the TRC provides at Section 11.4, as follows:

"The TRC determines that all individuals affiliated with warring factions or armed groups in positions of command and authority and decision making including political leaders, financiers, heads of warring factions, commanders, and foot soldiers are responsible for the commission of those human rights violations including violations of international humanitarian law, international human rights law, war crimes and egregious domestic laws violations of Liberia."

Now, it is common knowledge that President Sirleaf gave financial support to the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) when it started its military campaign to remove President Samuel Doe from power; President Sirleaf has confirmed that fact many, many times since 1990. Whether President Sirleaf was a member of the NPFL's command-and-control structure is still debatable because some NPFL members have suggested that she was while she and other NPFL members have vehemently denied that she was. What is important is that at every attempt over a period of 15 years (1990 to 2005) to find a political solution to our civil war the issue of whether supporters of warring factions, including their heads, should participate in the political governance of Liberia was raised; and each time it was overwhelmingly decided that these persons should not be prohibited from participating in the political governance of Liberia. The first major indisputable evidence of these overwhelming decisions is when the heads of the warring factions became members of the governing council (LNTG II) headed by the late Professor Wilton Sankawolo and LNTG III headed by Madam Ruth Sando Perry.

Then the issue of whether persons who participated in the civil war, protagonist or supporters, should participate in the political governance of Liberia was squarely presented to the Liberian people themselves at the July 1997 special elections; the people overwhelmingly endorsed their participation when they elected former President Charles Taylor as the President of Liberia and President Sirleaf then carried the second highest number of votes. The issue of whether these protagonists or supporters of the civil war must participate in the political governance of Liberia was presented directly and squarely to the Liberian people in the October 2005 elections and debated; and at the end of those elections, President Sirleaf emerged victorious. THE LIBERIAN PEOPLE HAVE DECIDED, NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE; the TRC's Final Report cannot set aside the Liberian people's verdict. Political power is vested in the Liberian people, not the TRC; and the Liberian people have exercised that power by deciding that those who supported warring factions may participate in the political governance of Liberia. Certainly, the TRC's recommendation that these persons be banned from holding appointive or elective offices is at the minimum a political mischief; it has no political efficacy. Others might even characterize it as seditious or treasonous as it appears to undermine the ability of President Sirleaf to effectively discharge the office of President of Liberia; but I would not ever gave it that characterization because I believe that that would be taking the issue a little too far and also because I know that the recommendation will not have any such effect.

As to the legal efficacy of the recommendation of the TRC's Final Report that President Sirleaf should not hold appointive or elective office in Liberia for 30 years because she gave support to a warring party during the civil conflict, it should be recalled that the TRC was originally established by the Comprehensive Peace Accord; and at Article XIII, the powers and authority of the TRC are stated, as follows:

"1. ... to provide a forum that will address issues of impunity, as well as an opportunity for both the victims and perpetrators of human rights violations to share their experiences, in order to get a clear picture of the past to facilitate genuine healing and reconciliation."

"2. In the spirit of national reconciliation, the Commission shall deal with the root causes of the crises in Liberia, including human rights violation."

"3. .. shall, among other things, recommend measures to be taken for the rehabilitation of victims of human rights violations."

The TRC's blanket indictment of supporters of warring factions, as found in Section 11.4 of its Final Report, and which obviously forms the basis for its recommendation for the exclusion of President Sirleaf from appointive and elective offices, violates the language and spirit of Article XIII of the Comprehensive Peace Accord.

While I do not and will never condone human rights violation or the violation of international humanitarian law, or any law for that matter, I have no doubt that genuine healing and reconciliation of the Liberian people are not fostered by a recommendation that their elected President be barred from holding appointive and elective office in Liberia. The recommendation is more divisive than reconciliatory; it is clearly inconsistent with the primary legal regime which authorized the establishment of the TRC.

There is nothing in the Comprehensive Peace Accord that authorizes the TRC to investigate and indict persons who violated the criminal laws of Liberia, yet the TRC's indicted supporters of warring factions of egregious domestic laws violations and recommended a ban on them from holding appointive and elective offices in Liberia. And even as to human rights violations and the violation of international humanitarian laws, it was never the intention of the drafters of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that one's mere support for a warring party ipso facto made you a violator of the human rights of the Liberian people or a violator of international humanitarian law. In other countries where a process similar to the TRC's work was undertaken, it is those who personally perpetrated human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law or who carried the greatest responsibility for human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law were singled out for sanctions.

