Can the Prosecution Also Present New Witnesses — as Well as New Documents to Impeach Mr. Taylor — Even Though It Has Finished Presenting Its Case-In-Chief?

Dear Readers,

Today, Jose Rodriguez asked a great question amid the discussion about the prosecution’s ability to present new documents in an effort to impeach Mr. Taylor:

“Can the prosecution bring a brand new witness to testify on their behalf, since they have being granted to present their so-called “fresh and new evidence? Remember now, they have already rested their case.”

Jose, this is an excellent question.  The Prosecutors can indeed apply to bring new witnesses to the stand under certain conditions — and if the judges approve it — as part of their evidence in “rebuttal.” This procedure, however, is not related to their ability to bring new documents to cross-examine Mr. Taylor at this stage of the trial.

In the court’s decision last week to allow the prosecution to use new documents to try to impeach the credibility of Mr. Taylor (as well as ones which are intended to try to demonstrate Mr. Taylor’s guilt), the judges did not address the issue of new witnesses (nor, for that matter, did the Prosecution ask to introduce any new witnesses at this stage of the case).

However, there is an option for the prosecutors to bring extra witnesses to the stand once the defense has finished presenting its case.  Under Rule 85(A), which sets out the order for the presentation of evidence, sub-rule (iii) allows for “Prosecution evidence in rebuttal, with leave of the Trial Chamber.”

In a previous case at the Special Court for Sierra Leone, judges had to deal with a request by the prosecution to bring additional witnesses to testify in rebuttal after the defense team had presented its evidence on behalf of the three accused men in the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) case (the AFRC being a group of Sierra Leone’s armed forces that overthrew their government in 1997 and later ruled the country in collaboration with the RUF).

In this decision of November 14, 2006, the judges first defined what “rebuttal evidence” was, and under what conditions it could be used. Rebuttal evidence, the judges said, is “evidence to refute a particular piece of evidence which has been adduced by the defence.”  This type of evidence “must relate to a significant issue arising directly out of defence evidence which could not reasonably have been anticipated” and not “merely because its case has been met by certain evidence contradicting it.”  The judges said that “only highly probative evidence on a significant issue in response to Defence evidence may be led as rebuttal evidence and not evidence which merely reinforces or fills gaps in the Prosecution case-in-chief.”

Before rebuttal evidence could be introduced, the Prosecution had to establish two elements:

(i)      “that the evidence sought to be rebutted arose directly ex improviso [suddenly] during the presentation of the Defence case in-chief and could not, despite the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been foreseen; and

(ii)    that the proposed rebuttal evidence has significant probative value to the determination of an issue central to the determination of the guilt or innocence of the Accused.”

The judges further explained that:

[e]vidence which goes to a matter that forms a fundamental part of the case which the Prosecution is required to prove in relation to the charges brought in the Indictment should be brought as part of the Prosecution case-in-chief and not in rebuttal. The Prosecution is under a duty to adduce all the evidence critical to proving the guilt of an accused in its case-in-chief, and only if a new issue is raised in the course of the Defence case may the Prosecution lead evidence in rebuttal.

In this case, the judges refused to allow the Prosecution to bring new witnesses to testify in rebuttal evidence basically because the judges considered that the witnesses would be used to shore up arguments it should have covered in its case-in-chief (or to address issues which were not unforeseen, but instead could have been anticipated during its case-in-chief), or failed to reach the standard of “significant probative value to the determination of the guilt or innocence of the Accused.”

The trial chamber also refused to allow the prosecution’s application for leave to appeal its decision not to allow additional witnesses to be called for rebuttal evidence.  The prosecutor had argued that this was an “exceptional circumstance” because the trial chamber’s decision was a matter of importance generally to international criminal law as the decision may be applied as precedent in other tribunals; and that the trial chamber’s decision would cause the prosecution to suffer “irreparable prejudice” if it is “unable to call relevant witnesses believed necessary for its case.”

The trial judges decided that its decision did not create any precedent of general importance to the Special Court or to international law generally; and that the prosecution did not establish that the decision not to allow new witnesses to be called in rebuttal would cause “such prejudice to the Prosecution case as could not be cured by the final disposal of the trial including post-judgement appeal.”

In describing this concept and the criteria for its use, the Special Court judges drew on decisions made in two other tribunals – the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR), which have also dealt with similar requests.

