Sierra Leonean Rebels Were Responsible For Atrocities Committed In Sierra Leone, Former RUF Members Testify

Two former members of the Sierra Leonean rebel group which wreaked havoc during the country’s brutal 11-year civil war told judges this week that they had only themselves to blame for the atrocities committed during the conflict – Charles Taylor had no responsibility for the crimes.

Mr. Taylor is on trial for allegedly supporting and controlling the Sierra Leonean rebel group, the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), while he was leader of the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) rebel group as well as when he became president of Liberia in 1997. Mr. Taylor has denied all allegations against him. This week during his defense case, two Sierra Leonean nationals and former RUF members, Charles Ngebeh and Fayia Musa, told Special Court for Sierra Leone judges that the allegations against Mr. Taylor are false.

On Monday, Mr. Ngebeh said the only time Mr. Taylor supported the RUF was in 1991 when the conflict started in Sierra Leone. Mr. Taylor himself has admitted to providing support for the RUF in 1991. The former president told the court that his support to the RUF was needed to fend off attacks on his positions in Liberia from United Liberation Movement of Liberia for Democracy (ULIMO) rebels. ULIMO was being assisted by the Sierra Leonean government – it made sense, Mr. Taylor had testified, to support the RUF rebels who were fighting to dislodge the Sierra Leonean government. This support stopped in 1992, according to Mr. Taylor, after the Liberian rebels fell out with their RUF counterparts.  Corroborating Mr. Taylor’s evidence, Mr. Ngebeh has testified that Liberian rebels in Sierra Leone indeed returned to Liberia after falling out with the RUF in an operation titled “Top 20, Top 40, and Top Final.”

As he responded to questions from prosecutors under cross-examination on Monday, Mr. Ngebeh said that the Sierra Leonean rebels themselves were responsible for atrocities committed in Sierra Leone from 1992 to 1996. He said that Mr. Taylor’s forces had nothing to do with the atrocities committed in Sierra Leone.

“From 92-96 the atrocities that were going on were terrible, caused by us the Sierra Leoneans, let’s forget about Mr. Taylor’s issue. That was terrible. You won’t compare that at the time that Mr. Taylor was assisting the RUF in 1991. Mr. Taylor’s NPFL was not killing, the killing that was going on was caused by us the Sierra Leoneans,” Mr. Ngebeh told the court.

Mr. Taylor’s indictment covers crimes committed by the RUF in Sierra Leone from 1996 to the end of the conflict in 2002. Prosecutors have led evidence to establish that in addition to supporting the RUF within the period covered by the indictment, Mr. Taylor also supported the RUF prior to 1996. This, prosecutors hope, will convince the judges that the Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) in which Mr. Taylor and the RUF were allegedly involved, was a continuous process, spanning a period from the early days of the conflict to its conclusion in 2002. Mr. Taylor has denied these allegations. Now in his defense, the former president’s witnesses — such as Mr. Ngebeh — are telling the judges that apart from 1991, Mr. Taylor did not have any relationship with the RUF, even prior to 1996 as alleged by prosecutors. It is in this light that Mr. Ngebeh on Monday sought to exonerate the former president from crimes committed in Sierra Leone from 1992 to 1996.  These crimes, the witness said were committed by Sierra Leonean rebels.

Also in his testimony on Monday, Mr. Ngebeh refuted prosecution assertions that the RUF were involved in organized mining activities in Sierra Leone’s diamond rich towns. The witness explained that mining activities in RUF controlled territory were undertaken mainly by individual RUF members and that the individuals only handed very big diamonds to the RUF as a government since those were hard to carry.

“After the coup [1997 coup in Sierra Leone], diamonds no longer were government property.  Everybody took his. In spite of the fact that we had centralized areas were we mined for different authorities, but it was not a government property. Everybody had rights to carry it, except if you take a big one that you were not able to be in control of, you would handover that to the government [RUF],” the witness said.

