The quality of mercy – as it applies to Liberia

E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Ghanadot

December 3, 2009

"These vulture funds would always come for their pound of flesh," was my reaction when I read that two collectors had managed to wring, at a British High Court in London, a legal award of $20 million out of poor Liberia.

It makes you wonder what the matter is with justice as practiced by the law courts in the West.

It also makes you question why a government, like the British, that has always been actively involved in development policy formulations for the Third Word, would overlook the fact that its court’s decision would ultimately be detrimental and cruel to the people of Liberia.

Of course, there would always be an explanation for British respect for the rule of law.  But, under such hard nose law, Shylock could have had his pound of flesh.

The two companies involved in this “vulture fund adventurism” were Wall Capital Ltd and Hamsah Investments, both of British Virgin Islands registry, in a Third World British dependent Caribbean country.

The vultures had purchased the right to collect on a debt owed Chemical Bank since 1978; an act which Vulture Debt Campaign, a human rights NGO based in Britain, had described as “completely outrageous - but ... still perfectly legal.”

It is this “outrageous…but perfectly legal.” aspect of this case that is troublesome and hence the reference to Shylock and the "pound of flesh" in Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice.”

But for the moral compass of literature, Shylock would have had his pound of flesh.  He failed to get it because the loan contract did not require payment with blood.

Unfortunate for the British justice system, there is no such thing as moral compass beyond the law.  Therefore, the judge in charge did not see the demand for settlement as blood payment.  Hence the two vulture companies got their pound of flesh with blood dripping from it.

The original loan, contracted in 1978 for $6.5m from the US-based Chemical Bank, had ballooned to some $20 million at the time of the court award in November 2009.

Not even the “the quality of mercy,” propounded by countryman Shakespeare, could propel the judge to look at the grave circumstances surrounding the case against Liberia.

Liberia, in 2009 was a country that was broke and destitute and severely harmed by a civil war spanning over two decades.  It has long been seeking help from the West.

Compared to countries like Iraq and Kosovo in similar circumstances, that the British government sent troops to, Liberia got no help.

 And, considering that a month cost of British troop bivouac in Iraq would have paid for the entire $20 million debt owed by Liberia, this verdict would seem weird coming from the British, whose help was so generous to Iraq..

Organizations like Jubilee Debt Campaign have been calling for a total cancellation of Liberia's debt because of the civil war and the destitute state Liberia was left in.

Rightly, they had argued that much of Liberia's debt was “odious,” because it was acquired by oppressive regimes of the past.

Without doubt, the British High Court judge knew about the circumstances surrounding Liberia’s past and also was aware that the debt could rightly be classified as “odious.”  Yet he granted the hefty award of $20 million to the two vulture capitalists

The judge, Mr. Justice Barton, said “The only issue raised is plainly a sad one, that Liberia is a poor country, and cannot afford it.” Yet he ruled in favor of the vulture capitalists.

Judge Baron was correct in noticing the sadness of the case because of its “odious” nature.  How could he not address in court the exorbitant nature of the same case brought in my the two plaintiffs?

Elsewhere, BBC had reported that “In 2002 a New York court ruled that Liberia owed $18m” in a similar summary judgment.

Liberia, the defendant and current debtor, could not appear in court in New York because the country “was wracked by civil war at the time and did not offer a defence.”

In the end, all these vulture capitalists stood there in court, with pleasant faces ,knowing that they would collect on what was in reality a windfall...
 
Granted that debts must be paid, but if the recent policy of the West on debt forgiveness has been sincere, why could it not be extended to countries like Liberia rather than allow vulture funds to  drain the benefits?

The British government cannot plead ignorance about the business practices of Wall Capital Ltd and Hamsah Investment since the operate from the British Virgin Island;a British dependency, just like the Taliban could not plead ignorance about the behavior of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Yet, this same British government, as well as those of some developed countries, who take pride in fomenting development policies for Africa, pretend not to be able to craft a policy that will put these vulture funds out of their main business – that of fleecing poor countries of the little windfalls that come their way.

Come to think of this, we may conclude that the “vulture companies” are part of  system connivingly set up by donors like Britain to claw back any largesse that may end up in Third World countries like Liberia.

Evne though late now, we would like to ask the British judge un appreal not forget the moral statement offered by one of country’s greatest writers: that,

"The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.".. (The Merchant of Venice)

But we will remember that missing in the original decision are the goodwill and benevolent import of the Shakespeare’s piece.

 
E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Publisher www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC, December 3, 2009

Permission to publish:  Please feel free to publish or reproduce, with credits, unedited.  If posted at a website, email a copy of the web page to publisher@ghanadot.com . Or don't publish at all.