It is worth noting that the Special Court judges also have the ability to call witnesses by which they may attempt to explore further evidence for the case.  For example, in the Stakić in the ICTY, the Trial Chamber called several witnesses in an attempt to explore indications of genocidal intent at a leadership level.  At the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Rule 85(A)(iv) provides for “evidence ordered by the Trial Chamber” to be presented after the (i) Evidence for the prosecution; (ii) Evidence for the defence; and (iii) Prosecution evidence in rebuttal, with leave of the Trial Chamber.

At the moment, the Prosecution has not yet made any request that we know of to introduce new witnesses in rebuttal to Mr. Taylor’s testimony.  But it is an option for them to consider as the defense case goes forward – but they would need to convince the trial chamber judges first that it is necessary.

It is worth nothing that the AFRC decision was decided by the same judges that currently sit on the Taylor case, so they may be likely to apply the same criteria they set out in the AFRC case if and when they are asked to decide on any application for rebuttal witnesses.


  1. The prosecution current reliance on “fresh evidence” promotes the perception held by most people that this case is politically motivated, and that the prosecution will use the rules of the court to find Mr. Taylor guity. If Taylor is ever found guilty , it would not be on substantive justice but proceedural justice. The prosecution has failed in it presentation in cheif and lacks credibility at this point.

    1. King Gray,
      What other means can the prosecution use than following civilized and internationally accepted Rules of Evidence and Procedure? Mind you, the Special Court of Sierra Leone is not like those kangaroo courts Charles Ghankay Taylor claims he set up during his reign of terror with NPFL to summarily execute people!!! You can rest and be assured, though, that by the way things are going, by the time the Prosecution are through with the Papay in cross-examination, there will be no need to call witnesses at the end of defense case to rebut anything. You see, the best and wisest recourse for Mr. Griffiths to have taken was not to have called CGT into the Witness Box and attempt to punch holes into the Prosecution case. But then, after he made the application of no case to answer and the Court ruled that the Prosecution had established a prima facie case, he was between the proverbial rock and hard place. He had virtually no hope in hell! I can safely and boldly predict that at the closure of cross-examination, Griffiths is going to cut his losses and run!! He is not going to waste his time and call any of the 200 witnesses or so lined up to come and muddy the waters further. Mark it on the wall.

      It might interest you to know that when Madame Kadiatu Diarra was contacted by a Monrovian newspaper to comment on her alleged role in the CGT personal account at LBDI of which she was a co-signatory, she is reported to have said that “her memory cannot lead her to comment”.
      Let us pray and hope her amnesia is not of the permanent kind!!!!

      1. Gyakabo

        As I was reading your posting, I was saying to myself damn this guy is making some sense. But at the end when you give reference to the new democrat you blew it. Don’t you know that the new democratic is a trashy paper owned and operated by ellen and her conies. The last senatorial election the new democrat was the only paper to declared Urey, ellen’s party candidate the winner. There were no interview between Kadiatu and the new democrat. It’s all fabrication.

      2. Hey be nice to the poor lady she is really ill and has more important things to worry about–seriously!

      3. Gayakagbo,
        The link you provided doesn’t seem to be digitally active. Could you please check the URL and get back to us, please sir… Thanks; I am interested in reading the story too.

      4. Gyakabo,
        This is starting to be a song for you Pro prosecution people that “Taylor should not have taken the stand” Can you imagine what you all would be saying if he had not testified on his own behalf. Oh he is scared, if he has nothing to hide why doesn’t he want to testify etc.

        Concening Kiaiattu Diarra, do not worry you will hear from her. She is not going to give any evidence to the New Democrat wait until she comes to the Hague.

    2. This court is what it is. It is the Special Court of Sierra Leone, not the United Nations Criminal Court. Most African courts are kangaroo courts. The accused is guilty until he/she can prove his innocent.


      This is the Special Court of Sierra Leone, why is it the prosecution lawyers and judges are not from Sierra Leone. The prosecution lawyers most of them are from the United States. Whereas, the judges are from countries that have close ties with the US or the US have direct influence over?

      Tracey, what are the legal ramifications allowing non citizens to represent a country as lawyers and judges to administer justice without the United Nations approval or consent? And, if the United Nations consented shouldn’t the trial be a United Nations trial rather than a Sierra Leone trial?

      1. Big B,
        Because the WHITE MEN is running the show….for a token, the WHITE MEN placed an African from Sierra Leone(Mohammed Bangura) amongst the prosecutors who is WORST than Ms. Hollis and Mr. Koumjian.