Prosecutors have alleged that the RUF were involved in organized mining in Sierra Leone propelled by forced civilian labor.  They have also alleged that all diamonds mined in the RUF mines were taken to Mr. Taylor in Liberia. The former president, it is alleged, supplied the RUF with arms and ammunition in return. Mr. Taylor has denied these allegations. Mr. Ngebeh’s testimony appears to suggest that the mining activities in RUF controlled territory were not as organized as prosecutors say.

On Tuesday, Mr. Ngebeh re-echoed his position that the atrocities committed in Sierra Leone during the war should not be attributed to Charles Taylor as he had no role to play in them.

“All the atrocities committed by the RUF are not the concerns of Mr. Taylor. They did happen but it doesn’t concern Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor has no hands in it,” the witness said.

As he responded to questions under cross-examination from lead prosecutor Brenda Hollis, Mr. Ngebeh told the court that those who were responsible for crimes committed by the RUF in Sierra Leone have already been punished by the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Freetown.

In his words, “all the atrocities you have explained about, is the cause why Issa and others are in prison today but Taylor is not responsible for that. Mr. Taylor is not responsible for it.”

In 2009, three RUF commanders, Issa Sesay, Morris Kallon and Augustine Gbao were sentenced to terms of imprisonment by the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Freetown after being convicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity and other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by them in their individual capacities as well as those committed by their subordinates under the doctrine of command responsibility. Prosecutors now say that these RUF commanders took their own orders from Mr. Taylor. Like Mr. Taylor, all defense witnesses have said that these charges are false.

As Mr. Ngebeh concluded his testimony on Tuesday, the other Sierra Leonean witness Mr. Musa who served as Agricultural Officer and then Spokesperson for the RUF started his testimony in Mr. Taylor’s defense. Mr. Musa, who is recorded in the report of Sierra Leone’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) as being one of the original founders of the RUF, testified about the circumstances surrounding the start of the conflict in Sierra Leone, Mr. Sankoh’s leadership in the RUF and his arrest in Nigeria in 1997, thus paving the way for Sam Bockarie (alias Mosquito) to become the RUF’s interim leader. He explained that as leader of the RUF, Mr. Bockarie, whom he termed “the devil” because of his actions, issued all orders to the RUF. He denied suggestions that it was Mr. Taylor who issued orders to the RUF.

On Wednesday, Mr. Musa corroborated earlier defense accounts that Mr. Taylor’s NPFL and the RUF rebels in Sierra Leone had permanent fallout in 1992 after the RUF had received some support from Mr. Taylor in 1991. He explained that the fall-out involved a bloody battle between the two groups which ended in the deaths of several fighters on both sides. He said that the cordial relationship which existed between Mr. Taylor and Mr. Sankoh was completely terminated after this battle. Mr. Sankoh, the witness said, vowed never to go to Liberia again.

“Foday Sankoh vowed never to go to Liberia again, according to him because he felt disappointed by everything he told us. According to him, he had relied a lot on Charles Taylor for support, but that support did not come, then Liberians were coming again to disturb us,” Mr. Musa told the court on Wednesday.

“So he said he’ll never, never go to Liberia again. When he told us we should use our own resources to run the campaign, he is appealing to all the Sierra Leoneans on the ground to make sure that we, we abide by that,” he said.

Mr. Musa also denied allegations that the RUF intended to terrorize the civilian population of Sierra Leone (One of the counts in the indictment against Mr. Taylor is that he actively supported, or failed to stop, the RUF’s activities designed to terrorize the civilian population of Sierra Leone. Three RUF commanders have already been convicted on this charge in a previous trial by Special Court for Sierra Leone.)  Mr. Taylor has denied helping the RUF in any way. The former president’s defense counsel, Courtenay Griffiths, sought to get the witness’s response to allegations of the RUF terrorizing the civilian population.

“Now, was it the intention of the RUF to terrorize the civilian population of Sierra Leone,” Mr. Griffiths asked the witness.

As the witness laughed, Mr. Griffiths added that “that’s the allegation in this case. It is suggested that the RUF is a terrorist organization, so help me, was that your intention?”

“It was not the intention of the RUF at all to terrorize any Sierra Leonean,” Mr. Musa responded. “The intention of the RUF, we who were in it, the intention of the RUF was to create a liberation, total liberation from poverty, illiteracy and disease, as it is in other parts of the world.”