And from my reading of the May 12, 2005 TRC Act of the Transitional Legislative Assembly, which confirmed the establishment of the TRC, no intention, different from what was generally obtained in other jurisdictions, can be read into that law. Certainly our erstwhile Transitional Legislative Assembly, dominated by persons who supported warring factions, would never have enacted a law, which provides that they themselves, as mere supporters of warring factions, "are responsible for the commission of those human rights violations including violations of international humanitarian law, international human rights law, war crimes and egregious domestic laws violations of Liberia", as declared by the TRC's Final Report.

Article 81 of the Constitution provides that any citizen ... being resident in Liberia, of Liberian nationality or origin, and not otherwise disqualified under the provisions of the Constitution and laws of the land, shall have the right to canvass for the votes for any political party or candidate at any election... To the best of my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected since I am not a criminal lawyer, the only criminal offense, the commission of which is penalized by the forfeiture of a public office and disqualification from holding public office for a maximum period of five years after serving the conviction, is treason. Penal Law, Section 11.2. Now, Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be made subject to any law or punishment which was not in effect at the time of the commission of an offense, nor shall the Legislature enact any bill of attainder or ex post facto law. (EMPHASIS MINE).

Unless support for a warring faction during our civil conflict is deemed to be treason, which to my mind cannot be so deemed since the enterprise succeeded in removing the elected government from power, I see no other law which sanctions support for a warring faction and prescribes forfeiture of and/or prohibition from holding public office as a sanction. And since by constitutional provision a person cannot be subjected to a law or punishment that did not exist at the time he engaged in an activity or conduct, what good is the TRC's recommendation for a 30-year ban from elective and appointive offices on supporters of warring faction? These are just the fringes of the intractable legal problem that this recommendation presents; and, in my estimation, the Supreme Court will certainly be very busy with constitutional challenges to this recommendation should the National Legislature make any attempt to implement it. And I can assure you that you will find me standing tall in the Supreme Court, in defense of President Sirleaf, my political partner, if that day ever comes.

I could continue with a legal exposé on the flaws and inefficacies of the TRC's recommendation that President Sirleaf should not hold public office for 30 years for reason that she gave support to the NPFL when it initially launched its military campaign to remove President Doe from power; but that would serve no useful purpose at this time. What is intriguing is that shortly before the TRC issued its Final Report, in his keynote address at the opening of a National Reconciliation Conference sponsored by our TRC at the Unity Conference Center, Bishop Humper, the former Chairman of the Sierra Leonean TRC, cautioned our TRC that unachievable recommendations should be avoided. Our TRC's recommendation that President Sirleaf and others who supported warring parties in our civil conflict should be barred from holding public office ignored this caution. For, assuming that in 2011, President Sirleaf's political party nominates her as its candidate for election to succeed herself, is the TRC proposing that the National Elections Commission reject that nomination? Is this not another prescription for deep divisiveness, instead of the "genuine healing and reconciliation" required by the Comprehensive Peace Accord?

There are some who have inferred that the TRC's recommendation to ban persons who supported warring factions from holding elective and appointive offices is intended to incapacitate, or at least impair, President Sirleaf's candidacy for re-election in the 2011 elections and this has been influenced by political contenders who believe that their chances are better if she were not a candidate. It this is the intention of the TRC's recommendation, as her political partner, I wish to strongly disabuse the crafters of that recommendation or those who influenced its crafting from that notion. The TRC's recommendation will not be considered in our political calculus when we make a determination as to who will be our candidate.

Now, as to what disposition the National Legislature should make of the recommendation that supporters of warring factions be banned from holding appointive or elective offices, if it has not ever been done since they took office in January 2006, I believe that this is one time that each legislator should hold his own town hall meeting with his people and request for their guidance on this matter. But these town hall meetings should be in addition to a thorough legal analysis of the efficacy of these recommendations; my initial comments should not suffice.

Let the "laws of the land" and the wishes of the Liberian people be completely reflected in how the National Legislature disposes of the TRC's Final Report; and I have no doubt that for the third time, the Liberian people will decide that supporters of warring factions should continue to participate in the political governance of Liberia. In fact, it might just be instructive that members of the National Legislature conduct this direct consultation with their constituents on all the recommendations of the TRC; for, the objective of these recommendations should be the "healing and reconciliation" of the Liberian people. Nobody knows better than the Liberian people themselves what is good for their "healing and reconciliation"; and nobody ought to substitute their judgment for the Liberian people's judgment on this one.