        At least on the bench, most of the questions asked are by Judge Sebutinde…..the pressure is on her, she is the TIE BREAKER in the conviction part…..Judge Lussick will vote GUILTY, Judge Doherty will vote NOT GUILTY….

      2. Big B…

        I could be wrong, but I guess one of the reasons that the judges are not from SL is to extract bias from the ruling. I think it makes sense though. Imagine you are facing judges who already have prejudice because they were personally hurt or knows people who were….so I think that’s the reason….

        On the venue, I think other UN courts were held in the Hague. The Ruwandan case and others. Also awaiting trial is the General from DRC and the former Serbian Leader…all at the Hague.

        Hope I helped a bit….

      3. Hi Tracey,

        I directly asked you two questions for your comments or clarifications. The questions were posted. Thanks, I am grateful. However, I did not get a respond to my questions. I was contemplating as to whether you plea the 5th, the right to self incrimination, or was it at an oversight? Let me copy and paste the questions once more. You don’t have to answer; I will accept the 5th if that’s your plea.


        This is the Special Court of Sierra Leone, why it is the prosecution lawyers and judges are not from Sierra Leone. The prosecution lawyers most of them are from the United States. Whereas, the judges are from countries that have close ties with the US or the US have direct influence over?

        Tracey, what are the legal ramifications allowing non citizens to represent a country as lawyers and judges to administer justice without the United Nations approval or consent? And, if the United Nations consented shouldn’t the trial be a United Nations trial rather than a Sierra Leone trial.

        1. Hello Big B – thanks for the second opportunity to answer your questions, and the option to plead the 5th!

          I actually have posted a response as an actual post. I hope it helps. Let me know if you want any more clarifications.


    3. Hi J Fallah Menjor — just a quick note to let you know that I couldn’t post one of your comments because it did not meet out policy for the site (ie it focused solely on another reader).

      But, of course, we remain eager to see more of your thoughts on the trial!


        1. Fallah,
          Please do not say any wrong stuff to anyone here cause it will not make it through…woooo!!!!!!!hahaha.. I know you are pis. But that ‘s ok we’ll take care of you next time….PRESIDENT TAYLOR OH>>YEA!!!!

    1. Hi Shelby — nice to get your comment. We haven’t heard from you in a while. I hope all is well on your end.
      Very best,

      1. Tracey, thanks, once again for your invaluable commentary. As would be expected, the statement made by Mr. Taylor that the Liberian Legislature authorized him to use “any and every means” to protect the Republic of Liberia, has generated huge interest and heated debate in many circles. Can we call on your resourcefulness to settle some aspects of the debate?
        1. When (year, etc.) was this authorization given, if at all?
        2. In what form was it passed (Resolution, Act, etc.)?
        3. Was the said authorization passed by the Senate or House of Representatives, or both?

        Tracey, please help us, if you can. If any of your esteemed Readers can also help, we will be very grateful.

        1. Gyakabo — I will definitely try, but I agree I will probably need some help from Liberian readers on the site, or those based in Liberia, who may have access to this information too.

          Does anybody know the answers to Gyakabo’s questions and can they help us out with links or references to where we might be able to find them?

          I will try to do some research into it too, Gyakabo.

          Very best,
          Tracey .

        2. Gyakabo,
          You need to read the Constitution of Liberia for better understanding. I don’t think what he did require BILLS or ACT. Remember he COVET and NOT all members of the LEG were priviledge to said info or detail.

          Article 57

          The President shall have the power to conduct the foreign affairs of the Republic and in that connection he is empowered to conclude treaties, conventions and similar international agreements with the concurrence of a majority of each House of the Legislature.

          CHAPTER IX

          Article 85

          The President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, may order any portion of the Armed Forces into a state of combat readiness in defense of the Republic, before or after the declaration of a state of emergency, as may be warranted by the situation. All military power or authority shall at all times, however, be held in subordination to the civil authority and the Constitution.

          Article 86

          a. The President may, in consultation with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, proclaim and declare and the existence of a state of emergency in the Republic or any part thereof. Acting pursuant thereto, the President may suspend or affect certain rights, freedoms and guarantees contained in this Constitution and exercise such other emergency powers as may be necessary and appropriate to take care of the emergency, subject, however, to the limitations contained in this Chapter.

          b. A state of emergency may be declared only where there is a threat or outbreak of war or where there is civil unrest affecting the existence, security or well-being of the Republic amounting to a clear and present danger.

