30 Mar How to Get Yourself Convicted of Terrorism
Just follow the lead of Henry Okah, a Nigerian national recently convicted in South Africa (under universal jurisdiction) of terrorism-related offences in the Niger delta. Here are the key paragraphs from the trial court’s decision:
[28] The correctness of copies of 3 journals kept by the accused in his own handwriting was admitted. In these journals the accused made notes in from January to September 2010 of names, military clothing, equipment and hardware. For example, he writes:
“Battle jackets… boots… boats, rounds… walkies…engines… balaklavas… water bottles… tee shirts, caps, belts, camo(flage) shorts… TNT… backpacks… binoculars nightvision… badges… bulletproof vests… tents… VHF radios … generators… rechargeable lamps… fuel… ordering through [another] the construction of a gunboat with protector plates for the gunmen… rifle slings… the contact numbers of Military Surplus Stores CC… compasses… BMG assault weapons… RPG …SAM …grenade launchers… mortars… landmines… anti-tank missiles… shotguns… handguns… notes on military tactics inter alia the use of explosives, weaponry and sabotage… and notes on counter insurgency.. names of his co-militants like Tompolo, Stoneface, Boyloaf, Moses, Chima, Raphael, VIP, Stanley…”
[29] Also admitted is the fact that an email address and account was registered with Yahoo with a login name “nigdelunrest” in the name of “Mr. Jomo Gbomo.”
I hear iamalqaeda@gmail.com and loyaltalibansoldier@mac.com are still available. Any takers?
Hat-Tip: Chris Gevers, University of KwaZulu-Natal, who blogs at War and Law.
A UJ terrorism case…very interesting. Unlike Yunis ,there seems to be no passive personality aspect here, pure extradite or punish UJ.
Eugene,
Yes, absolutely. South Africa has an exceptionally broad universal jurisdiction regime — and one that has real teeth, because the government can be compelled to act on a private complaint, as in the landmark “Torture Docket” case involving Zimbabwe. See here.
*Apologies for poor formatting in previous post. Thanks for the hat-tip KJH. Eugene: The courts didn’t formerly rely on passive personality for the main charge, although there were ‘related offences’ charged involving South African nationals and business interests. So, UJ indeed, but not as ‘pure’ as it might have been: the Court’s decision is muddied by that fact that it appears to have relied on two contradictory ‘UJ’ provisions in the Terrorism Act. The first (section 15(1)) states that SA courts will have jurisdiction over ‘specified offences’ – even if committed abroad – if the accused was arrested in the territory of the Republic. So far so good, however ‘specified offences’ are defined as inter alia extraterritorial offences “which [constitute] an offence under the law of another state [presumably the territorial state] and which would have constituted [terrorism] … had that activity taken place in the Republic”. To my mind, at least, that conditions SA’s UJ in Okah to offences that were also offences under the law of Nigeria (loosely ‘double criminality’). There is another contender for UJ however (section 15(2)), which states in relevant part that any act [NOTE: not ‘specified offence’] committed outside the Republic shall, regardless… Read more »