Does the UK Offer to Imprison Mr. Taylor if Convicted Mean the Outcome of the Trial is Predetermined?

This week, one of our readers, Sylvanus, asked an important question about Charles Taylor’s trial: “can you explain to some of us the reason why it has already been decided that if Taylor is convicted he would be imprisoned in Britain. Could it be that there is a predetermined outcome of this trial?”

The short answer is no.

In fact, it is very normal administrative practice for the Special Court for Sierra Leone – and indeed, of international criminal tribunals generally, like the ones set up for the conflicts in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia – to try to create “sentence enforcement agreements” with countries before a trial has finished. These agreements basically indicate that a state would be willing to imprison people who are on trial if they are found guilty, and they also set out the responsibilities of that state if the person was transferred to a jail in their country, including ensuring that the person’s human rights were upheld and respected while he or she is in prison. Given how long it usually takes to get agreement within countries to accept potential prisoners, the process can take years to negotiate and conclude. This means that the Special Court has to try to make these arrangements before the trials and appeals have finished and a verdict is handed down. Otherwise the Special Court would risk not having any place for the person to serve their sentence if they are convicted:  the Special Court’s own holding cells for the accused people are not intended to be long-term options for imprisonment. And concerns about the poor prison conditions in Sierra Leone – particularly the main prison in Freetown on Pademba Road which may not meet international human right standards — have meant that the Special Court has needed to look elsewhere for imprisonment options in case they are needed.

The little known fact about the Special Court is that this sentence enforcement agreement with the United Kingdom for Charles Taylor is not the only one the Special Court has.  The Special Court actually has a number of these agreements with other states in case the people being tried by the court are found guilty.  Just in March 2009, it made an agreement with Rwanda to imprison persons from the Special Court if they are found guilty.  It has similar agreements with Sweden and Finland. But it still does not have enough of these agreements to house all of the accused persons who have gone on trial at the Special Court if they are found guilty (and five of its nine accused have been found guilty on appeal so far).

These agreements, then, really just represent a practical, precautionary administrative arrangement to ensure a smooth transition for the person in case of a guilty verdict – but it does not presume there will be one.  It is just a matter of being prepared.

This process of reaching out to States to get these agreements is provided for in the Special Court’s governing documents: its Statute and also its Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

Article 22(1) of the Court’s statute says “Imprisonment shall be served in Sierra Leone. If circumstances so require, imprisonment may also be served in any of the States which have concluded with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda or the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia an agreement for the enforcement of sentences, and which have indicated to the Registrar of the Special Court their willingness to accept convicted persons. The Special Court may conclude similar agreements for the enforcement of sentences with other States.”

Meanwhile, Rule 103(A) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence says: “Imprisonment shall be served in Sierra Leone, unless circumstances require otherwise. The Special Court may conclude agreements with other countries willing to accept and imprison convicted persons.”

In the case of Charles Taylor, the States involved in his coordinating the transfer of the trial to The Hague wanted to make sure that all the administrative logistics – including a courthouse for him to be tried in, a State willing to host the trial, and a State willing to imprison Mr. Taylor if he was found guilty at the end of the trial — were in place before his trial even started. So, in essence, they just tried to speed up a process which would have happened anyway, no matter who the accused person was.

In terms of specifics, it might be worth remembering the process leading up to Mr. Taylor’s transfer to The Hague.  After he was arrested in Nigeria on March 29, 2006, he was transferred back to Liberia and then on to the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Freetown.  Yet there were concerns about whether Mr. Taylor should be tried in Sierra Leone.  Citing fears over instability in Liberia if Taylor were to be tried in Freetown, both the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Liberian President, Ellen Sirleaf-Johnson, backed a bid to have Taylor’s trial moved to The Hague.

The Dutch Government asked for a Security Council resolution to authorize the transfer, and said it would host Taylor’s trial on the condition that another country agreed in advance to take Taylor after his trial finished, should he be convicted. The then United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, made a request for states to consider hosting Mr. Taylor if he was found guilty. The United Kingdom agreed. Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court expressed willingness for the Special Court for Sierra Leone to use its premises in The Hague for the trial.

The Security Council resolution was drafted by the United Kingdom. Security Council Resolution 1688 was passed unanimously on June 16, 2006, paving the way for Taylor to be tried by the Special Court on the premises of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.  And now, here we are today with the trial in full swing.