          Article 87

          a. Emergency powers do not include the power to suspend or abrogate the Constitution, dissolve the Legislature, or suspend or dismiss the Judiciary; and no constitutionals amendment shall be promulgated during a state of emergency. Where the Legislature is not in session, it must be convened immediately in special session and remain in session during the entire period of the state of emergency.

          b. The writ of habeas corpus shall remain available and exercisable at all times and shall not be suspended on account of any state of emergency. It shall be enjoyed in the most free, easy, inexpensive, expeditious and ample manner. Any person who suffers from a violation of this right may challenge such violation in a court of competent jurisdiction.

          Article 88

          The President shall, immediately upon the declaration of a state of emergency, but not later than seven days thereafter, lay before the Legislature at its regular session or at a specially convened session, the facts and circumstances leading to such declaration. The Legislature shall within seventy-two hours, by joint resolution voted by two-thirds of the membership of each house, decide whether the proclamation of a state of emergency is justified or whether the measures taken thereunder are appropriate. If the two-thirds vote is not obtained, the emergency automatically shall be revoked. Where the Legislature shall deem it necessary to revoked the state of emergency or to modify the measures taken thereunder, the President shall act accordingly and immediately carry out the decisions of the Legislature

  2. Gyakabo, I don’t know what you characterized as “civilized” but such expression indicate pyschological problem resulting from “plantation syndrome.” I hope you will understand that civilization is not exclusive to western ways of life. The people in my village are also civilize and understand clear moral behavior.

    So I will encourage you to express your views on the issues arising from this trial without assigning your inferiority complex to our way of life. Thank you!

    1. King Gray, what is your problem? I mentioned “civilized” without saying in which direction it should come from – western, eastern, southern or northern. If the people in your village practice civilized Rules of Evidence and Procedure, then good for you! I won’t be surprised the people in this village of yours still use sassy-wood, which you find “civilized”!! Thank you.

      1. You are under obligation to disclose your source of funding because you seem oblivious to the
        the atrocities committed by the misceant Taylor. Are being funded through his stolen wealth?

        1. Hi Emmanuel Johnson,

          The Open Society Justice Initiative is an independent, non-profit organization which is part of a larger network of foundations and programs that is funded by philanthropist George Soros. We have no connection to funds related to Mr. Taylor.

          If you are interested, here is the bio of Mr. Soros, who founded and continues to fund all of the work of the Open Society Institute, of which we are one program: If you are interested in knowing more about the Justice Initiative, which is a human rights-based law reform organization, here is our main website:

          I am curious about what made you ask the question in response to this posting — can you tell me more about your thoughts?


        2. Tracey,

          You continue to remain intelligent, diplomatic and polite, even to individuals who direct insult out of ignorance or inability to adventure. This emmanuel johnson could have done his research by reading on the open society. everything about the open society is on this site. so he could have researched. but again you are whom you are and a public servant.

          i could not have responded in that manner, as you but if emmanuel reads this post he knows where i am going with things that i cannot post here.

  3. I think people are getting carried away too much when comes to this notion that taylor is been politically prosecuted. It is only people who either refuse or has no knowledge of what happened in Sierra Leone who can say Taylor do not have some valid questions to answer. How he answesr those questions will determine whether he goes free or spend the rest of his life in Jail.

    Having followed this trial and with my knowledge of the conflict I can said Taylor is unlikely to pull out a stunt and win this one. The prosecution has laid out a well seasoned plan. It is not coming with bell and whisles but you can tell the evidence will come more and more as the trial progresses.

    My only hope is at the end of this the people of Sierra Leone and Liberia can start rebuilding their lives and move on. We must all take a vow never to let tis happen again. No one is a winner here. Yes, justice may be serve but the damage is done already.

    News of similar court in Liberia should be welcomed and vigorously pursue. We must not allow this history to be written on the back of rumours. All accused should be given chance in court and all alledge atrocities investigated, so we can have a complete history to teach our children about the dangers of wars.

    1. Eyes,
      We WELCOME the news of Special Court of Liberia, but I can guarrantee you NOT in our life time or after the death of Pres. Johnson-Sirleaf. Haven’t you seen the workings of her FRIENDS in THE UN and elsewhere???? They who are suppose to help bring this court to Liberia are FUMMING that her name is on the list eventhough she said ” I GAVE MR. TAYLOR 10 THOUSAND US DOLLAR”.