“The management of the war itself may have been poor, a lot of mistakes were made, but that was not the intention of the RUF,” he added.

On Thursday, Mr. Musa testified that the conflict in Sierra Leone was prolonged because RUF leader Mr. Sankoh was stubborn and he did not want peace in the West African country. This, he said, caused West African leaders to turn their backs on him. Mr. Musa explained that after the RUF signed a peace agreement with the government of Sierra Leone in November 1996 (dubbed the Abidjan Peace Accord), members of the international community prevailed upon Mr. Sankoh to respect the terms of the peace agreement but he refused. Because of his intransigence, West African leaders — specifically in Ivory Coast and Nigeria — became frustrated with him, the witness said.

Responding to questions about how West African leaders responded to Mr. Sankoh’s sincerity towards the peace process in Sierra Leone, Mr. Musa said that “In fact that is why the Ivorians decided to abandon him because they had known that, they had known very clearly that he was not prepared to respect the accord at all,” 

“As for Abacha, he knew that he [Mr. Sankoh] had embarrassed him. He saw that as an embarrassment because he gave his word to him for support, he saw it as foolishness to have encouraged him and politically dangerous also,” he added.

As Mr. Taylor’s defense lawyers concluded Mr. Musa’s direct-examination on Friday, prosecutors made an application to the judges that the witness’s cross-examination be postponed, citing reasons that Mr. Musa had testified about events which were not contained in his written statements disclosed by defense lawyers.  Prosecution counsel, Nicholas Koumjian, told the judges that the prosecution will suffer undue and irreparable damage if the cross-examination of the witness was not postponed. The defense objected to the prosecution’s application.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the presiding judge of the Special Court for Sierra Leone’s Chamber, Justice Julia Sebutinde, ruled that while the witness summary disclosed by the defense to the prosecution was insufficient, such insufficiency was not gross. Justice Sebutinde also stated that prosecutors had not demonstrated any undue or irreparable prejudice that they would suffer if the defense did not disclose additional information or statements about the witness’s testimony.

Reading the ruling of the Chamber, Justice Sebutinde said that “the prosecution motion for disclosure of the witness statement is therefore denied.”

She added that “However the Trial Chamber does agree with the prosecution that the witness’s evidence-in-chief did span over areas not specifically mentioned in the summary and to this extent, the summary could be considered as insufficient although not grossly so. As mentioned in our prior rulings, the proper remedy in that case is to allow the prosecution some time to prepare its cross-examination in relation to those areas not contained in the summary.”

The witness’ cross-examination will start on Monday.


  1. Folks,

    I think this witness’ (Ngebeh’s) claim “Mr. Taylor’s NPFL was not killing” perfectly speaks to Noko’s “wasting our time with off the wall tales” assertion (cf On April 17, 2010 at 10:55 am). I think this is real bologna, Judge Judith Sheindlin will say. Bologna! Bologna! Bologna! This is preposterous. Oh goodness! If this is not “an off the wall tale,” Noko, than what is it? What in the world was the infamous blood thirsty, ragtag NPFL doing in Sierra Leone at the time when a war was raging? Playing soccer? Making rice farm? Making peace? Transporting diamonds? Yes, possibly transporting diamonds. If the NPFL were not killing or did not go in to kill, as the witness claims, then what did they go into a theater of war to do? Is that not a tall tale? Is this not a coached testimony, a frantic effort to take the blame on Ngebeh’s part and get CT off the hook? Is this believable? Credible? Is a self acclaimed mass killer in the person of Ngebah a convincing character or witness? Are we gullible to buy into this bologna? No, not me! When the NFLP went into Sierra Leone, they went in to kill. Period! Nothing else!

