Op-Ed By Al Smith
Criminal Justice, Homeland Security, and Counter-Terrorism Expert
Washington, D.C.–Based Investigator
It has become increasingly evident that the United States Congress will not lend political or financial support to the establishment of a War and Economic Crimes Court (WECC) for Liberia—so long as the process remains influenced by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) whose credibility, transparency, and conduct are under serious ethical and legal scrutiny.
Justice, particularly transitional justice in post-conflict societies, requires impartiality, integrity, and adherence to professional ethics. Without these elements, the pursuit of justice is not only undermined but also transformed into a vehicle for political exploitation, revenge, and external manipulation. The Liberian case illustrates a broader challenge facing post-conflict states: the tension between international involvement in transitional justice and the sovereignty of national institutions. International actors often provide technical, financial, and advocacy support; yet, when oversight and accountability fail, these interventions risk delegitimizing the very institutions they are meant to strengthen.
Historical Context of Liberia’s Transitional Justice
Liberia’s post-war period has been marked by ambitious but inconsistent attempts at accountability. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), established in 2006, produced extensive documentation highlighting human rights abuses, corruption, and systemic failures. However, the TRC’s recommendations have remained largely unimplemented, reflecting both political reluctance and institutional weakness.
The current push for a WECC is framed as a mechanism to fill this accountability gap, addressing crimes that range from wartime atrocities to large-scale economic fraud. Yet, the structural and operational design of this initiative has raised questions in Washington about independence, transparency, and feasibility. History shows that transitional justice institutions are only as credible as the processes and actors driving them. Liberia’s experience mirrors other fragile post-conflict societies, where NGO-driven initiatives, though well-intentioned, have sometimes compromised the impartiality of justice mechanisms through political alignment, selective evidence presentation, or pressure on witnesses.
Erosion of Credibility: NGO Influence and Questionable Practices
Over the past decade, credible reports and testimonies have implicated both domestic and international NGOs in practices that undermine due process and accountability. Among these organizations are Hassan Bility’s Global Justice and Research Project (GJRP) in Liberia, Alain Werner’s Civitas Maxima (CM) in Switzerland, and Carman Cheung’s Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA) in California.
Evidence from former associates, witnesses, and independent investigators suggests these organizations have engaged in: Recruiting and financially incentivizing witnesses to provide statements against targeted individuals; Coaching witnesses to align testimonies with predetermined narratives rather than verifiable facts; Altering or fabricating documentation to influence judicial outcomes; and Manipulating media and donor networks to sustain funding under the false pretense of legitimate human rights advocacy.
These practices compromise the integrity of any judicial process, particularly one dealing with sensitive war and economic crimes. Paying witnesses or guiding testimony not only risks wrongful convictions but also undermines public confidence in the legal system, leaving Liberia vulnerable to renewed conflict and political instability. The dissolution of the Office of Global Criminal Justice at the U.S. Department of State under the Trump administration underscores Washington’s growing skepticism toward international justice initiatives perceived as politically compromised or ethically inconsistent. This shift signals a heightened emphasis on accountability, transparency, and due diligence in U.S. support for transitional justice abroad.
Legal and Policy Implications
From a legal standpoint, the manipulation of witnesses and evidence may constitute criminal interference in both domestic and international justice processes. These actions carry potential consequences under Liberian law, as well as under international statutes governing war crimes and human rights violations.
From a policy perspective, U.S. lawmakers and national security analysts recognize that the credibility of transitional justice is inseparable from the integrity of those who collect evidence, prosecute cases, and oversee adjudication. Funding or endorsing a mechanism tainted by questionable practices would not only violate ethical norms but could also create long-term strategic liabilities, including: Undermining the legitimacy of Liberian institutions; Weakening U.S. influence in regional stability efforts; Exposing U.S. taxpayer funds to misuse; and Risking international condemnation should miscarriages of justice occur. Thus, Washington’s approach is cautious: support is conditional, predicated on demonstrable independence, transparent processes, and credible leadership.
