25035: Brianhaiti: Fwd: "An Prinsip" (In Principle) Truthout.org, May 4 2005 (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

Reply-To: Brianhaiti@aol.com

An Prensip
By Brian Concannon Jr.
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Wednesday 04 May 2005

When Haitians say "an prensip" (in principle) to explain how something should
work, "an pratik," how it works in actual practice, is rarely far behind. An
prensip, the bus leaves in ten minutes, an pratik the driver will wait for the
seats to completely fill up, squeeze several more people in, then pop the
hood or go looking for gas.

Haiti's current Minister of Justice, Bernard Gousse, contrasted the principle
and practice of justice in a June 2002 paper titled "Judicial Independence in
Haiti" that he wrote for IFES, an American non-profit that runs U.S.
government-funded projects in Haiti:

"The Haitian Constitution ... contains the democratic principles of
separation of power and the rule of law for all Haitian people - including the
principle of judicial independence. However ... the Haitian justice system in
practice
has never followed either the letter or spirit of the Constitution [and] ...
has almost always been effectively subject to the administrative, budgetary
and personal whims of an overly-dominant executive."


The paper was written almost eight years into Haiti's longest-ever stint of
democracy. Mr. Gousse was a law school dean and consultant for IFES's judicial
independence program. Professor Gousse was critical of the elected
governments' pratik, but noted that:

"Despite the circumstances and the unfavorable environment, some judges
throughout the judicial hierarchy should be commended for showing a great
degree of
courage and independence."

One of the judges who had shown both courage and independence was Jean-Sénat
Fleury, who had worked his way up through the judicial hierarchy from rural
justice of the peace to become Haiti's most respected Juge d'Instruction or
investigating magistrate. He distinguished himself with impartial
investigations
of the country's most complicated and controversial cases. When he felt he was
being pressured to act contrary to the law, he would wag his finger, shake his
head, and say "No way. I'm a judge, I don't do politics."

Not long before Professor Gousse published his IFES paper, Judge Fleury was
caught in the crossfire of prensip and pratik when he searched the house of a
suspected drug dealer who was also a client of the then Minister of Justice.
The search was legal but the Minister was angry, so the Judge was accused of
stealing from the house and suspended, illegally. A few months later - too
slowly, but surely - the democratic system corrected itself: the Minister was
gone
and Judge Fleury was back on the bench.

Last November, Judge Fleury was handed another controversial case, that of
Rev. Gérard Jean-Juste, a Catholic Priest and political dissident. By that
time
the government chosen by Haiti's voters had been replaced by one chosen by the
U.S. government and Haitian elites. Mr. Gousse was Minister of Justice, and
the architect of a campaign of repression against supporters of the ousted
Lavalas party. Hundreds, if not thousands, of pro-democracy activists had been
killed. The Catholic Church's Justice and Peace Commission estimated that over
700 political prisoners joined Fr. Jean-Juste in Minister Gousse's jails. The
Minister, his prosecutor, and the Prime Minister insisted in press conferences
that the priest was linked to terrorist attacks and murder. But when the case
reached Judge Fleury's courtroom, no one could produce a single witness,
document or other evidence linking Fr. Jean-Juste to illegal activity. So
Judge
Fleury threw the case out.

Just before Christmas, another judge, Brédy Fabien, released several
high-profile dissidents when the government could produce no evidence against
them
after 10 months of illegal detention. Minister Gousse quickly demonstrated how
much justice was "subject to the administrative, budgetary and personal whims
of
an overly-dominant executive" by instructing the chief judge to immediately
take all of Fleury and Fabien's cases away from them. This was a clear
violation of the prensip of judicial independence, enshrined in Haiti's
Constitution
and described in Mr. Gousse's IFES paper. Judge Fleury once again showed
courage and independence: he chose to resign rather than do the Minister's
politics.


In 2002, Professor Gousse noted that:

"The subordination of the judiciary is further demonstrated by the lack of
enforcement of judicial decisions, which require the Government Commissioner
to
submit an order of execution for approval by the executive.
Minister Gousse has demonstrated that subordination by blocking the
enforcement of judicial decisions liberating political prisoners. Two of the
political
prisoners ordered free by Judge Fabien at Christmas, Harold Sévère and Anthony
Nazaire, are still in prison under an illegal order from the Minister, even
though Gousse's own prosecutor approved the release. Gousse even transferred
one dissident, Jacques Mathelier, to a prison four hours away from the
jurisdiction of a judge who appeared ready to free him in July (Mathelier
remains in
prison)."

Throwing your political opponents into a Haitian prison does not just shut
them up, it can kill them as well. In January, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of
Appeals found "no doubt" that Haitian prison conditions "are indeed miserable
and
inhuman." Tuberculosis and other disease is epidemic, healthcare and food are
in short supply. Some cells are so crowded that prisoners must take turns to
sleep on the concrete floor. The misery is intentional: last November, the
official running the UN Development Program's work in Haiti's prisons quit
because the Haitian government refused to accept international help to improve
conditions. The killing can be intentional too: on December 1, as Colin Powell
was
visiting Haiti's National Palace, police responded to a non-lethal prison
protest with sustained automatic weapons fire into the cells. The government
admits to ten prisoners killed, but independent human rights groups and
journalists
report many times that number.

The struggle between pratik and prensip is not confined to Haiti. America's
government has its own principles about judicial independence and respecting
democracy. IFES commits itself in its mission statement to "government by the
people and for the people," an prensip. But according to a January report by
the
Center for the Study of Human Rights at the University of Miami Law School,
an pratik, IFES used millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to undermine the
government elected by Haiti's people. The report, based on interviews with
IFES
employees and research on the IFES website, documented a vast network of
groups
that IFES created and funded to oppose Haiti's Constitutional government,
including student groups, business groups, media organizations, human rights
committees and bar associations. Some of these groups engaged in violent,
illegal
protests. IFES employees were even required to attend anti-government protests
and
submit reports. Many officials of Haiti's illegal interim government,
including Minister Gousse and Prime Minister Gérard Latortue, worked for this
program, effectively obtaining their jobs by throwing out their elected
predecessors.
IFES employees conceded that Gousse himself even coordinated with the rebels
who launched an armed insurrection in February 2004.

In February 2005, members of the U.S. House of Representatives invited the
author of the University of Miami report and IFES to a hearing, where some
members expressed outrage at IFES's undermining of Haitian democracy. IFES,
which
advocates the prensip of transparency in government, responded by cleaning up
its website. The Haiti Program description no longer even mentions IFES's
creation of the network that was so proudly displayed in January. Nor does it
link
to Professor Gousse's analysis of attacks on judicial independence, which now
looks more like his Ministry's strategy plan than a critique.

For 200 years, American policy makers have been throwing up their hands and
calling Haiti a basket case, doomed to failure despite our best efforts to
save
it. But for 200 years we have been installing, supporting and protecting
leaders like Minister Gousse, no matter what they did to the Haitian people,
as
long as they also did our bidding. When Haiti's leaders resist our dictates,
as
the Lavalas government did, we replace them with someone more compliant.
Haitians will never enjoy the stability and prosperity that Americans take for
granted until we abandon this tradition, and allow Haiti's leaders to actually
represent their citizens. Until, in other words, our pratik in Haiti matches
our
democratic prensip.

Brian Concannon Jr. directs the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti
(IJDH). Both the University of Miami Law School report and "Judicial
Independence in Haiti" can be found on the IJDH's website, www.ijdh.org


----- End forwarded message -----