    Now, as to the methods of killing which this witness eagerly alluded to in order to give the impression that methods of killing matters when it comes to who were the players in both Liberia and Sierra Leone. Evilness and wickedness are evolutionary never static. Those who kill always seek ways to perfect their methodology to inflict maximal pain and inspire fear. For example, Roman soldiers perfected their methods of killing and punishment by nailing individuals to the cross. On the cross one hangs for days in maximal pain beckoning death to come quickly to escape excruciating pain. Death was a welcome relief from this type of cruelty. Similarly, in Liberia the notorious NPLF happily experimented with different methods of killings such as disembowelments, decapitations, and ripping open a human for cannibalistic reason. They successfully employed these methods to victimize, terrorize, and subjugate the population to their socio-political whims and caprices. Well, having terrorized most of Liberia, they found a way to further experiment and perfect their wickedness. Fast-forward to Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone provided the context for this perfection to occur. It provided the context for the ongoing evolutionary process of the NPFL’s experimentation with killings and their intentionality to inflict maximal pain on the innocent. Mutilations on the scale never seen before in our civilization surfaced. Even babies, yes, even those sweet adorable innocent babies were not spared the cruelty and evil actions of those so-called rebels. Thus, just because these methods of cruelty and torture were slightly does not suggest a difference in those behind the perpetuation of the crimes. They were the same folks (RUF-NPLF).

    We are not gullible, Ngebeh. Try again!


    1. Mr. Davenport,liverport, freeport, portau prince,
      Reread and read the Geneva Convention that talk about popular uprisings and rebellions. There is no need to write long speeches that bear no substantive substance…thank you

    2. Davenport,
      Which ERA are you speaking about that tells otherwise to the witness’ testimony?? We you there to know?? NO!!!!. Could it be when he answered it was to a SPECIFIC area?? Even some of the prosecutors witnesses told this court the relationship about the same time Mr. Taylor said it did…..why will you hold him responisible for killings carried out by Sierra Leoneons Davenport after the relationship ended??

      Let’s look at his statement please and play it FAIR….Do you see the TIME FRAME??

      “From 92-96 the atrocities that were going on were terrible, caused by us the Sierra Leoneans, let’s forget about Mr. Taylor’s issue. That was terrible. You won’t compare that at the time that Mr. Taylor was assisting the RUF in 1991. Mr. Taylor’s NPFL was not killing, the killing that was going on was caused by us the Sierra Leoneans,” Mr. Ngebeh told the court”

      1. Noko4,5:

        I guess if we seek to regurgitate statements from the trial we might also opt for a myopic methodology of dialoguing on an issue of this magnitude. In fact, some of us will get bore…seriously, boredom will set in. I think part of this dialogue process is to critically analyze, compare and contrast, raise relevant themes embedded in comments arising from the trial, seek to reasonable and rationally dissect phrases and words emanating from the trial, and expand on current conversations. It might be in our interest to seek to push our conversations beyond the “so say one so say all” maxim, beyond the yes or no level, and surely beyond which party to the trial is winning or losing as this type of dialogue can be illusionary especially since most of us are not legal analysts.

        Here is my take: I am not to prove CT guilty or innocent but to critically examine comments emanating from the trial while simultaneously dialoguing with those comments on a much broader spectrum by deductive reasoning, syllogism, comparing and contrasting, referencing a wider body of information on the subject matter, and sourcing personal, communal, and regional experiences.


        1. Mr. Davenport,
          Honestly, I think these rhetorics you are writting got no place in this case. It just does not promote the objective we tend to accomplish, but instead, tell other readers that, the ability of a writer to communicate fluently is seriously lacking.
          Now, just to address you take; I know that, you and I know , your authority to render or prove Charls Taylor guilty or innocent, does not exist even in the immaginary world .So lets not try to give that kind of thinking a nano of thought. Mr. Taylor has notthing to with Sierraleone, and that is the plain fact……

      2. Noko4,
        Is this witness ( Mr. Ngebeh) a Sierra Leonean? If so, why will he want to lie just to protect Mr. Taylor if anyone thinks he’s telling lies? If Sierra Leonean can testified in Mr. Taylor defense like what we are seeing here, I don’t know how it would have if many Liberians was going to testify in Mr. Taylor defense…………… Long live members of true Justice and long live the people of Freedom!
        Your need to leave Mr. Taylor alone when it comes to Sierra Leone!

