Court Is Adjourned For The Day As Taylor’s Defense Counsel, Courtenay Griffiths, Reports Ill

Court proceedings in the trial of Charles Taylor were adjourned today as Mr. Taylor’s defense counsel Courtenay Griffiths could not attend court due to a “bad case of sore throat.” In his absence, Mr. Taylor’s direct examination could not be conducted. The trial will resume tomorrow Tuesday at 9:30AM  Hague time.

Mr. Taylor’s testimony continues tomorrow.


  1. Everytime Taylor blunders his defence counsel Mr Griffiths gets sick (ill). The last time this happened was when Taylor stated that he gave money to Sam Bockarie. Now his detail description of how arms get smuggled and his time line of when the road from Liberia to Sierra Leone were occupied by ULIMO and LURDs just landed him in trouble again. If you read his statement carefully he is indicating that he has control of the road leading to Sierra Leone from the time he became President (1997) to 2001. I rest my case.

    1. Ha ha ha……are you a WITCH DOCTOR??? Have you lived in Liberia?? Maybe you should take a trip there to understand what he meant.

    2. IveIE:

      I believe that you have the fact a bit twisted. What I saw yesterday LIVE on 8/31/09 Taylor was given a map of Liberia by QC Griffith to mark a demarcation where ULIMO/LURD occupied. Taylor explanation was not too clear to the Court. The presiding Judge, President Lussick asked Taylor couple of times for clarification.

      Eloquently, Taylor made the clarification by helping the Court that ULIMO/LURD had military control from the Border to Tubmanburg, Bomi County from 1997 when he was elected president until 2003 when the transitional government of Bryant seized control. Consequently, making it impossible for him (Taylor) to have transported arms to the RUF as alleged by the persecution, because the road from Tubmanburg to the Sierra Leone, Liberia border was under the control of ULIMO/LURD. Lastly, QC Griffith was reading from a magazine that ULIMO/LURD was abetted by Guinea and Sierra Leone to lunched war on Liberia. Said documented was admissible into evidence.

    3. And do you actually have one (a case to rest)…why do we continue on this case, there is no evidence against the poor man and neither has he thus are incriminate himself. Let’s be fair here, this case is political. I think under normal circumstance and a different venue, this case would have been dismissed!

      1. And I am sure bnker the prosecutors have too concluded that NO EVIDENCE….could it be that’s why Mr. Rapp has decided to pack and leave before SHAME SHAME comes???

        Really no where in any WESTERN NATION will this trial continues beyond the very FIRST WITNESS on the stand…….

        3. COLLECTION AND STORING OF EVIDENCES sloppy to say the least
        4. BIAS EXPERTS

        1. There seems to be a feverish rush ‘to decision’ from both sides. In my view, It is wholly premature to be already settled on the issue of the guilt or innocence of charles taylor.
          Lest we forget, there are two competing narratives here, and if justice is to be served and be seen to be served we must at the very least defer our decisions until such time as we have heard ‘All the evidence and arguments’, then and only then can we be confident that our decision is both informed and Just.
          Justice demands no less
          As Always Wadi’The Zima’

      2. Bnker, it’s me, Jose. Good piece. I counln’t agree with you more. This trial is all too political and not about justice as they want us to believe.

    4. IveIE,

      Did you write that Charles Taylor gave a timeline? Could you please provide your source? You can copy and paste it here or provide the reference so that we can research it. Are you not distorting information here? This is exactly how disinformation and misinformation begin. So just clear the doubt we have, provide the exact copy of where you got your information.

  2. Hi Tracey,
    Thanks 2 you and the team for the hard work. I lived in the UK and being following this shardy case from what you people put out on this site. Can you pls help us in the UK with a live web site, the debate here is heating up.
    What we are trying to understand, why so fast Mr Rapp? has Mr Taylor taken the ball away? has president Obama saved him(Rapp) from shame? or should we welcome you to Africa as the runaway prosecutor?