      Plus unlike Sierra Leone where within her parliment there NO WAR LORDS, in Liberia, there are many many WAR LORDS in the LEG and they won’t sign their death warrant. Secondly. the LIST is grossly UNFAIR. Where is Gen. Butt Naked who told the world that he killed atleast 20 thousand people on the list??? Where is Boima Fahnbulleh who to the world he gave HARDWARE to some fighting forces??

      Thirdly, TRC is violating the Constitutional Rights of some of the citizens without DUE PROCESS….asking that some be BAN. What are/is the charge(s)???

      Now to this trial, I was NOT in Sierra Leone to know who did what except go with what are presented infront of these judges….can you point out ONE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE relating to the charges against Mr. Taylor????

    2. Eagle eyes,
      I don’t know if I understood you clearly, but I am confident I did. The people of Liberia are not waiting for some kind of courts’ result to move on. We are moving on in every aspect of life probable. You know the case against mr. Taylor is a total injustice to mankind. We should all regret today that someone is being falsely accused for the wrong doing of others. Thank you..

    3. You couldn’t have said it better, bro. This is not a political trial…Taylor ‘calculatingly’ and ‘passionately’ committed crimes against humanity (something which is criminal not political). I guess he, like many other leaders before him who were persecuted, had absolutely no clue it will come to this. They often think the corridors of power will be theirs for life and as a result are immune from persecutions. Remember Pinochet of Chile? The brother has himself to blame for his current state.

      Come to think about it again, some folks who love a leader no matter what or who are immune to tyrannical and sadistic role as was the case with the illiterate, malevolence incarnate Samuel Doe and the intellectually obnoxious, murderer Charles Taylor might not be convinced that this is not a political trial. This is a real stuff folks. Besides, folks, wrong is wrong and evil is evil. I personally used to like Taylor’s charisma and eloquence but quickly got to abhor his insatiable desire to establish a military-politico type hegemony in West Africa as well as his direct link to the many atrocities of innocent Liberians and Sierra Leone. What shouldn’t he answer to and pay for his crimes? Justice will be done and we all will move on, folks. You can guaranteed that!

      Switching now to the possibility of war crime/human rights court in Liberia to persecute individuals who committed crime against humanity it is welcome news because brother Taylor is not the sole culprit. We need to bring to book folks from the AFL, NPLF, INPFL, the ULIMOS, LDF,LURD,MODEL, and all other Kalashnikova brandishing murderers who masqueraded as liberators during the conflict but who feasted on the fear and lives of many innocent civilians. What a shame and despicable attitude to kill the innocent just to cease power and empty the country’s coffers!

    4. Eagle eye

      It doesn’t require a smart person to understand your cripple hoax here buddy. I don’t know what trial you are talking about that the prosecution has layed out a well seasoned plan. However, you did not provide any specifics as to what your self described well seasoned plans are, that the prosecutors have layed out. Instead, you are saying to us, this supposedly well seasoned plan by the prosecution, is not coming with bells and whistles, but you can tell the evidence will come. Eagle eye, seriously? Do you expect us to follow your logic? Do you expect the judges to follow your logic. Do you even expect the prosecutors to embrace your logic? Eagle, we are in court here. we are talking about evidences, facts, documents, and truthful testimonies. We are not talking about someone’s plan here. We are not concerned about the prosecutors plans and strategies. We don’t want to know how the prosecutors setting-up or positioning themselves. Moreover, Eagle, why only you alone can hear the bell and whistle sound from the prosecutors, but not the rest of the world? What kind of special ears do you have? Is it an ear of an eagle also? Eagle eye, bear in mind now, the prosecutors had over seven years to get ready and prepare for this case, and yet, they are still not ready. You are uncertainly telling us again the evidence will come. When? Just the other day, they were granted to bring new and fresh evidencec after they have already closed their argument. Still these people want more time. To be quite honest with you, all the prosecution has done is to expose the international conspiracy of this man more. Where is the 5 billion dollars? Where is the pact or agreement between the rebels and President Taylor, Like the SALUTE REPORT? Where are the video and voice recordings, like the one we show you of how arms and ammunitions were sent to Sierra Leone, that Taylor sent weapons in Sierra Leone? Where is the document to prove that Taylor was nota part of the Committee of 5,6, and 9 to bring lasting peace to Sierra Leone? And so many more questions.

      Eagle eye, the prosecution is cratering. The prosecution paid witnesses have been cratered. The strategy and plan of the prosecution are cratering.