    3. Noko7,
      You asked “is a self acclaimed mass killer in the person of Ngebeh a convincing character or witness”? well I ask you is a self acclaimed cannibal and war criminal Zigzag Marzah and Isaac Mongor a convincing character or witness?
      just judge for yourself which witness is more credible.

    4. Davenport,

      What exactly is your point. I note your loquacious statement in which you attempt to discount the testimony of the witness. However you must first of all realise that this witness was is a credible one as regards the rules of this case and by far more credible than 99% of the witnesses brought forward by the prosecution.

      You were willing to accept the many versions howbeit sometimes contradictory of the prosecution but are contemptuous of the the defence witness. This is a definite bias and exposes your inability to logically analyse the situation based on the fact presented in this forum. I expect you to be objective even if you may not necessarily support or like Mr Taylor. The fact remains that the evidence before us thus far speak volumes.

      Let’s be nonprejudicial here and examine the evidence presented before this court as we discuss the issues.


    1. VEM,
      If you factored in the time frame you will UNDERSTAND why he said what he said….Here read and tell me he is LIEING.

      “From 92-96 the atrocities that were going on were terrible, caused by us the Sierra Leoneans, let’s forget about Mr. Taylor’s issue. That was terrible. You won’t compare that at the time that Mr. Taylor was assisting the RUF in 1991. Mr. Taylor’s NPFL was not killing, the killing that was going on was caused by us the Sierra Leoneans,” Mr. Ngebeh told the court”

      1. Noko4, that was a bad genesis of what happened in the end . Remember the practice of evil results in a perfect evil if i should your buy what you are asking me to factor in even though i

    2. Why should Mr. Taylor be blamed for the Sierra Leonean problems? The period for which Mr. Taylor is charged had not been proven by the prosecution and her so-called insider witnesses like Mr. Blah, General Vamuyan Shireff and Zaza Maziah.

      We all know very well that, there were Sierra Leonean training in other Countries to start a rebel War in Sierra Leone long before Mr. Taylor came into the picture. The prosecution also claimed that Mr. Taylor met Mr. Sankor in a training camp in Libya but it has all turned out to be lies because the prosecutions failed to proved that so far. Today, we have seen witnesses telling their stories by saying they were there instead of someone told them! Many of the defense witnesses have said that, Mr. Taylor had no dealing with the RUF since 1992!
      None of these witnesses have said anything different than what many of us who have been label as rebels or supporters of Mr. Taylor for seeking fairness and true Justice for both Mr. Taylor and the people of Sierra Leone! I am saying this because the wrong person ( Mr. Taylor) is being prosecuted for the doing of others he had no command or control over in any means or form.
      One important point I must make is that, not any of the former Commanders of the RUF who were convicted in Sierra Leone ever testified that Mr. Taylor supported the RUF during the time period for which he is charged!

  3. This is no new song about witnesses for Defense, that taylor was not only involved in the crimes that took place on the soil of Sierra Leone,but that he was innocent on all accounts, even though, the truth lies in the sun as clearly as ever! It leaves one to wonder about the mental stability of some as to whether the extreme fear experienced does not continue to hunt them to the point of them living in total denial or fear of the real monster within! It’s pathetic to see these brothers lie in plain sight with no moral obligation to their own conscience nor to History. What happened in Sierra Leone will never get erased from History, both written and oral narations to future generations. Therefore to see individuals conive to say opposite for fear or for reward is not only heart breaking, but poses questions on the state of mind of these individuals and those who have chosen to ignore the truth, and nothing but the truth!This is all I have to say about these manufactured witnesses who fully participated in the criminal enterprises headed by charles gankay taylor, the rastaman!

    1. In the court of law anybody can sue and be sued. However, the person who is suing must prove his/her case beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case and preponderance of evidences in a civil case. Even though, in a criminal case, one may believed that a crime was committed by a certain individual, for example, A killed B. It maybe a fact that A did killed B, but the prosecution MUST prove in the court of law beyond a reasonable doubt that A indeed killed B. Whereas, in a civil case, is the dominance of evidences

      So, whether or not President Taylor aided and abetted the RUF for the wanton violence against the people of Sierra Leone is irrelevant. What is relevant is the prosecution proving her case beyond a reasonable doubt.