Why the Process Is “Dead on Arrival”
The WECC, as currently structured and promoted, is dead on arrival in Washington policy circles. Congressional leaders, the U.S. Department of State, and key international stakeholders remain deeply skeptical. Until Liberia demonstrates that its pursuit of justice is independent, transparent, and free from tainted NGO influence, there will be no political or financial support. In practical terms, this means: Public statements of commitment to justice are insufficient; External endorsements cannot substitute for structural integrity; and a justice system compromised at inception cannot achieve legitimacy in outcome. The central lesson for Liberia is that legitimacy derives from internal ownership and transparent execution, not from external advocacy or funding.
Recommended Framework for a Credible Justice Mechanism
Restoring trust and credibility requires Liberia to reclaim ownership of its justice process. This includes:
- Comprehensive Audit and Investigation – Conduct a full audit of all NGOs and international partners involved in war crimes documentation, with particular attention to potential misappropriation of donor funds.
- Institutional Separation – Establish a strict firewall between advocacy groups and judicial mechanisms, ensuring that evidence collection, prosecution, and adjudication remain independent and professionally managed.
- Liberian-Led Transitional Justice Framework – Develop a justice model grounded in public consultation, the rule of law, and international legal standards. External support should be advisory and technical, not operational or managerial.
- Partnerships with Credible International Institutions – Engage only with organizations that have an established record of integrity, impartiality, and ethical compliance in human rights and transitional justice.
This approach aligns with global best practices, including hybrid tribunals such as the Special Court for Sierra Leone, which combined international expertise with domestic authority to enhance credibility, impartiality, and public confidence.
Restoring National Ownership
The Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Office for the War and Economic Crimes Court emphasize that the Executive Director should prioritize the recruitment of qualified, impartial Liberian professionals—including investigators, legal researchers, and security personnel. Additionally, a vetted citizens’ panel of 30 members representing all 15 counties should oversee the review and unsealing of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) recommendations currently archived at Georgia Tech.
Only after a transparent audit and public disclosure of findings should Liberia advance toward the formal establishment of a tribunal. International financial and technical assistance must follow credibility—not precede it.
A hybrid structure, modeled on the United Nations–backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, can ensure that justice is not only done but also perceived to be done, balancing international guidance with domestic ownership and accountability.
Long-Term Strategic Considerations
- National Reconciliation – Justice must support reconciliation, not deepen divisions. Mismanaged prosecutions risk reigniting ethnic, regional, and political tensions.
- Rule of Law – A credible WECC reinforces Liberia’s legal system, demonstrating that the country can uphold accountability internally without undue external influence.
- International Confidence – Transparent processes strengthen partnerships with donors, international institutions, and regional bodies, creating a sustainable foundation for justice and development.
- Deterrence of Future Crimes – By adhering to credible processes, Liberia sends a clear signal that war and economic crimes carry consequences, deterring future violations.
Conclusion
Liberia stands at a decisive crossroads. The choices made today will determine whether justice becomes a pillar of sovereignty and peace or another instrument of external influence and political manipulation. The Liberian people deserve a justice process that reflects their sovereignty, dignity, and humanity—not one compromised by deception or foreign interests. Justice must belong to Liberia—and to Liberia alone.
About the Author
Al Smith is a Criminal Justice, Homeland Security, and Counter-Terrorism Expert with advanced degrees in International Security, Global Conflict Resolution, and Criminal Justice. He holds certifications from the U.S. Department of Defense and other agencies.
Academic Credentials:
M.A. in International Relations & Global Security (Conflict Resolution), American Military University M.S. in Criminal Justice (Homeland Security), Colorado Technical University B.S. in Criminal Justice (Homeland Security & Emergency Management), Strayer University A.A. in Criminal Justice, Everest College
Mr. Smith served on two NATO deployments under the U.S. Department of Defense in Force Protection Operations, including participation in the joint construction protection for the 44th U.S. Presidential Inaugural Grandstand.