The UN issued a fairly comprehensive press release about the process when the Security Council issued the resolution. I would encourage readers to check it out here:

So, please, dear readers, do not see this agreement with the UK as indicating a foregone conclusion of the trial.  The defense is still presenting its case and we are still a while away from seeing a verdict handed down by the judges.  It is only then, once the judges decide on the case, that we will know whether this agreement with the United Kingdom is needed for Charles Taylor, or not.


  1. Tracey,

    Once more thanks for your insightful analysis. While legally I follow the logic of your argument, I’ms sure you would concur that the main reasons folks are skeptical is by the language of that security counsel resolution ie. “if convicted Taylor would be imprisoned in Britain”.

    Did Britain or any other country also offer to host Mr. Taylor should he not be convicted? From the lanaguage of that resolution, I don’t believe the framers had that scenario in mind. For that reason, I hope you understand how the wording of these resolutions feeds this fire that this trial has a predetermined. That may or may not be the case, but both pro-Taylor and anti-Taylor people in West Africa and across the diaspora have this perception. Perception unfortunately is sometimes realer than reality.

    Keep up the good work!

    1. Tracey,

      While i sincerely wish to thank you for painstainkingly finding time to respond to my earlier query, may i also say that i share the sentiments expressed by MAS and will not comment any further on your response.

      However, at the risk of sounding ungrateful can you or any other person for that matter please address readers on this page on the jurisprudence of making HEARSAY EVIDENCE admissible – in a trial for crimes as grave as the ones Taylor is been indicted with before the SC-SL.

      Thank you..

      1. Mas and Sylvanus,

        I was very interested in your comments. You will see that I have posted a comment earlier in response to Mas about the British government – it issued a statement which referred to how it saw its obligations if Taylor was acquitted (that is, Britain would not be required to take him in).

        But I think your comments going to another issue — the importance of how these major resolutions are worded by the Security Council, right? What is said and not said in these resolutions are important to people, and the words chosen can have a huge impact on how people view justice processes like this one. Can I ask you both — given this perception in West Africa that you describe (ie that there must be a predetermined outcome for the trial because the resolution only mentioned Mr. Taylor’s imprisonment if he was found guilty, and did not mention anything about an acquittal) — what should the UN or the Special Court or others have done to address this perception? What should the Security Council resolution have said instead?

        I will look forward to your views.


        1. Hi Tracey,

          You must be hard working! Once again thanks for your prompt and magnanimous responses. With regards to your poser i.e “what should the UN or the Special Court or others have done to address this perception?”. The answer is a simple one really. Either the UN or the Special Court should have spelt out in unequivocal terms what would happen to Taylor should he be found not guilty.

          Laying emphasis on what happens if he is found guilty, and being silent on what happens if the contrary occurs, seem to have created room for suspicion of foul play.

          Once again thank you for your clarifications, i wish those responsible for the Security Council Resolutions and the drafting of the rules of this court were so generous!


    2. Dear Mas,

      Thanks for your note and your kind words. You make a good point. I was curious myself about the issue of acquittal.

      It seems the UK did address the issue of his acquittal. In the ministerial statement made on June 15, 2006, here is what the UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mrs Margaret Beckett, said: “Were the Court to acquit former President Taylor, we would not be required to allow him to come to the UK. Were he to be convicted, and subsequently released after serving a sentence, the expectation at this stage is that former President Taylor would leave or face removal from the UK.”

      So it seems they considered both possible outcomes, and determined that they would only take on the responsibility of enforcing his sentence in the case of a guilty verdict, not for taking him in to live in the UK should he be acquitted or, if he were found guilty and sent to prison, allow him to stay in the UK after he finished his jail term.

      In case you or other readers are interested, you can read the full UK statement here:


      1. Hey Tracey,
        Do i take it then that we are not getting any jurisprudential justification for the admissibility of hearsay evidence on the Taylor trial? You don’t seem to have said anything in that regard.


        1. Hi Sylvanus,

          Please don’t give up on me just yet! I was planning to make my next post about hearsay. It will be sometime next week – sound okay? It seems like an issue that a lot of people are interested in and talking about here.


        2. Tracey,
          I cannot wait to hear from you on that issue, HEARSAY. Maybe also we need some EXPERTS. To have a case of this magnitude to uphold the science of HEARSAY is beyond me. Not FIRST PERSON hearsay but SECOND and THIRD hearsays??? A TRAVESTY for and to TRUE justice.

