Former Liberian president Charles Taylor, is in court to defend himself on 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity he allegedly committed in Liberia’s neighbour to the west, Sierra Leone. Liberian media cover the trial extensively but Liberians are, to all intents and purposes, mere spectators. This trial is not about them. Liberia lacks a war crimes tribunal. What it does have is a Truth and Reconciliation Commission which has been taking countless statements from war crimes victims and perpetrators and whose report is in the public domain.
By Bram Posthumus
The UN and the Sierra Leone government installed the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) in 2002. In June 2003, David Crane, its chief prosecutor, had Taylor indicted for war crimes allegedly committed in Sierra Leone. Two months later, Taylor left Liberia in the midst of chaos and bloody struggle as rebels pounded the capital Monrovia with mortars. His departure was the result of a deal struck principally between himself, the Economic Community for West African States and the African Union, the nub of it being that he would not be arrested and would stay out of Liberian politics. Taylor went to stay in Calabar, Nigeria.
What changed? Anyone’s guess but late March 2006 the world was treated to the bizarre spectacle of Taylor first “disappearing” from his villa, days before Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo was supposed to meet US president George W Bush, and then Nigerian security forces miraculously “finding” Taylor again near the border with Cameroon. (International Justice Tribunal reported on that chain of events here.) A few days later, Taylor was in The Hague and Obasanjo had his meeting with Bush.
The prosecution at the SCSL has been presenting the world with victims: amputated limbs, rape victims, horror stories. No one denies these things happened, but the question is: how hard is it to prove that Charles Taylor is personally responsible for these atrocities?
The spectacle of Ms Campbell at the SCSL gives you the answer: very hard. Current chief prosecutor Brenda Hollis has to work with the legacy left behind by a lawyer who scored a major political point and earned his place in history but did not appear too concerned about the consequences. Given the robust and professional defence Taylor enjoys, Crane’s indictment may, in the end, facilitate the ex-president’s return to Liberia. As he said himself, before he stepped on that plane to Nigeria in August 2003 in the driving rain: ‘God willing...I’ll be back’.
Will people vote for him if he stands? One Liberian banker puts it succinctly: ‘At the end of the day, people don’t care too much about human rights and rule of law. They want to eat!’ Reggae musician and Bob Marley admirer, Lawrence Kotokpo, says he’ll vote for Taylor if he stands. Why? ‘This one,’ he says while pointing at his stomach, ‘is the boss.’ He is not alone: rice was cheap during Taylor’s reign.
The only thing standing in the way of Taylor’s renewed bid for office is the recommendation from Liberia’s own TRC, which says that anyone involved in the war should not hold public office for 30 years. However, this recommendation has already been royally ignored by the current president Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, who was once a fundraiser for Mr Taylor.
To be fair: she has openly acknowledged this but has also decided this should not have consequences. She is standing for a second turn – which, incidentally, constitutes a broken promise. So what then is to stop Taylor’s return? Only serious political horse-trading at the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
In my earlier posting I said that Charles Taylor will actually walk a free man at the end of the day because the case against him were Fabricated and there were NO proof. I also mention of all the Prosecution witnesses being paid. Please read the below transcript. This is a Defense witness who was paid to lie against Charles Taylor but refused and switch side. He has all the western UNION payment documents as proof. Please read below
The Defence submits that the Prosecution has failed to comply with its Rule 68
obligations in regard to Witness DCT-097/TFI-354.'
2. Despite repeated requests for disclosure of statements given by DCT-097 and
records of money given to DCT-097 by the Prosecution, the Prosecution has failed
_____ ___io_discloseinfonna.tioR.rdating-to-the-folk>wing:
i) the existence and substance of a statement given by DCT-097 to Global
Witness, which the Prosecution is aware and which pre-dated Prosecution
interviews with OCT-097 ("Statement"), and
ii) an accounting and explanation of money (estimated at almost $30,000) paid
to or benefits conferred on DCT-097 by the Prosecution from 2004 to 2006
("Payments").