      If we allowed morality and emotions to supersede the legal system, than the court system should be squished and replaced by the Vatican.

      1. B Big, your assertion;”So, whether or not President Taylor aided and abetted the RUF for the wanton violence against the people of Sierra Leone is irrelevant. What is relevant is the prosecution proving her case beyond a reasonable doubt.” seems to be based purely on technicality than on reason, and don’t you forget that the Judges final decision will be based on reason, don’t you think so? Besides, it is relevant if taylor abetted while aiding the RUF whether there is video tapes or not! Simple as that..this is not the “old way” Liberian lawyering logic you are accustomed to, Big B. We are familiar with the liberian logic; People who are so optimistic about taylor’s innocence might fall apart mentally after the vidict is read because they seem to lose more than those against. The support of taylor from my observation, seem beyond mere support of justice, rather, it clearly indicate support of Injustice vs Justice; Rich vs Poor! Does this say anything to support group? Maybe not because I have not provided live videos to attest that, I, Jfallamenjor , is the one saying this!

        1. Fallah,

          It’s an allegation that President Taylor aided and abetted the RUF. I can allege that fallah is a Whiteman, but does that make fallah a Whiteman? In order to prove to the court that fallah is white, I will have to introduce into evidence DNA of you, your parents and siblings proving that fallah is genetically white.

          Allegation doesn’t mean anything in the court of law, it’s irrelevant. What is relevant is, proving the allegation. That’s the obstacle the prosecution is having, proving those alleged 11 counts indictment.

          That’s my analogy to your question.

    2. FALLAH,
      PROOOOOV IT…… I think you guys need to start contemplating on addressing the UN general assymbly. These long speechches are staring to become boring………..

    3. Fallah there you go rambling again! spare us the lecture about mental state of Defence witnesses. Good you did not mention the mental state of prosecution witnesses like Zigzag Marzah a self confessed carnibal or the mental state of Isaac mongor a mass murderer or the lieing Suwandi Camara that claimed to be in Libya at the same time as Foday Sankoh and Charles Taylor and Claimed he witnessed the purported Pact between Sankoh and Charles Taylor but was exposed by the leader of the gambian Group who testified that although he was in libya on his own a an economic migrant, he was not in the camp neither was he a part of the original gambian group that was trained in Libya. so he could not have met Foday Sankoh nor even the NPFL group in Libya. So Papay Fallah address the issues in the trial rather than rambling. The prosecution and you fellow Taylor haters have gotten yopurselfs in to a hole that would be difficult for you to get out of in this case. based on the facts in this case so far, there is no way the prosecution can get a conviction on any count in the indictment they are just wasting time. And by the time the defence concludes its case, even the sturbonly brilliant Brenda Hollis and Nick Koumjian will have to accept defeat in this one.

    4. YEA.. Fallah,
      It’s never going to be a new song. Facts are being listened to and read… This is what’s going to continue. You guys are going to face the wraft of shame… Why lie on Taylor ? What has he done to you people? Taylor has done notthng wrong in Sierraleone, and we stand by that. That is the plain plain TRUE>>>>>>>

    1. Davenport,
      I am using your rationale on why two popular candidates were elected in the face of unpopular wars.

  4. I think Mr. Taylor said that he stopped support to the RUF in 1992 and not 2002 as is in this script.
    please check it out.
    I think it’s a mistake on your part.

    1. Johannso — thank you so much — good catch! I have fixed the error — thanks for letting us know about it.

  5. Big B
    “So, whether or not President Taylor aided and abetted the RUF for the wanton violence against the people of Sierra Leone is irrelevant. What is relevant is the prosecution proving her case beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    Are the aforementioned statements true reflection of your thoughts and worldview?