      2. Sylvanus,
        If Mr. Taylor is found not guilty he can go anywhere he wants. If there are countries who do not want him to visit for some reason they will not give he a visa. Why should the UN or the Special Court have any say so over where any person can travel?

      3. Tracy,
        why should Mr. Taylor go to the UK to live. Mr. Taylor is a natural born Liberian, he can go to his own country to live. Remember that Liberia is a democracy, govern by a constitution, not by what other may think.

        Tracy, people also seem to think if Mr. Taylor is found guilty he going to spend his life in jail, this may not be so either.

  2. Thanks so much Tracy for your explanation on the above subject. In West Africa, most people give credence to hear say or they say. There were speculations and gossips all around that by the United Kingdom accepting to offer a detention facility before the case even kicked off meant a fore gone conclusion that Mr Taylor was already guilty. However, as we follow the trial daily, it exposes a lot of unimaginable things. It’s my greatest wish to continuously follow this trial till the end. Once again, I’m grateful to this site for keeping me inform about the day to day activities of the case. At present, there’s no way to listen or even watch the trial in Liberia. The United Nations Radio was broadcasting the trial initially but for reasons unknown, they’ve stopped.

    1. Daniel,
      Really are you shocked??? It’s NOT money the issue but simply, the man is making his case of NOT guilty eventhough he was pronounced GUILTY before we even saw the doors of this court. Why will UN stopped broadcasting this case???

      I heard it been shown on Mr. Urey’s TV station….maybe you need to try that venue.

  3. Hey, Tracey, good work as usual.

    I only want to admonish advocates of a non-guilty verdit that we should not consider other outcomes of this trial than the one we expect. Because our defense team has done a considerable job so far. And don’t forget they are going to present 227 witnesses on behalf of Taylor.

    Already the defense has brought to the attention of the court, its confusion over the actual indictment against Mr. Taylor- Grifiths’ opening statement, July 13. Verdict in case of this magnitude has to be straight forward. The continual change of verdict leaves clouds of doubt and wonders.

    The change of indictment has been so unusually frequent that we anticipate request from the prosecuton to modify the indictment again in the wake of the integrity, credibility and intensity of the defense’s presentations thus far.

  4. Tracy,
    Thanks for the information! However the process would be much more transparent. If these countries who offered to inprison people found guilty at the Special Court would also give them asylum if they were to be found not guilty.

    1. Aki and Sylvanus,

      I think you both make excellent points – I hear from both of you a call for care, balance and fairness in how the Security Council and other countries generally approach important international trials like this one, and the need to ensure even-handedness in the language used in resolutions so as to address the perception challenges that you have raised. Let’s hope the Security Council considers these issues when they next make a similar resolution.


      1. Tracey,
        Can you find out how many nations on the Security Council that voted against Mr. Taylor on ALL matters and the CHIEF SPONSORS of those Resolutions??

      2. Tracey,

        Just to remind you that I still await your article on the admissibilty of hearsay on this trial. Another matter which has become more worrisome of recent is the conduct of the Prosecutor Stephen Rapp. He has been reported recently in the papers as saying he is very sure Taylor will be convicted. Note that this officer of the law does not say justice will be done. But that there will definately be a conviction.

        In my elementary knowledge of the profesional conduct of prosecutors, I know that a good prosecutor is one who does not set out desperately to secure a conviction. His objective should be that justice is achieved. However, with this kind of public statements from the prosecutor, he gives the general impression that this is a KANGAROO court. Am also forced to conclude that should Taylor be eventually convicted, that would be the biggest mockery of justice ever at an international level.

        I thought this trial was supposed to be a symbolism of the rule of law. With the irresponsible remarks and conduct of Mr. Rapp this trial has become a vendatta by Mr. Rapp either on his on behalf or on behalf of some shadow prosecutor(s)! Its a very big SHAME! A DISGRACE not only to the legal profession but to the organisations and countries who are funding this court.

        1. Dear Sylvanus — I have not forgotten your request. In taking Noko4’s advice to get outside experts to write for us, we have actually reached out to a few expert lawyers to see if they are available to comment on this issue on hearsay. If we cannot get an outside expert lawyer soon, we will post something on it ourselves. One way or another, there will definitely be a post on this issue.