3. The Defence have established on a prima facie basis that the Prosecution has
failed to disclose the Statement and Payments which tend to suggest the innocence
or mitigate the guilt of the accused or may affect the credibility of prosecution
evidence. Thus the Defence request the Trial Chamber to compel the disclosure
of the Statement and Payments forthwith.
II. BACKGROUND
4. On 12 May 2010 the Defence indicated that DCT-097 was on its Core Witness
List.2 DCT-097 is a protected defence witness according to the 27 May 2009
Defence Protective Measures Decision.'
5. On 19 May 2010, the Defence disclosed the name of DCT-097 to the
Prosecution." In its First Disclosure Letter, the Defence specifically requested:
"[.. .] any material, within its possession, which is relevant to the named witnesses
including, but not limited to, witness statements and/or disbursement records . The
Defence have reason to believe that the Prosecution has previously been in contact
with DCT-097 and thus asks specifically for unredacted copies of any statements
I The Prosecution have acknowledged that DCT-097 is the same as TFl-354. See Letter from Brenda
Hollis to Courtenay Griffiths , QC, 14 June 2010 [Confidential Annex A] ("Disclosure Receipt").
2 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-Q3-01-T-957, Defence Rule 73ter Filing of Witness SummariesVersion
Five, 12 May 2010, Annex C.
3 Any materials which may identify the witness are included in confidential annexes . Prosecutor v.
Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-782, Decision on Urgent Defence Application for Protective Measure s for
Witnesses and for Non-Public Materials, 27 May 2010.
4 Letter from Courtenay Griffiths, QC, to Brenda Hollis, 19 May 2010 [Confidential Annex B] ("First
Disclosure Request").
SCSL-03-0 1-T 2 4 August 2010
2qb33
taken as well [sic] records of any expenses paid to (or on behalf of) this witness
through the Prosecution's Witness Management Unit".
6. The Prosecution did not disclose anything. So the Defence followed its First
Disclosure Letter with a second, stating that the delay in disclosure was hindering
the Defence's progress in preparation asking the Prosecution to clarify whether:
"[...] you do not have an"y_oftheL~q!!l&l~!lmateriaLin.YQuLpossession; -Y.QU.at"e-m-too--------------:
p~r:o::cessot disclosingi"Cand if so, when such disclosurewould be made; or you have
the requestedmaterial in your possessionbut are not inclinedto disclose it".5
7. The Prosecution did not immediately disclose anything nor respond directly to the
Second Disclosure Request.
8. On 10 June 2010, the Prosecution sent the Defence a letter (in relation to another
witness) noting that:
"[ ... ] when the Prosecution does not reply to your requests for the disclosure of all
statements/disbursement records in relation to Defence witnesses, it indicates that
there are neither statements nor disbursement records in the Prosecution's possession
to be disclosed"."
9. On 14 June 2010, the Prosecution disclosed rune statements and/or
correspondences in relation to DCT-097/ dated: 27 May 2004,28 May 2004, 11
October 2004, 14 February 2005, 22 February 2005, 28 November 2005, 15
January 2006. One disclosure was undated. The Prosecution did not disclose the
existence or substance of the Global Witness Statement nor a record of Payments.
The Prosecution has given no explanation to the Defence regarding its lack of
disclosure in relation to OCT-097.
10. On 21 July 2010, a Defence lawyer and a Defence investigator met with DCT-097
and interviewed him, partially in respect to his interaction and cooperation with
the Prosecution. On this occasion, DCT-097, inter alia, told the Defence the
following: 8
i) That he was first approached by the Prosecution in 2004 through Alex
Yearsley of Global Witness;"
5 Letter from Courtenay Griffiths, QC, to Brenda Hollis, 3 June 20 I0 [Confidential Annex C] ("Second
Disclosure Request") .
6 Letter from Brenda Hollis to Courtenay Griffiths, QC, 10 June 2010 [Confidential Annex D)
("Disclosure Explanation").
7 Confidential Annex A, Disclosure Receipt.
8 See Signed Statement by Logan Hambrick, Legal Assistant, 22 July 2010. [Confidential Annex E)
("Interview Notes").
