Naomi Campbells Recent Testimony - Case Study Example

The media publi surrounding Naomi Campbell’s recent testimony before the Sierra Leone Tribunal attests to the power of celebrity in bringing neglected court cases to the world’s attention. In this essay I discuss the Special Court of Sierra Leone, the role it plays in the status quo of a war torn country, whether it fulfills its objective of upholding justice and fairness, and finally, the pressure put upon this special court of Sierra Leone in enforcing celebrity testimonies. Drawing on the media publicity surrounding Ms. Naomi Campbells recent testimony before this special tribunal of Sierra Leone, I explore and critically asses the media phenomenon of - the cult of celebrities and the implications this has for the legal arena. Exploring the relationship of celebrities, the media and the role of law, I ask, is the media a crucial and powerful tool in brining neglected court cases to the worlds attention or does the media negatively impinge on the legal realm by influencing legal decisions? To answer this question and more importantly the title of the essay I draw on independently researched media coverage pertaining to the Naomi Campbell case and I discuss this case with reference to the module reading. Africa is known as a hotbed of conflict. Parts of this great continent still reel from impact of wars, atrocities and other consequences of strife that has gripped it in the past century. In fact, some areas still are in the state of recovering from the horrible climate that is common in many states in this corner of the globe. Among the troubled places in Africa is Sierra Leone. This country is known for its exceptionally rich diamond mines (Perriello and Wierda, 2006). It is also notorious for its internal conflict. "Sierra Leone has seen serious and grotesque human rights violations since 1991 when the civil war erupted" (Shah, 2001). The dehumanizing acts seen in this African state are among the most horrific in contemporary history. It has been noted that "25 times as many people have been killed compared to that in Kosovo when the international community decided to act. In fact, it has been pointed out by many that the atrocities in Sierra Leone have been worse than was seen in Kosovo" (Shah, 2001). "In the war, more than two million people were forced to flee their homes, collecting in crowded internally displaced person camps around Freetown or in dangerous refugee camps along the volatile Guinean and Liberian borders" (Perriello and Wierda, 2006). In this conflict "killing were also widespread. It is estimated that perhaps up to 100,000 people were killed during the conflict. Execution was used to install terror and obedience among the civilian population and within the forces themselves" (Perriello and Wierda, 2006). This was further aggravated by other inhumane acts. It has been noted that "sexual and gender-based violence was the most reported form of human rights abuse in Sierra Leone" (Perriello and Wierda, 2006). This conflict "is also known for the widespread use of child soldiers" (Perriello and Wierda, 2006). This is a common practice among the various factions involved. At the centre of all of this is Charles Taylor. "He started Liberias civil war as a warlord in 1989, before being elected president in 1997" (British Broadcasting Company, 2010). "Mr. Taylor is accused of selling diamonds and buying weapons for Sierra Leones Revolutionary United Front rebels, who were notorious for hacking off the hands and legs of civilians during their decade-long war" (British Broadcasting Company, 2010). Consequently, "he faces 11 charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity over his alleged role in the brutal civil war in neighbouring Sierra Leone, where he is accused of backing rebels responsible for widespread atrocities" (British Broadcasting Company, 2010). As for dealing with the aftermath of the civil war in Sierra Leone the "Lomé Peace Agreement granted an amnesty for crimes committed by all parties and referred to the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)" (Perriello and Wierda, 2006). However, this did not result to the closure sought. There was still the matter of accountability that needed to be dealt with. "For a while, it seemed as if the proposed TRC would be the only transitional justice mechanism available to address the human rights violations committed during the conflict. Civil society activists strongly supported the Commission as a way to ensure a measure of accountability" (Perriello and Wierda, 2006). On the 12th of June in 2000, "President Kabbah wrote to the Secretary-General requesting the assistance of the international community in creating a court to try senior RUF" (Perriello and Wierda, 2006). This resulted to the events two years later. In "January 2002, the UN and the Government of Sierra