          Also, a number of people have asked about Mr. Rapp’s interview in Liberia this week. As we will formally announce in the coming days, Mr. Rapp has agreed to do another interview with us. We have also approached Mr. Griffiths to see if someone from the defense team can speak to us as well, and hope they may also be able to soon (although we understand they are so busy with Mr. Taylor’s testimony right now). Perhaps this issue is one which readers may want to ask of Mr. Rapp himself when we open it up to readers for their questions.


    2. Aki,
      Let’s pray, but if he is set FREE and I was Mr. Taylor… Liberia I go!!!! If possible run in the 2011 election.

      1. Noko4,
        to Liberia I would go too, but politics would be just to support and I think Mr. Taylor should do the same thing. He has been president and did what he could, now it is time to turn it over to other and use his experience to help.

        1. Ken,
          I will lean towards your thought in the sake of Liberia, but just RUB it in their faces, I will want him to run….and he will WIN!!!

        2. Would it benefit Liberia for him to return and “rub it in their face”? my educated guess is not at all. Now if Taylor is a self serving fool, then he would, if acquitted, run as fast as he could to Liberia, run for office, and if he won, do exactly what he did when he was president……… nothing. At least nothing to help the Liberian people.

          If you want to take the stance that he was “not allowed” (i will not even comment on that… being willing to take handouts from the “west” but not the problems that come with “them”) to help his people then, it is safe to say he would not be allowed to help them now either. In knowing this, his selfishness would truly come to light and we would know for sure he does NOT care about Liberians or Liberia.

          but no, let them suffer so he can prove a point. This ONE MAN is that important.

      2. Aki,

        While I may have my doubts about the charges levied against Mr. Taylor for war crimes in Sierra Leone, it should not be overlooked that Taylor could be charged for war crimes in Liberia and would be, without a shadow of doubt, convicted. Although the framework for this has not been established but there are chances that it could. So, If you were Mr. Taylor, I would advise that you think twice about going to Liberia… talk more of running in an elections.

        1. Elbee,

          I would just want to advise all those advocates of a Sierra Leone styly tribunal that much legal ground work has be done than political ground work. All participant in the Liberian crises have blanket amnesty. One has to present reasonable legal challenge in a Liberian court to seek a reversal of the amnesty.

          s that likely? Maybe but I think it is an uphill battle.

        2. Elbee,

          Yes I have always maintained that the chances of convicting Mr. Taylor for war crimes in Liberia would be better than in Sierra Leone. One must remember that an amenesty was given to all warring factions in Liberia so it may be difficult. We can not become like Sierra Leone who gave the warring factions amenesty than took it away because some over zealous prosecutor ( David Crane) said so.

        3. Elbee,

          We should all be serious. Liberia is experiencing peace and tranquility like in the old days. No one will accept some makeshift western style plan and sholve it down Liberians throat, only to cause confusion and division.

          No Sierra Leonean style court will work in Liberia. It has no legal standing. When the accords that brought these government to power grant amnesty, it will be observed just as the interim governments were respected.

          If the Sierra Leoneans neglected their laws, it is up to them. All of you should abandon those thoughts because no one is more Liberian than the other to inject confusion amongst our midst.

          The demands of the TRC final reports will die a natural death, and that is the truth.

      3. Noko4 , execelent point.I look foward to mr. Taylor contesting the elections too.. but one thing I want to learn from any knowledgeable person is the road that led to mr. taylor stepping down from power. In my view the entire process was very controvercial and tinted . I mean very unfair, in that countries that were not suppose to arm other groups did, brought war and damaged his goverment. His economy was stalled by super powers around the world,he got indicted unlawfully and many other issues that you and I know of.. what could GEORGE BUSH and the west do to get mr. taylor back his former status after all these trouble they have cause for him. Can somebody help my confussion please..

        1. Cousin Noko5,
          I believe we’ll get to see that ARRANGEMENT that got him to step down. He must have it within his papers.

          I have asked that question….WHY ISN’T THE LOME ACCORD BEEN HONORED BY THIS COURT and still NOT gotten an answwer. As for Special Court for Liberia, I will SHOUT it out LOUDLY, as long as Pres. Johnson-Sirleaf is alive, DREAM is all to it. Unlike Pres. Kabbah, who was the SOLE voice, and in doing so, EXCUSE himself from prosecution, Liberians will NOT excuse her.