  4. Bartu Taylor Jr.,

    If by any chance you have visitation right to your cousine Chucky Taylor Jr., can you please tell him not to make any written of verbal statement concerning his father, President Taylor reign in Liberia. I understand that he has been sued again for monetary value by five Liberians who allegedly said they were victims of his behavior. According to the prosecutor, Chucky will be giving a Hand Written Statement.

    Bartu Taylor Jr., everything is tied in the trial at the Hague. These guys do not have any concrete evidence to convict. As the result, they are hustling around to get hold of anything valuable. If your cousine makes any written or verbal statement, it could be interpreted as Taylor’s son has implicated his father in the Sierra Leonean mess. So please, if you can, get in touch with him, before it is to late.

    This also goes to people that may be vulnerable to the prosecution of President Taylor.

    1. Jose, probably this message could go through gankay himself? Don’t you think so? I believe this could be for the benefit of taylors’ defense team. Or perhaps your warning should get the same priority that the prosecution’s new evidence I make sense …help me here please!

      1. Fallah,

        I have seen lots of funny threads, but I think Jose’s top the list. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was just cracking a joke. I laughted so much, I had to tell my brother thanks for making my weekend…”Chuckie don’t talk oh, you will put the papay in trouble oh”…..comical. Jose, thanks man, you are a true comedian…!

        Ok, on a serious note; Jose, hope you are doing good. How is Monrovia?

      2. Fallah,

        Chucky has been sentenced to 97 years in prison last year. suddenly, five Liberians have sued him again for monetary value even though, they know he has none. According to the 5 Liberians, they are bringing this case under Alien Tort Statute. These so-called five Liberians have already filed this same lawsuit against Chucky earlier this year. AND WON THE CASE BY A DEFAULT JUDGEMENT IN MAY OF THIS YEAR. Why are they bringing this man to court again. They have already won the case.

        Oh!! Fallah, I know why they are bringing him back to court again. It is because they want information from him that could implicate his dad in any way, shape or, form, if he has any in the first place.

        Look Fallah, we told you guys from day one when it comes to the charges againgst Ghankay in Sierra Lierra Leone, he is white and clean as snow. If these guys had evidence, long time this case is over.

        1. Sierra Leone’s president, President Earnest bai Koroma, has ordered the border with his country and Guinea secured. If fact, he is expecting huge influx of refugees coming from Guinea. On top of that, they are probably more concern about the Guinea crisis than Guinean themselves.

          For those of you who may not know the latest news coming out on Guinea, this is a gist. You may recall that an assassination attempt was carry out of the Military Junta Leader, Captain Moussa Dadis Camara; while another president was visiting him, President Blaiss Campoire. Captain Camara was injured and sought medical attention in Moroco. While being in Moroco, there is a power vacuum. His Defence Minister, Sekouba Konate has taken over, as the junta chief. The military is heavily divided. There are shooting and gun sounds heard in Guinea every day. Some members of the military are going after people they perceive to be on the side of the assassin and other anti groups.

          Adding unto the problem, France Secretary of State for Cooperation, Alain Joyandet, has said Captain Camara may not go back to Guinea. Remember now, Guinea is the world’s largest producer of bauxite. Again, multi nation cooperations interest and greed are being part of the problem.

          All that is happening, where is Charles Taylor? Is he being a part of this potentially volatile regional destabilization again? Look, that region has severe problems.

          President Taylor is not to be held responsible for Sierra Leoneans killing each other. Let the Sierra Leoneans bear their own brunt and stop holding our beloved president for their actions.

        2. Jose,
          FYI…Chuckie is representing himself and is not expected to take the stand. So I guess you can rest assured, he will not “talk anyting bah agaist de papey”. Jose, you said that you’ve lived in the States before right, there are criminal case (as the torture trial of Chuckie) and civil, which seeks punitive damages and monetary compensation. The article explains that it is unclear if Chuckie has money (I doubt he does), but this is what will happen. He will have prison jobs and most of his earnings there will be garnished for the victims.

          Hope that helped!

    2. Jose,
      That’s the game….they tried in getting him to rat on his father for lesser sentence and it failed….now they want to go around the horn to get him to list the Taylor properties and whatever.

      He will be a FOOL. Infact I believe he told the court he will be presenting himself and given the evidence he will decided on his strategy.

      1. Bnker,

        How much money does a prisoner gets pay? How many hours does a prison allow to work? How much is Chucky garnished wage will be? How long will the garnished wage amounts to millions?