    Thank Tracey

    1. 4 ur eyes only,
      You can access the trial live by clicking the link “Watch live”on the homepage of this website. However in most parts of West Africa you will not be able to view it because of the limited bandwith of the internet service providers. You can also go to and go to cases click Charles taylor vs prosecutor and you can access the trial transcripts for reading.

  3. I don’t understand why people keep saying this trial is political. Who was Taylor on the International scene? Liberia did not have the might to influence anything in the developing world during his reign. No major export like oil, not even a major producer of anything but only rubber. He was neither a key player in world politics, nor a major player in West Africa. He did not run a sophisticated army that was a regional threat. Matter of fact, he did not have control of his rebels which half was made of child soilders.

    Is it that he glamorizing himself to be free from prison by the CIA? What was his legacy? To rein mayhem on his own people. Stop looking for scapegoat. This trial is all about bringing those to justice for crimes they committed. Nothing else.

    I will appreciate if someone will give me some instances.

    1. Bnker,

      Please respond to this political motive premise of this trial. Because if we did they would suggest that we are being personal. These guys just do not see that america needs little liberia to remain a free football field where it could run all its clandestine operations. They do not need a nation with pan africanist leader who wins favor from the likes of Quaddafi, Blaise at the same time resisting zionism, and imperialism. For taylor not to give in to Mobil deal so that imf and world bank can open doors for Libeiria, he must be prosecuted and humbled. Look, Kpadekpah Flomoku, this thing is plain and simple.

      1. Andrew,

        It’s funny that I wrote that. I had just responded to Flomoku. I hope I did justice to the debate.

        That mobile deal that you are referring to, I might have met the son of the guy who tried that deal in Liberia. His son graduated from Howard Univeristy. We met at a wedding in Atlanta July 4th weekend, 2009. He mentioned his father attempts for two years to open a mobile company in Liberia. The gentleman onws a financial firm in Austin TX. He does “options” (the financial instrument) on oil wells.

        I responded, read….its all about national security! Its funny you mentioned “Pan Africanism”, its it weird that all Africa’s Pan African leaders died mysteriously?

    2. Flomoku,

      Ok…. I am now preaching to the choir, first, let me make it clear, I am not a supporter of CT, yet, I think we should let go of our personal hatred or dislikes for this guy and look at the case carefully and objectively. I suggest that we to let civility and rationale prevail.

      So why don’t you think the trial is political? If there no conspiracy, why does this trail still continues with all the cancerous, leg blasting blunders by the prosecution. I personally believe CT sponsored the war in Sierra Leone; if not, his influence over the RUF was obviously strong. My opinions does not matter is this or any case! Yet, in the court of law, you would agree with me, that evidence is king, prosecutorial mishaps in many cases lead to mistrial and acquittal. Evidence and/or witness tampering as alleged by the defense are illegal–we all agree on that right? Case in point, OJ Simpson, I sincerely believe he brutally murdered his ex-wife and her friend, but evidence tempering and statements by witnesses all contributed to an acquittal. Thus far, I don’t see the evidence presented that should land CT in prison. This trail is becoming more and more like the circus. I mentioned this in one of my earlier threads, that the court the big tent, the prosecutors are the clowns and the weird characters are the witnesses. This case is a mockery to the law profession.

      CT is on trail without convictable evidence, he will be found guilty (because of the political nature of the case). I will take some time explain the political nature of this case. When the term political is used, I am referring security also. A freed CT is a dangerous CT for Liberia and the region. I will refer you to one of Crown-Hill Peking’s –thread where the link was provided from the premise for his discussion question. When one reads that, it’s apparent that several countries national security interest is entangled in a stable sub-region–Liberia, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast and the USA. I could go into detail about the article, there are statements made by the author, a CIA agent, that Liberia is strategic for the war on extremism in Africa and training purposes (for its elite units). Back the trial, CT freed could disrupt that security blanket that the US expects from Liberia. What does Liberia has that the US wants? Liberia provides a security blanket, US-friendly nation, and place where their agents can operate without suspicion. Before the War on Terror, Liberia had evaporated off that map (of US interest), but as a result of the growth of terrorism in East Africa, and the ever increasing disdain for the US by fanatics ( by the Israel-Palestine Issue, the Wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan) , Liberia is now what is considered a “strategic partner”. If Liberia and the region are unstable, US national security is vulnerable, and therefore, she will have to make adjustments to their tactics–meaning investing millions for this strategic shift. Btw, we are all paying for this if it happens too–taxes!