          As we read the papers out of Liberia, Pres. Johnson-Sirleaf’s friends around the world are MAD due to the recommendation of the TRC….WHY??? For those who are unware of that TRC report, it recommeded that Pres. Johnson-Sirleaf be BAN from politic for 30 years; simply put, THE END OF HER POLITICAL CAREER. I personally find that to be FOOLISH.

  5. Live feed!

    I want to thank Tracey Gurd and all who have made it possible for us to have the live feed back with no prblems so far.

    I am most greatful though missed the whole last week.

    God Bless

  6. Dear All,
    Thanks very kindly for your analyses. Your points are all reasonable. But you same to be overlooking the secret attacks on Taylor’s Chief Defend Council, Griffith.
    Could you comment or add on the attemped food poison report from his Doctor? Cause this could be another way of getting him to UK prison. What you think?
    Many thanks.

    1. @On August 17, 2009 at 12:41 pm, Dolo:
      I did not get your comments clear. Did you say Taylor’s Chief Defend Council, Griffith was food poison?

      Any information on that will help Tracey Gurd

    2. Dolo,

      This is interesting. Please provide the full account of this food poinsoning that Griffiths contracted. Is it anywhere posted so we can read it?

      1. Dear readers,

        A number of you have asked about Mr. Griffiths’ illness last week and wanted more information. Dolo, for example, wrote today that he was worried that we were “overlooking the secret attacks on Taylor’s Chief Defend Council, Griffith” and that his food poisoning last week might have been deliberate, so as to deprive Mr. Taylor of his lead defense counsel as “another way of getting him [Mr. Taylor] to UK prison.”

        As you know, the trial was stopped last Tuesday when Mr. Griffiths was ill from food poisoning. I do not know any more than what was in the transcript on Tuesday 4th and Wednesday 5th. But Mr. Griffith’s colleague, Mr. Anyah, did not suggest there was any concern about foul play or “secret attacks” when he explained Mr. Griffiths’ absence to the judges last Tuesday. And Mr. Griffiths’ illness did not appear too serious as the trial resumed again, with Mr. Griffiths leading the examination of Mr. Taylor, the following day. When Mr. Griffiths returned to the courtroom last Wednesday, he also did not raise any concerns about the source of his illness, and instead thanked all the people who had sent him “sympathetic notes and texts” from people associated with the Court.

        So in the absence of concerns raised by Mr. Griffith’s own team – I have not seen any objections raised elsewhere — I think we should assume that his illness was just back luck, and we can all wish Mr. Griffiths well and be glad that he is back in court continuing to defend Mr. Taylor.

        The transcripts are available here if you want to check for yourself:


        1. Tracey Gurd
          We owe you a lot, hay but this afternoon i could not get the feed anymore it kept on repeating 7 seconds feed over and over. So please let them know about this.

          God Bless

          1. Hi Nii — no problem. I will let them know.

            Meanwhile, have you tried connecting through our site? It seems to have less traffic than the Special Court feed and it might be a good alternative until the problems are fixed (though I’m not sure if the feed has the same repetition problem. I will try to find out).


          2. Hi again Nii,

            I just found out that there have been no problems so far with the live feed each day if you access it through our site. Now, both channels seem to have been switched to English too. Just go to the button on the front page of our site, on the top right hand side, which says “watch live”. Hope that helps.


  7. Hey Daniel,
    I’m told that UNMIL radio will resume transmission on the case as of tonight.
    Let’s wait and see after tonight because the rest of Liberia need to follow this case to the end.
    Regards Brother.

  8. the truth crushed to the ground will certainly push its head up. West Africa and the rest of the world is keen on Mr. Taylor being accorded Justics not a ” MIGTH MAKE RIGHT” OR A HEAR SAY EVIDENCE.

  9. Hi Nii,
    I’m sure I am not spreading Gila but over heard this sometime early last week from the BBC network Africa that Griffiths Doctor confirmed him being food poisoned; leading to his subsequent illness. But I stand to be corrected and to withdraw my statement if proven wrong. Tracey, What you make of this?

  10. NOKO 4

    I wonder if you’re actually following this trial or you’re just being sentimental? Did you listen to most of the witnesses? I am very surprise when you mention about HEARSAY evidence being presented by the prosecution. Are you aware of the dossier presented to the court by the prosecution including photographs and other exhibits? Kindly ask Tracey Gurd for the number of pages it contains.

    If I were you, I could simply advice Taylor to stop talking because he had already implicated himself on the allegations levied against him.