9 See, FYI, www.globalwitness.org.
SCSL-03-01-T 3 4 August 2010
ii) That Alex Yearsley of Global Witness had interviewed and taken a
statement from him in Abidjan in 2001 or 2002;
iii) That the person who put Alex Yearsley of Global Witness in touch
with OCT-097 was [Prosecution Witness TFl -151]; 10
iv) That the statement he (DCT-097) gave to Global Witness in 2001 or
___ ___ _ __..2002_re1ated.-to.-OC+-0-97.~B_iflwlvement-in- trading·-diamornts-fur-the
RUF in Monrovia from 2000;
v) That he told Global Witness that the RUF were not involved in trading
diamonds with Charles Taylor or the Liberian Government, but that
this was the story Global Witness wanted OCT-097 to confirm;
vi) That Alex Yearsley of Global Witness called DCT-097 from the
Congo in 2004 to say that a contact of his from the Special Court from
Sierra Leone would be in touch with OCT-097 and that he should
cooperate;
vii) That a few days later, Gilbert Morissette of the Prosecution called
DCT-097 and asked OCT-097 to meet with him in a location of his
choice;
viii) That the Prosecution wanted OCT-097 to confirm what they said they
had heard from other sources - that DCT-097 was the main RUF
person who carried diamonds to Charles Taylor;
ix) That after meeting with and while being interviewed by various
members of the Prosecution (including David Crane, Gilbert
Morissette, John Berry, Maggie, and an Australian), the Prosecution
paid OCT-097 a monthly "allowance" of approximately $1200 a month
from sometime in 2004 until sometime in 2006;
x) That the Prosecution did not provide this allowance for any specific
purpose, but for OCT-097' s general "upkeep";
xi) That this allowance would be given to DCT-097 in cash if he was in
Freetown or would be sent to him via MoneyGram ifhe was travelling
throughout the sub-region;
10 DCT-097 referred to the contact by his proper name, but the Defence knows him to be TFl-151 .
SCSL-03-0 1-T 4 4 August 2010
xii) That this allowance stopped when DCT-097 met with the Prosecution
for a final time in Senegal in 2006 and the Prosecution told DCT-097
that they were not getting what they needed from him.
11. DCT-097 has given the Defence color copies of seventeen MoneyGram receipts
showing payments being sent from five different Prosecution employees to DCT097
in various West African3QuntIi_eJ!~ __during.the__period-OflLApril-20Q4-·t&·19- · --- --,_.._-_.._--~--~._.__._---_._._-----------_.--_.-~._------_.---------_. -
June 2006, in amounts such as $2000, €1552, 8,989,200 Ghanaian Cedis, and
526,269 CFA Francs. I I
III. ApPLICABLE LAW & LEGAL BASIS
12. The plain language of Rule 68(B) states:
The Prosecutor shall, within 30 days of the initial appearance of the accused, make a
statement under this Rule disclosing to the defence the existence of evidence known
to the Prosecutor which in any way tends to suggest the innocence or mitigate the
guilt of the accused or may affect the credibility of prosecution evidence. The
Prosecutor shall be under a continuing obligation to disclose any such exculpatory
material.
13.