        1. Jose,

          Frankly, they don’t make much, maybe below minimum wage. He might work about 40 hours a week, but honestly, these guys will not get millions from that prison work…but if they are depending on his prison work to get rich…..”ain’t happening”

    3. Jose,

      You think this is really Chuckie’s Cousin, like you are truely “hispanic” and your real name is “Jose Rodriguez”, right? As you and many of us are using pen names in this forum, so could this “Bartu Taylor, Jr”. Man, you are funny with your legal advice and you really think if this guy is the real Bartu Taylor he will call or visit from where ever he is his cousin and say “Chuckie don’t talk oh. Jose say they don’t have concrete evidence against your pa”. You are not on his legal team! You just give me a good laughter for the weekend…thanks I needed something to chuckle about…. Don’t respond please before you give me “laughing spells”. ha ha….thanks man and good night! you are comical.

      I know you were joking with that post…good sense of humor…or I sure hope you were kidding.

      1. Bnker,

        I will consider Bartu Taylor Jr. to be who he says he is, until otherwise. By the way, My message has gone to not only him, but all who may have access to Chucky.

  5. since the trail begin i watch it live here and the prosecuting team are finding it difficult to proved their case even now, people are losing interest in the case here but, what plus me more is that does guys who are far from international politics are writing things that they dont had knowledge of, look if these people have edivences to proved to the world about all what they have been saying, that Mr, Taylor is this and have this my brothers and sisters long tme they will show it to the world, i not sorry that some of your dont had the opportunity to see what we are seeing here and hearing about the case, now your try to make reseach on the country that some of your think Mr, Taylor will spend his life in jail. you will read their posoition statement on this hold Taylor issue.

    I stop this far.

    1. Randy,

      I happen to be one of the slow ones in the chat, but I didn’t understand your thread. Could you break it down for me, please….


  6. Tracey,
    Have you received any response from the Professor at Case Western Reserve University who along with his pupils wrote the opinion saying that a Head of State does not enjoy immunity? Please get him to answer some questons on this forum.

    1. Hi Aki — Indeed, after yours and others’ requests, Alpha and I approached a number of academics, including at Case Western, during hte past weeks, and we have unfortunately either received no reply or replies that indicate a willingness to contribute comments but only next year. We will keep trying but we have had limited luck so far — sorry.

      1. Hey Tracey,
        Is this new evidence introduction open ended? Would there be limitations in respect to quantity and time? Or is there any limitation?

  7. Gyakabo,

    i believe that you have read my post refuting earlier assertions of yours. Below I provide excerpts from the transcript of december 7, that you have skillfully cited.

    Anyone who reads Taylor challenge who conclude that Taylor was referring to claims that he had monies stacked away in banks in other countries but not liberian banks. I am sure too when the united nations referred to monies in other banks, liberia, was of least concern because taylor would not be hiding money in his own country and in his own name.

    This brings me to my next point which that has been reiterated by many others. Since it is easy to bring an account owned by taylor at a liberian bank, now go ahead and answer taylor challenge where he name switzerland and america.

    we are awaiting that information from the prosecution because they told the world that taylor asset were frozen. so they have(under obligation) to produce those frozen assets.

    Page 33037

    This is all why we have seen
    this and my record is clear. You know all this thing in the
    public eye. Charles Taylor stole millions of dollars. He has
    assets scattered around the world. The same lies and constructs
    to make you appear worse than human until today and I sit in this
    Hague today before these honourable judges and I challenge the
    United Nations,

    I challenge any human being or organisation in
    this world – I mean on this planet to bring one bank account that
    Charles Taylor has money in. They continue to lie. I have heard
    the Prosecutor blatantly lie saying we found millions. Bring the
    millions here. Please, today, if you have any. If there is any
    bank anywhere in the world, in Europe, Switzerland, wherever,

    that has an account – a numbered account for Charles Taylor or
    anyone associated with me that brought money to you, I urge you
    today to come forward here in this Europe and bring it. If
    anyone anywhere on the planet knows of a building or any property
    in Europe or the United States, please, you’re authorised to come
    forward today. They can hear it throughout the world. This lie
    about Taylor.

  8. Tracey,

    Please permit this post as it is not intended to demean but help improve our discussion.

    I have seen for a considerable time now, the confusion of the use of two words that nearly sound and spelt the same but are completely different. These words are persecute-verb and its noun(persecution) and the other word is prosecute-verb and its noun(prosecution). now the differences:

    1. the first word persecute or persecution means to cause harm or torture. for example we speak of the persecution of the jews by the nazis, or the persecution of blacks and other minorities during the era of the slavery.