    If Taylor can admit to providing housing and giving petty cash to members of RUF including Foday Sankor and Sam Bockarie and witnesses came and testified to that is that HEARSAY?

    Taylor did tell the world on the BBC Focus on Africa Programme that Sierra Leone were going to taste the bitter end of the war, because they were harboring ECOMOG jet fighters that used to bomb Liberian territory. Indeed in few months time we saw Sierra Leone being attacked from the Liberian border. Every rebel incursion must be aided by a neighboring state according to Taylor, evidence including the NPFL incursion into Liberia with the help of the Ivorian Government through its border. Sierra Leone attack started from the Liberian border not in the city center.

    Taylor claimed to have deported Sam Bockarie out of Liberia without any local or international journalist to document the deportation process. No form of deportation is done in secrecy especially in such a situation. Why Taylor cannot produce the deportation documents like his presidential documents that he is producing. Please answer the following questions? When did this deportation take place? Who were the immigration officers that were involved in the process? Who were the witnesses that saw the entire process?

    Only few months later, Sam Bockarie was found dead in the hands of Taylor, who claimed to have deported him.

    Taylor reason for killing Sam Bockarie was to destroy evidence.

    Don’t pretend that this was not the case. It was an open secret in Liberia that Taylor supported the RUF. You have conscious, Taylor will face this justice. What evil you do live after you.

    1. Kpadekpah Flomoku ,

      Excellent post. But I am a little caught off guard here, could you please cite cases in point to support your claim that Taylor has implicated himself?

      May I also choose to remind you as I have done before that the the period of the launching of RUF is not in dispute, contention or contest at the court.

    2. Flomoku,
      It seems like you are the one who is NOT following this trial. Are you really paying attention??? The man has presented DOCUMENTS to back up his words and you still come on here to tell us about “IMPLICATED HIMSELF”??? You think he is that DUMB?? Really????

      From reading your words, you are NEW to this site so I advise that you take your time and read some of the transcripts from the prosecution side I beg. If what you are telling us about the BBC report is true, why didn’t the prosecutors bring that in as evidence Flomoku?? Unless you are saying BBC is in Mr. Taylor’s tank to hide his words, is that your thought??

      Let me HELP you out on the Mr. Bockarie’s death as presented in this trial……Witness Pres. Moses Blah, former President of the Republic of Liberia, an INSIDER of Pres. Taylor, told this court that Mr. Bockarie died in a fire fight at the border of Liberia and Ivory Coast…he was fighting along side the Liberian army and was killed. Another witness, a Sierre Leonean, told this court that A PLAN was setup by GOL to get raid of ALL the RUF/AFRC fighters that were part of the Liberian army…..simply put, KILL THEM ALL. How did he know??? Someone told him… you see the HEARSAY I speak about???? Now tell me who’s telling the truth between those two witnesses???? We DO NOT know or we are to believe your “OPEN SECRET”???

      And when he did he say he “DEPORTED SAM BOCKARIE”??? I have not heard of such on the OPEN MARKET nor in this trial Flomoku. Are you coming in here with your EL-THEY SAY?? I know we Liberians are known for COLORFUL TALES but this is NOT the place. We do FACT checks in case you don’t know.

      Flomoku, let me make it simple for you, I was NOT in Liberia nor Sierra Leone; those judges were NOT there also. So how do we get to the bottom where we, THE WORLD, can come to a JUST verdict??? One that is RIGHT, CORRECT and FAIR?? I don’t know any other ways but taking into accounts the EVIDENCES presented by both side……is that also your understanding?? I hope so.

      In my view since the prosecutors have rested with 95% of her evidences based on HEARSAYS and eventhough the defense is still on stage, given what I have seen thus far, I leand MORE towards SETTING HIM FREE. WHY??? He has shown that his ACTIONS in relationship to the CHARGES plus the MANDATE of this court don’t jive….period. Now may see it differently….NO FUSS.

      1. Bro Noko 4:

        You just said it all, you were not in Liberia, I am surprise that you did not know that Taylor said he deported Bockerie, that was a national and international news event that was broadcast live on all news channels in Liberia. Ask Liberians who live in Liberia about the deportation of Sam Bockeria.

        Only Liberians that live in Liberia knows the true facts about Taylor support to the RUF. Not you.

        1. Kpadekpah,
          The judges were NOT Liberians and didn’t lived in Liberia either, so what are they suppose to judicate the case on?? Your words or the evidences presented in this court??? Again, if what you are saying is FACTUAL, the prosecutors will have their period to examine him on it but as far as I know, that was NEVER EVER introduces by anyone in this court.

