Lewis Dunne discusses the pros and cons of a Libyan solution to a Libyan problem.

Saif al-Islam, son of the ex-Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, was captured on the 19th November while attempting to flee the country. Although there is a warrant out for his arrest from the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) is insisting that it wants Saif to be tried in Libya. This has resulted in wrangling over how the trial should proceed.

The position of the NTC is very understandable. The Libyan people have just fought a short but bloody civil war to overthrow the dictatorship ran by Gaddafi and his family. Saif himself was a strong supporter of his father during the civil war, both politically and militarily. The Libyan people naturally not only want him to face justice, but Libyan justice, in Libya. The trial is about showing that Libya can survive by itself without Gaddafi, who ruled the country for the majority of its independent history, and that Libya is fully capable of dealing with Libyan problems.

If Saif is tried in the Hague, it would be a lot easier for Gaddafi supporters to try and claim that the war was fought by Western powers who are now dishing out their brand of justice. A Libyan trial reminds us that this war was fought by the Libyan people.

If Saif is tried in Libya, he will potentially face the death penalty. No doubt many Libyans would be pleased with this outcome, and as abhorrent as the death penalty is, such a sentence might be best for Libya. However, the Gaddafi family had a lot of supporters in Libya. The last thing the Libyan government wants is a figure like Saif still being present in Libya and in the national consciousness.

The entire Arab world will have their eyes on this trial. It will serve as a reminder not to wage war against your own people, and that it is better to step down, or flee, sooner rather than later. It’s possible that Yemeni President Saleh’s recent announcement that he will step down is driven by a fear of suffering the same fate as Saif. As part of President Saleh’s agreement to relinquish power, he will be given immunity from prosecution for any crimes he may have committed in office.

Will the likelihood of prosecution at the ICC actually encourage dictators to fight on if they know that the worst that will happen to them is a trial at the ICC, where they would receive a fair trial, a relatively comfortable prison sentence, and no death penalty? Many of these dictators are extremely old and unlikely to live to see the end of their trials or prison sentences.

Or will a Libyan trial, instead of encouraging dictators to go, encourage those who have already started down the path of bloodshed to continue? Bashar al-Assad in Syria may be more inclined to fight on if he feels that the only alternative is surrender, a quick and probably unfair trial followed by execution at the hands of the Syrian opposition.

It is unlikely Libya will be able to deliver a fair trial for Saif. The country is just out of a civil war and is facing many problems. Delivering a trial as large and complex as this is an incredibly difficult thing to do in the best of conditions. If Iraq couldn’t give Saddam Hussein a fair trial more than a year after the invasion, despite the billions pumped into the country by the coalition and all the vested interest in the trial appearing as fair as possible, what makes us think that Libya can deliver fair trial only months out of a bloody civil war?

The desire for revenge for years of oppression is understandably strong. There are many benefits to trying Saif in Libya, but what the Libyan people need to do is to show that they stand by the principles they fought for in the civil war. The revolution was stained enough by Muammar Gaddafi’s summary execution. Saif al-Islam needs to receive a fair and open trial, and considering the numerous problems facing Libya at the moment, it’s unlikely he’ll be able to receive that in Libya.