Leone finally signed the Agreement on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone" (Special Court Agreement) (Perriello and Wierda, 2006). "Charles Ghankay Taylor, the former President of Liberia, was indicted under seal on 7 March 2003. He was transferred to the Special Court on 29 March 2006" (Special Court for Sierra Leone, n.d.). Among his charges were "Crimes against Humanity, Violations of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II and Other Serious violations of International Humanitarian law" (The Prosecutor against Charles Ghankay Taylor, 2007). Recently, during Charles Taylors trial "the prosecution at the Special Court for Sierra Leone asked Ms. Naomi Campbell to back their allegations that Taylor, received diamonds from rebels in Sierra Leone, which they say he used to buy weapons during a 1997 trip to South Africa" (Gray-Block, 2010). Her testimony was predicated on the idea that "she received diamonds from Charles Taylor in September 1997, when both attended a star-studded charity dinner given in South Africa by the then South African President Nelson Mandela" (British Broadcasting Company, 2010). This was aimed to establish that Mr. Taylor received “blood diamonds” or conflict diamonds from Sierra Leone in exchange for his support to certain groups. His support entailed supplying arms for the same. If proven this establishes Taylor’s part in this civil war that is among the most malignant Africa and the world has ever seen. The central idea that would be closely explored are the implications of the testimony of Naomi Campbell on this case. What are the benefits and detriments by Campbell’s testimony? Did her testimony have any value? On a broader level, how does this relate to the relationship of media to justice systems? Do these kinds of testimonies by media personalities alter the nature of the proceedings? These are the questions that would merit further discussion. "In contemporary society, the cult of celebrity is inescapable. Anyone can be turned into a celebrity, and anything can be made into a celebrity event. Celebrity has become a part of everyday life, a common reference point. But how have people like Elvis Presley, John Lennon, Bill Clinton or Princess Diana impressed themselves so powerfully on the public mind? Do they have unique qualities, or have their images been constructed by the media? And what of the dark side of celebrity – why is the hunger to be in the public eye so great that people are prepared to go to any lengths to achieve it, as numerous mass murderers and serial killers have done" (Rojek, 2001). This indicates several aspects of celebrities. What is important to this discussion is the impact of celebrities to events they are in. This means that by testifying Ms. Campbell may have highlighted the trial of Charles Taylor. This means that the trial and by extension the case has gained increased public attention as compared to prior her testimony. The status quo of the special court has already involved media attention. The press, both local and international, gave extensive coverage to the Court in the first few months, with front – page stories in most national newspapers regularly (Perriello and Wierda, 2006). However, this coverage does not necessarily yield positive results. There were instances that the Special Court and its senior officials has been the subject of negative local press coverage, but much of this has been of a tabloid variety. It has been noted that supermodels are not particularly well informed about world events (Keating, 2010). This is due to her statement. She said: ”I didnt know anything about Charles Taylor before. I had never heard of Liberia before. I had never heard the term blood diamonds before” (Keating, 2010). This to an extent undermines the credibility of the testimony since this indicates doubt as to whether Campbell, as a material witness, can prove anything with her testimony. Furthermore, the testimony given by Ms. Campbell is also questioned due to it inconsistencies with other testimonies. The "contradictory statements made before the court by Naomi Campbell and Mia Farrow about the issue, whether Mrs. Campbell received diamonds from Mr. Taylor or not, seem to not have brought the case any further" (Zyberi, 2010). Does the testimony of Ms. Campbell establish, directly or indirectly any of the charges against Charles Taylor? This question becomes difficult to answer given the statements made as well as their implications. Argumentatively speaking the account given does not necessarily prove that the diamonds were, in fact, from Sierra Leone, since they were not examined by experts. Furthermore, even if they were nothing was presented to directly establish that it was in the possession of Mr. Taylor, and that he had given it to Ms. Campbell. It has to be noted that the later when asked if she believed that