          I don’t have to live on the moon to know that the moon is a desert and lifeless. Again, Mr. Blah told his court, Mr. Bockerie died in a fire fight, another witness told the court it was a PLAN to kill all the Sierra Leoneans that were in ATU. Both were prosecutors witnesses, who do we believe???

        2. Flomoku,
          I live in liberia through out the war and don’t know that taylor supported RUF. Could you rephrase you statement so that it implies reality please. Mr. prosecution witness.

  11. Thank you for saying Charles Taylor may come to England for recuperation if not found or if he is found guilty I would rather have the three orphaned children that spent ten years in the Buduburam refugee camp. For what this trial is costing they could have fed clothed schooled and paid for all the orphans medical bills for a year, shame on you people shame on Charles Taylor for saying he had nothing to do with the slaughter of the innocents it is proof again that human beings to some, do not count one bit I want to hear him say he is guilty of some thing I do not care how little it may be then release him with a signed written waiver saying no come backs you are banished R.E.C.

    1. Roy,
      I totally AGREE with you on the money been spend to prosecute ONE MAN while thousands of kids are in NEED. But DO NOT blame Mr. Taylor. I rather blame the TWO BIG HANDS behind this court establishment and the LACK OF wanting to get to the bottom. The US and Britain wanted to teach that kid a lesson but it seems like the kid is telling them, I came to your side of the world and learned how NOT to be treated like a kid.

      1. There are many instances where money could have been seemingly “better served”. It was not a choice between putting Taylor on trial or feeding the poor therefore this is a mute point. The “two big hands” if “they” wanted, could feed the poor, hold the trial, build a spaceship, and fly to Mars simultaneously. This trial of ONE MAN is not taking food out of anybody’s mouth.

  12. Roy Christian,

    What exactly are you trying to say? You appear to be very confused> You want Mr Taylor to admit that he is guilty of things he did not do to satisfy you? What waiver are you talking about being signed? Please go back and understand the indictment and the rules of the court. There is no waiver to be signed. I think you may need to read the scripts for the trial in order to understand what is going on.

    I agree that the money being spent on this case could go a very long way in helping not just children in the camp but most especially those victims of the civil war in both Sierra Leone and Liberia. Well as we see it is not about the suffering but really about showing their levelof control over small countries.

  13. This act by Britian seriously dilute the whole claim for international justice. The excuse for building a special prison does not fly. Why should Britain build a special prison for anyone who was not connected:

  14. Hi Tracey,
    Thanks for your respond on the food poison. But why food poison in a sudden? Is it possible for you to talk to the Doctor for details? Sorry I could not get hold of the transcript. Again, we are finding it difficult to monitor the trail outside Monrovia but from here only for now. This is not fair because every Liberian needs to know about this. Nii, I guess you can get some details now from Tracey.

    1. Hi Dolo,

      It is not possible for us to speak to Mr. Griffiths’ doctor because of privacy reasons. But I can speak from my own experience as someone who has also suffered from food poisoning in the past. I can tell you that it can happen very quickly and unexpectedly. I’m sorry you can’t access the transcripts — they don’t really dwell on the issue. Nobody on his team raised any concerns about his illness, which I imagine they would have if there was any concerns or suspicions. I think we can all rest assured, and just fairly safely say that it was just one of those unlucky things that can happen every now and again to anyone, and that we can now focus back on the trial and be happy that Mr. Griffiths appears healthy and can continue to provide Mr. Taylor with a vigorous defense.


      1. Dolo — just a quick follow up. I actually just found out from my colleague, Alpha, that Courtenay Griffiths actually did a radio interview with John Cheeseman, a BBC World Service Trust journalist, on August 6 specifically denying rumors that he was deliberately poisoned. Though we cannot post the interview because of copyright reasons, here is how Mr. Cheeseman described the interview: “Lead Defence Lawyer, Courtenay Griffiths has refuted allegation by Charles Taylor’s family in Monrovia that somebody tried to kill him (Griffiths) with food poison. Mr. Griffiths said he was responsible for his own illness. He said he ate something that he should not have eaten. Mr. Taylor alleged in court on Thursday that ECOMOG recruited some Liberian Combatants who fought in Sierra Leone.”

        I hope that is helpful.


Comments are closed.