    1. You Taylor supporters seem so desperate to see freedom come Mr. Taylor’s way that you now stand behind the thin and fragile cover of expectation that the prosecution would not be able to prove its case. Oh , this is a pitty for you , because it’s like wishing to go to heaven without facing death in the first place.
      The facts exist , from circumstancial to admittance in court and even through the physical conditions of his victims in Sierra Leone. Justice is a guilty vadict for Mr. Taylor and then, certainly, later for his former cronies in Liberia ( once -a-Sweet-

      1. When do they have to prove their case? This trial started with the prosecution presenting their case. Wasn’t that the best time for them to prove their case against Mr. Taylor? The NFFL that Mr. Taylor controlled in Liberia didn’t go about cutting off hands of Liberians as the Sierra Leonean did to their own people and you know that!
        If you do believe that Mr. Taylor responsible for what happened in Sierra Leone why didn’t they charged him for what happened in Sierra Leone from March of 1991 to 2003? If you so much believed that Mr. Taylor is responsibled for what happened in Sierra Leone by supporting the RUF, how did the RUF continued fighting in Sierra Leone when ULIMO captured the whole of westen Liberia up to the Guinean border in 1992?
        so tell us how did that happened! The best thing the international community should have done was to prosecute Mr. Taylor for what happened in Liberia not Sierra Leone, plane and simple! Nobody is saying here that Mr. Taylor never committed crimes but not against the people of Sierra Leone. Here we have a witness who testified during the Sierra Leonean TRC process and was never prosecuted ( I stand corrected ); moreso, a founding member of the RUF is telling the Court that Mr. Taylor didn’t do what the people of Sierra Leone are saying he did for which he’s being prosecuted.
        What more do you need to hear or see? All the witnesses for Mr. Taylor defense have so far said the same thing……Do they have to say yes Mr. Taylor is responsible when they know very well that he didn’t? You can called me all you want but the fact of the matter is that, your don’t believed what is called true Justice and freedom.

        Remember that, Mr. Taylor is not on trial for what happened Liberia! Go to Liberia today and see what Sierra Leoneans who were resettle in Liberia are doing to the Liberian people. Arms robbery are what they are involve in!

      2. Vem,

        We do not stand behind any thin and fragile cover of expectations. The bottom line is that the Prosecution had more than a year to prove their case. They have simply failed to do so. Whether you accept this fact or not the matter remains clear that the Prosecution’s case is extremely weak and tenuous.

        Get over it!!!

      3. VEM,
        I hope you are aware that the prosecution has rested its case. so at this point we know exactly what the prosecution case against Mr Taylor is. And as things stand at the moment, Mr Taylor is presenting his own side of the story and he has only called a few witnesses, the majority of his witnesses are yet to be called and if you look at the defence witness list I can assure you they have a more credible set of witnesses. Their witnesses are people who were actually there when those things happened and those who participated directly in the conflict. so you cannot judge by listening only to the case of the prosecution just wait for the defence case to conclude and I can assure you that you will change your view on Mr Taylor’s guilt at the end.

    2. Hi Big B — you have submitted a comment on April 19 at 4:05pm which alas I don’t think I can publish. It makes a statement about a person as a fact that they committed a specific crime — and yet that same person was found “not guilty” in a court of law. As such — even though I completely understand the point you are trying to make — we cannot publish your statement in its current form. You can look at our policy for comments for guidance, which I hope might be helpful:

      Sorry for the inconvenience, but if you can rephrase your comment to fit with our guidelines, I will happily post it.


      1. Hi Tracey, I agree with you 100%. I’ll rephrase.


        Yes the statement is true. Anybody can allege anything. In the court of law when you allege or accused someone of committing a crime you have to PROVE it. For instance, I can allege that Morris is not a Liberian because he speaks with a Sierra Leone accent. Perhaps, you may/may not be a Liberian, but I will have to PROVE it in court that (Morris) is not a Liberian.

        Therefore, whether you were born in Liberia/Sierra Leone is irrelevant. What is relevant is (Big B) have to proof to the court that (Morris) is not a Liberian. This is just the way how the court system works.

        Take for example the O.J. Simpson case. Many people were of the opinion that O.J. Simpson did murder Nicole, and Ron, but the prosecution didn’t have the evidence to linked O.J. Simpson to the murder. I am not incinerating at all, that President Taylor was involved in the atrocities committed in Sierra Leone. I am only demonstrating here how the legal system works.

        So, if the evidence is not there, you MUST acquit.

Comments are closed.