the former sent the diamonds said:” I assumed it was” (British Broadcasting Company, 2010). Moreover, it still remains to be proven that possession of diamonds allegedly from a faction in Sierra Leone is part of any of the charges made against the ex – president of Liberia. The fact is the prosecution has not made a clear link between the testimony given and the charges that are required to be proven. Another troubling consequence of the testimony given by Naomi Campbell is that "it seems that the trial is sliding into a soap opera, completely losing sight of the fact that the SCSL was set up for the victims, their families, towns, and districts" (Zyberi, 2010). This means that the testimony of Ms. Campbell not only did not prove much, but it trivialized and diverted the proceedings from its real purpose. The testimony, on the other hand, is beneficial since the publicity will help raise awareness of the ongoing trade in conflict diamonds (Keating, 2010) which is at the core of the atrocities done in Sierra Leone. "Worrisome here is the lack of diligence of the media to continuously and responsibly report on international criminal justice and its less well-known institutions, such as the SCSL. Where were they when Charles Taylor himself was being cross-examined?!? While the media did not devote much attention to the work of the SCSL earlier on, out of a sudden is all over it – its interest in the proceedings revolving around celebrities! Do we really care about the victims?" (Zyberi, 2010). This brings to light two striking realities. First, that prior to the testimony of Ms. Campbell the case of in question and the workings of the Special Court trying it did not garner much attention. Second is that the media attention to the case, particularly the testimony is on who the testimony is coming from and not as to the substance of the testimony or the essence of why it is given. Mainstream media circulate the idea that what is important is the celebrity status of the person giving testimony and not the actual substance of the said account or the point of making such testimony. It is difficult to measure the diversity of views, given the politically motivated stance of much of the press and the fact that opinions in Freetown do not necessarily reflect those of others around the country. Even within Freetown, the views of the educated class often diverge from the rest of the population. Public understanding remains low (Perriello and Wierda, 2006). Another dimension that has to be explored is the fact that the testimony that has garnered controversy is given by a celebrity. "To some degree the desire for celebrity is a refutation of the social convention. Transgression, one might postulate, is intrinsic to celebrity, since to be a celebrity is to live outside conventional, ordinary life" (Rojek, 2001). This implies that the structures of society, including of justice systems are challenged by the deviation caused by the said status. "Celebrities are also known to have more power to evade the intrusions of the law and, for the most part, move about more easily in society" (Rojek, 2001). Furthermore, Celebrities are able to circumvent the strictures of law in everyday life: there is an expectation that to be a celebrity is to defy social, moral and legal standards (Celebrity, notoriety and the law). This gives rise to the idea that this can significantly also be a source of taint as to judicial proceedings. This arises from that very same nature of celebrities and their social standing. It is often argued that trials involving genocide or crimes against humanity are less about judging a person than about establishing the truth (Koskenniemi, 2002). Therefore, the trial was "held to be necessary in bringing to publicity the full extent of the horrors of the conflict" (Koskenniemi, 2002). This puts forward the idea that a trial of publicity will ensue and this runs counter to the very precepts of the due process. Although "there has been many speculations and debate over the extent of celebrity influence in the courtroom, it is difficult to dispute that celebrity trials are different from non-celebrity trials in important ways. Celebrity trials are extraordinary because they naturally attract more media attention than non-celebrity trials" (Chamberlain, Miller and Jehle, 2006). This influence of celebrities also occurs, even if they are not the ones on trial. There mere presence in the proceedings still has the same effect. This is seen the case of Ms. Campbell’s testimony which the court allowed. The merits of her account are not direct or clear it as admitted as evidence. This in part could be attributed to her status. When celebrities are the ones on trial through increased accessibility to the media, celebrities are able to appeal to the public’s sympathies and attack the prosecution’s arguments and the victim’s