    2. the second word prosecute or prosecution means to put on trial or to sue or take legal action against someone. Like the case of charles taylor now, he is being prosecuted.

    I hope we can note the differences and apply them in order to improve our respective blogs. I hope we consider in a constructive context.

    1. Hi Andrew — that is helpful. I have been noticing the different spellings in some of the comments too.
      Very best,

  9. Gyakabo
    Your question regarding the legislative authorization that granted Taylor the power to do whatever to protect Liberia is irrelevant to this case. Taylor is not on trial here for how he governed in Liberia. Those who wanted to see Taylor brought to this court have always argued that Liberia has got nothing to do with this case. So why of a sudden the prosecution wants to put Taylor on trial for his presidency in Liberia. Is this another backdoor way of holding Taylor in the Hague? Is this an ambush?

    This case is about SL and not Liberia, so our focus should be on what the prosecution has accused Taylor of doing, keeping billions of dollars in foriegn bank. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to show evidence that Taylor has billions of dollars in forieng banks.

    This false premise that the prosecution has embraked upon to discredit Mr. Taylor’s credibility is a complete distraction from the facts. If this court has to rely on witnesses credibility, then the prosecution has to credibility because nearly all of the witnesses contradicted themselves , and contradicted one another. So let the prosecution show us HARD FACTS and stop abusing the conscience of a suffering people.

    1. King Gray,
      That’s the game plan……mudding the water and make us to believe Liberia is Sierra Leone. Pure waste of time to say the least. But they have met their match..

  10. I believe Taylor’s purported authorization was what happened when LURD attacked Liberia and the fight was getting very difficult for Mr. Taylor and his men to contained. A state of emergency and was declared by the Legislature. Remember about 90% of these legislators rode on Taylor’s back to win their seats because of the way the elections were arranged, something called “propositional representation” if my memory serves me right.
    He didn’t only control the executive branch, but he also controlled the Legislature, because they were packed with his aides and cronies. This is not hearsay, this is the fact. Mr. Taylor himself told them that they were in those seats because of him.
    Listening to Taylor’s own admission, he was never authorized to open any account for the nation in his name, but, he was told to do everything possible to protect the nation. So his account was his own decision for his own use and that of Mrs. Darra Findley. Since it was covert, no records, no accountability, only God and his supporters know what he did with those millions.

    1. Sansee,
      I don’t know where you got these informations you posted about mr. Taylor and the then legislature, sad to say brother, I think this posting was wholly and solly intended to categoricly mislead the public.. there are brothers and sisters who were not in liberia and are also accessing the informations we are putting here. Please sir, say the true. We don’t mind if it is against Mr. Taylor… begging you brother..ok

  11. It makes interesting reading the progress of the trial of brother Taylor in the hague on this website. I advice that at the end of the trial these write-ups should be compiled as a single publication in the form of a book. It will become a very valuable historical document.

    keep the good work.

    1. Adafula Jwayire — thanks for your comment and welcome — I do not think we have heard from you before. Your suggestion is a good one — and indeed, we are trying to think through now what to do with all the information and thoughts compiled on this website once the trial has finished. This and other suggestions remain most welcome.

  12. I think I will pose this question back to Mr. Sessay….being a lawyer and all LOL. At this point in the trail Mr. Sessay is it legal admissible for the prosecution to introduce new witnesses and evidence. I would assume that if this was possible it (new evidence/witnesses) would be pertaining to impeaching Taylors credibility.
    I opinion without know what is legally possible will be if it is Admisable under the law to introduce new witnesses absolutely!! But if its not then absolutely not! I’m pretty sure Ms. Hollis et al are aware and cognisant of the judicial system and they have been doing an awesome job so far!
    But Mr Sessay I look forward to u sharing some knowledge about this issue.

  13. Merry X-mas to all and sorry I have been away for while but never mind that. Jose, I am sorry you think my logic is twisted and the whole world agree with you that the prosecution has failed, if that is the case why are so hot under the colar.

    You see you should be happy that Taylor, whom you have advocated so much will walk free but you see my friend even you know that the prosecution could not have determine what th defence will ask taylor during cross-examination, so if they ask for time then so what. There nothing in law that states you can’t. I think more and more eviden ce will come and Taylor will be expose. Whether he is found guilty or not is for the judges to decide.

    So relax and enjoy your season because things are going to get a little bit more interesting in the new year.

    1. Eagle-Eye (Returns) — welcome back. We missed your comments! Glad you have returned to us.

Comments are closed.