By Hassan Morlai Koroma
The kidnapping of diplomats for political or financial gain is not a new phenomenon. Assertions such as “we will do everything it takes to secure the safe release of …” or “we will not pay any ransom to kidnappers”, etc. soon give way to the reality that if the diplomat is indeed to be freed, some form of deal has to be struck. Such deals are hardly presented to the public as official ransom.
The payment of ransom for diplomatic kidnapping (diplo-napping) either through unofficial, secret, backdoor channels or through unconfirmed official channel poses a serious moral, legal and political conundrum for governments. The widely reported kidnapping on July 1 of Retired Major General Nelson Williams, Sierra Leone’s Deputy Ambassador to Nigeria clearly breached the international law principle of personal inviolability of diplomats. Concerns for the safety of our diplomat must be high if the report by Haruna Umar of the Associated Press of July 1 is to be relied upon and urgent steps now need to be taken to secure the safe return of our diplomat:
“Most kidnappings for ransom in Nigeria do not result in fatalities, though a German construction worker was killed in southwestern Nigeria last year by gunmen who kidnapped a second German. He was later released.
“The highway traveled by Williams, a retired major general and former chief of the Sierra Leonean army, is notorious. A Nigerian army officer was kidnapped there last week and returned to his family after they reportedly paid 500,000 naira ($1,800). A Nigerian colonel was kidnapped there three months ago, and his body was found dumped on the roadside days later.”
The above excerpt demonstrates that the paying of ransom is a real possibility if we are to have some hope of securing the return of our diplomat. Governments are often quick to state that they operate on a firm policy of paying no ransom to kidnappers. The reality is however different from the rhetoric. This is because in these types of diplonappings the host governments often accept they have an obligation under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 to provide “special protection” to diplomats, the breach of such obligation as in this case, imposes a moral, legal or political obligation to exercise special measures to secure the release of the diplomat.
Although it is still early days to know the outcome of this diplonapping, one can venture to say that the diplomatic status of Nelson Williams is not in dispute. Therefore, he is entitled to Nigeria’s special protection as a host government. Nigeria may rightly choose not to accede to the kidnappers’ demand for ransom. Such course of action may not be justified as a matter of international law unless Nigeria disputes Nelson Williams’ diplomatic status. But if as it is argued here that Nelson Williams’ diplomatic status is not in dispute, Nigeria’s refusal to accede to the ransom demand could only be justified on moral or political grounds. If Nigeria pays the ransom, this would appear to legitimise the act of diplonapping, maximise the rewards for kidnappers, embolden future kidnappers to undertake more diplonappings and expose diplomats to increased risks of kidnapping.
The proverbial adage that one is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea bears truth here. In order for the government of Nigeria not to be seen to be doing business with illegitimate kidnappers, the secret use of nongovernmental organisations could be deployed in this case to secure the liberty of Deputy Ambassador Nelson Williams.
International law is replete with cases of host countries refusing to accede to ransom demands. The infamous 1970 case of Karl von Spreti, West Germany’s Ambassador to Guatemala is one of many tragic diplonappings that ended in the murder of the diplomat in the face of that host government refusing to negotiate and accede to ransom demands by members of the Rebel Armed Forces for the release of 25 political prisoners and a $700,000. The government of Guatemala was accused of irresponsible behaviour and doing virtually nothing to save Ambassador Karl von Spreti’s life.
A key point at issue here is Nigeria’s response in fulfilling its international obligations to providing special protection for the personal inviolability of diplomats in the country. Special protection under international law means states must exercise due diligence to prevent from taking place on their territory conduct by state or non-state actors that are injurious to other states in the form of attacks on diplomats.
Where such preventive measures are not possible, special protection requires the host government to punish the perpetrators and/or provide reparation to the injured state. The degree of special protection or due diligence is not defined in international law. However, in cases where there are frequent instances of diplonappings, a higher degree of protection is required.
In Nelson Williams’ case, prevention is no longer possible as the injurious conduct has already taken place. If reports coming from Nigeria are anything to go by, Nigeria may not be able to punish the perpetrators who are suspected to be members of the terrorist Boko Haram group. So if reparation is to be considered what form should it take? The government of Nigeria should not be reluctant to negotiate and find a peaceful settlement and if necessary pay money for the life of our diplomat.
The author is a London-based solicitor and Senior Lecturer at the University of East London. He wrote this piece from Dallas, USA.
(C) Politico Online 05/07/16