      I hope I provided some direction why some of us claim that the trail is political or of national security. There are some here to think that this trial is all about, “the west hates Taylor”, no in the least, it all about protecting their national security and vital interest. I am not one of those who believe this trial is about CT per se, it’s about the havoc that he could unleash on the region.

      Since this threat exist with a freed CT, I predict that he is getting about 20 years.

      1. Bnker, you are being objective and a realist analyzing the political implications of the trial. I agreed with most of what you said. However, I beg to differ. As an optimist and someone who believes in the rule of law, base on the evidence in from of the Court with caution I envision an acquittal. My reason for predicting an acquittal is: There are three judges and one alternative; these judges are from different Countries. One is from Uganda, Northern Ireland and the Samoa. The alternative judge is from Senegal. I stand corrected; in order for CT to be found guilty it must be a unanimous decision by the three justices. If one of the justices goes contrary the verdict is a hang verdict. I understand the tremendous pressure that will be imposed on the judges from GB and the USA to divert the court into a kangaroo court and come up with a guilty verdict even thou the persecution failed to prove her case. But, this will NEVER happen. I have complete confidence in those judges, they are independent thinkers and I earnestly believe that they will do the right thing and let the chip falls wherever. The evidence is not just there for a guilty verdict. Lastly, the whole World is watching!!!

        1. Big B,

          Thanks for responding. Honestly, I am rapidly losing faith in the system. My frustration is this, I would hope none of us ever get consumed with ambition and greed where taking of someone life is used as a means to an end (goal), but anyone of us could be a victim of a trail where we could be LIED upon.

          Here is a good example, I have a friend who was never involved in drugs, but was in a car with someone who had drugs (he had no knowledge of it and didn’t know this individual pushed drugs), he was labeled a dealer and jailed. As a result he is home. Someone’s life is permanently ruined because of someone trying to make a name for himself/herself. Btw, he never had a prior record either.

          So, it could be anyone of us that could lied on.

    3. kpadekpah,

      If you don’t understand why this trial is political. Your only excuse can be that you have not lived in West Africa for the last 25 years and have not been paying attention to events.

  4. lvelE,
    How possible could this man supply arms and whatsoever to RUF in Sierra Leone when ULIMO and LURD had control of those places? Or are you trying to say that the arms were transported in the breeze or through african sign?

  5. Wadi,
    The fact of the matter is that the case has reach the point where it has turn to NO EVIDENCE versus EVIDENCCE. I don’t think CT or any human for that matter should be incasurated unlawfully. If tehre was anything to still be talking about, I think both prosecution and defence will be comparing and contracting evidences. But you and I know that the prosecution was unable to present substantial prooves against this man, so why should he be in jail trying proof him self against a case that was wrongly brought against him. What is your defination of justice? No body is saying that justice should not be done to the sierraleonean, we are all in sympathy with all the victims of that crises, but finger is pointed at the wrong person. That not justice in my view to any humane individual.

  6. Come to think of it, this trial has got substance and all that makes it debatable. And true to it, the debate is getting stronger each moment. But I would thing that making hasty generalizations have got to be closely retraced along the trends of both the Liberian and Sierra Leonean crises of the 90s; somehow it would mean drawing the lines between/amongst territorial occupants at various fronts of each country’s border at given times then, and perhaps, understand fully the <> rudimentary factors of political mix and shared interests along porous borders. It would mean understanding properly the terrain: Kolahun, Foya, Mendekorma, Vahun, Kungbor, Lofa bridge or Bo Waterside on one hand, and Koindu, Buedu, Kailahun, Zimmi, etc. on the other hand. And least of all, the many silent diplomatic maneuvers during the crises. I think it’s a long, long way yet from building castle in the sky.

Comments are closed.