credibility before trial (Chamberlain, Miller and Jehle, 2006). In the scenario that they are the ones being availed of by the prosecution their testimony is feared to sway the bench to deciding against the accused. In addition to the prejudices resulting from increased media coverage, "celebrities are often held to higher standards when facing a judge or jury" (Chamberlain, Miller and Jehle, 2006). Though no proof is apparent as to this partiality her mere admission already hints as to the courts perception. The identified source of this influence of celebrities is called referent power. In the "theory of social power would suggest that celebrities exert referent power because they are typically admired and/or liked. Thus, celebrities have the ability to persuade jurors that they are innocent because they typically possess the referent power" (Chamberlain, Miller and Jehle, 2006). This concept may also be the cause as to why they are use as witnesses. It cannot be denied that the popularity of the witness may in a way affect the treatment of the testimony. "Character witnesses—particularly celebrity ones—are a favorite weapon of choice for defendants in criminal cases. If the accused is innocent, or genuinely believes that he is, it is hard for him to imagine how a jury could reject sincere testimony, given by highly respected people who know him well, saying that he is simply incapable of acting as he has been charged" (Armstrong, 2006). This can equally be used to condemn individuals to charges since the basing for the persuasive nature of such witnesses is the same. Another aspect is the residual effect of celebrity witnesses to court proceedings. It can be argued that celebrity witnesses to intensify scrutiny and attention to the case. This can be good in the sense that the general public becomes more interested in the case. This is positive since this reinforces the principles of the justice system as well as informs the public as to how the common ideal of accountability is applied. However, it can also be contended that the increased public attention and on the case may exert undesirable pressures on the court as well as influence it as to how it would decide the case. The foremost concern is that the case may be forcibly escalated into closure and resolution even before it is ripe for it. It has been said "that despite the intense publicity, there was no basis for concluding that alternatives to closure, such as “frequent and specific admonitions and instructions, coupled with careful voir dire of the jurors and/or other measures, would not have constituted an adequate and fewer restrictive alternative to closure of all the proceedings that were held outside the presence of the jury" (Boutrous and Dore, 2003). There exist the contention that "first, that the values underlying freedom of speech is not always served by an unrestricted mass media; second, that in the instance of speech prejudicial to fair trials, such as values support rather than oppose restrictions on the media; third, that media coverage can and does have a prejudicial effect upon the fairness of trials; and fourth, that neutralizing measures designed to counter the effect of prejudicial coverage upon jurors are not reliably effective" (Phillipson, 2008). This openly questions media’s involvement and place in court proceeding, especially in particularly important one like that of Charles Taylor. The danger of a trial through the press threatens to create irregularities that can be employed to invalidate the case against him. Moreover, "in the contemporary media age, under the pressure of the 24/7 news environment, a fiercely competitive mass-media market, and the extraordinary cult of celebrity, we should be ready to ask afresh, Does unrestrained media freedom now always serve the goals of free speech? The answer given here is an emphatic no: the uses the media make of its freedom can often directly undermine the values underlying the right to free speech itself—human dignity, the state’s duty to secure equal respect for the basic rights of all, and the foundations of a democratic society, among which must be the rule of law, a vital aspect of which is the right to a fair trial" (Phillipson, 2008). Media though beneficial to modern society it is also a caused of difficulty for institutions, which are burdened to protect and uphold justice and the punishment of offences, especially those that are gruesome and unconscionable. It is said that "this is not a story about war crimes; it’s a media feeding frenzy about celebrities. When Campbell gave her evidence, the number of journalists covering the trial jumped tenfold. However, has she served her purpose? Now everybody knows Taylor has been brought to trial for killing, torturing and maiming hundreds of thousands of his fellow Africans" (King, 2010). Another striking fact was made clear. "In