Bram Posthumus , Thanks for such a brilliant article. As a committed follower of Charles Taylor trial, it is more likely he'll walk a free man at the end of the day. There's absolutely No evidence so far after parading 90+ witnesses. Almost 90% of the witnesses admitted to being over compensated/paid, all of the so-called prosecution witnesses testimony were " They Say, hear say, She say etc, until this court agree to allowed They-say, hear-say in the trial. If anyone thinks Ms. campbell threw the prosecution under the bus; even-though, they brought her in, people should also take the time to watch/read the testimony of other so-called linkage witnesses the prosecution brought. Taylor lawyers effectively destroy they all and proof they were lying and being paid to testify. Bram Posthumus, you're 1 of many writers that are looking at this case objectively, and I'll like to think you for that. What happen to the $5 Billions that we were made to believed charles Taylor Had from the sale of Diamond? Where is the money? Who did he buy arms from, please show us? Who bought those Diamonds that was alleged he received in exchange for gun? Why is the prosecution keep bringing in new so-called evidence and witnesses after they’ve wrap-up their case months ago and we’re far into the defense case ( that tells me the prosecution wasn’t satisfy with their own 90+ witness eairlier). By they way, can one of those writers who posted earlier tell me who are the linkage witnesses; will they include, Moses Bleh and the other admitted cinnabal Ziga mana? Come-on fellows, you guys are not watching or following this case as you'd like other to believe. This case is going so bad for the prosecution that the defense is planning on cutting their witnesses list down to only 25. Case-In-Chief. This is an example of one of the so-called linkage witness testimony e.g. mr.yy told the court that mr.PP told him, he over-heard Mr.JJ over the phone and he Mr. PP thinks it was Taylor on the other line, and the discussion was about Diamond. Those are the kinds of silliness we had to watch everyday while getting up 4:00am EST. Every prosecution witness that came up admitted to RUF buying arm from Ecomog ,the republic of Guinea, from Ulimo, and directly from over the Atlantic, No one could pin-point Taylor to any arm sale or diamond dealing, No one, so this writers is absolutely right " What if Taylor walks " Everything talk about in this article by Bram Posthumus is 100% truth, and NO-one can disprove a single thing he mention. Keep it objective and don’t follow the media hype. Innocent until proven guilty
If only Bundu rather than M. Posthumus was writing about international justice for your website! thought that the purpose of your website was to seriously cover international justice. When did M. Posthumus become aware of this trial? Apparently not in 2008 when the Prosecutor indeed called more than 30 insiders witnesses to prove its case. How many trials in international courts can M. Posthumus tell us about where that number of linkage evidence was presented? Probably none. My advice to M. Posthumus: read the transcripts of the Taylor trial of 9 April and 4 May 2009 about the Rule 98 submissions and you will hopefully start to understand something about this case. And please do some serious research for your next article.
If only Bundu rather than M. Posthumus was writing about international justice for your website! thought that the purpose of your website was to seriously cover international justice. When did M. Posthumus become aware of this trial? Apparently not in 2008 when the Prosecutor indeed called more than 30 insiders witnesses to prove its case. How many trials in international courts can M. Posthumus tell us about where that number of linkage evidence was presented? Probably none. My advice to M. Posthumus: read the transcripts of the Taylor trial of 9 April and 4 May 2009 about the Rule 98 submissions and you will hopefully start to understand something about this case. And please do some serious research for your next article.
Vanguard ,
I don't believed you're watching the same trial I/we are watching. I think you'll be better off reading the transcript over. This case is going so bad for the prosecution that the international Media have completely overlook it. Where are the $5 billions ?Why didn't we see the arm dealer that sold arm to Taylor for the RUF during the prosecution case? Where are the Diamonds and who bought them? Is there any documented evidence so far you can point to or quote during the the prosecution case, Charles Taylor haters come better prepare next time. Oh by the way, I m a Liberian too and live in Liberia during the war, so I know ........
This article is perfect example of slip shod reporting that has accompanied the Naomi Cambpell appearance. The reporter, before characterizing the case so haphazardly, should have mentioned that prior to Campbell the prosecution called over 30 "linkage" witnesses connecting Taylor to the crimes. Measured up against other cases within the truibunals, the prosecution case is strong, very strong. Obviously the reporter dislikes Crane. Crane's personality and over-the-top rhetoric are irrelevant though to the actual case. This site, by its very title, implies that its reporters have at least a cursory understanding of international law and the cases it comments on. But clearly, given this artcile's erroneous characterization of the case against Taylor, the reporter was either ignroant, lazy or deliberately tried to mischaracterize the strength of the prosecution's case. It is inexcusable. Perhaps if this reporter and many others actually paid attention to the case before a super model's appearance, they wouldnt be so misinformed.
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.