some ways, we should be thankful it happened — for it has shone a light on what really drives the cult of celebrity today. We are frequently told the reason celebs are taking over the world is because the little people desperately need their daily fix of gossip. However, in truth, it is the authorities who have turned them into creatures of politics and history" (King, 2010). Conclusion In addressing the issue of Ms. Naomi Campbell’s testimony before the Special Court for presiding over Mr. Charles Taylors trial as well as it underlying implications certain findings stand out. Celebrities and their influenced pervade all corners of modern society. Their influence is broad although at times indirect. They have even a degree of impact on the courts of today. It is not clear as to the extent of this influence, but it cannot be denied that it exists. This in turn could taint proceedings that deal with these grave crimes. Active efforts must be made to deal with them before all war crime tribunals be turned into courts of public opinion. Courts and proceedings exceeding influenced by media and its members, celebrities are in effect are counter to justice In these distortions of justice war criminals could merely claim irregularity or use the public’s perception to evade accountability. Perception is not used as the basis for deciding cases due to its biased nature. When perception governs court proceedings the idea of justice is lost. The occurrence of war crimes and the instances of impunity is due in part to the prevalence of indifference as well as the existence of an uninformed public. The more the public is made aware of these atrocities and lesser they will be committed. When people do not know and do not care about genocide the more warlords like Charles Taylor are emboldened to commit them. All these positive effects are attributable to media as well as celebrities who are members of the said sector. However, are these positive effects agreeable, even if it also goes hand in hand with detriments? The testimony of Noami Campbell from a legal standpoint does not establish directly any of the charges against Taylor. Aside from that is riddled with inconsistencies and irregularities. All of which can be used in Taylor’s defence. Aside from the intrinsic problems of that account, there is also the problem of trial by publicity and prejudice in favour of celebrities. This undermines the idea that even war criminals should get an impartial trial. Having this testimony reinforces the idea that the "Special Court for Sierra Leone" is a court of vengeance, and it exists to persecute individuals that are against the west. This, in fact, has been contended by Taylor himself. By allowing a witness whose testimony is an indirect one and under questionable circumstances what conclusion can be had. Moreover, this in turn could form the idea among the general public that such tribunal is not believable and credible. This would undermine the idea of making Charles Taylor accountable but also the ability of the court to pass judgment. Although the good brought about the testimony of Ms. Campbell is undeniable it is not a viable trade off as to the negative implication that also stems from the same testimony. When accountability for war crimes and true justice is at stake trading proper process, impartiality and credibility for increased public attention are unacceptable and counter – intuitive. References: Shah, Anup, 2001. Sierra Leone. [online] Available at: [Accessed 1 January 2011]. Rojek, Chris, 2001. Celebrity. Reaktion Books: London. Perriello, Tom and Wierda, Marieke, 2006. Special Court for Sierra Leone Under Scrutiny. International Center for Transitional Justice. Available at: [Accessed 1 January 2011]. British Broadcasting Company, 2010. Q&A: Charles Taylor on trial. [online] Available at: [Accessed 1 January 2011]. Special Court for Sierra Leone, n.d. The Prosecutor vs. Charles Ghankay Taylor. [online] Available at: [Accessed 1 January 2010]. “The Prosecutor against Charles Ghankay Taylor", 2007, Special Court for Sierra Leone, Case No. SCSL - 2003 - 01 –PT Available at: [Accessed 1 January 2010]. Gray-Block, Aaron, 2010. Naomi Campbell gives "blood diamond" testimony. [online] Reuters. Available at: [Accessed 1 January 2010]. Keating, Joshua, 2010. Did we learn anything from Naomi Campbells testimony? 5 August, Available at: [Accessed 2 January 2010]. Zyberi, Gentian, 2010. “Diamonds, Celebrities and the Charles Taylor trial”. International Law Observer. [online], Posted on August 9, 2010. Available at: [Accessed 1 January 2010]. Seminar 4: Celebrity, notoriety and the law Chamberlain, Jared, Miller, Monica K. and Jehle, Alayna, 2006. “Celebrities in the Courtroom: Legal Responses, Psychological Theory and Empirical Research.” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 8(3): 551-572. Available at: Read More