At Status Conference, Judges Draw Up Schedule For The Conclusion Of Defense Case

At a status conference today in The Hague, the Special Court for Sierra Leone judges created a schedule for the closure of the defense case. The status conference was held pursuant to an application that was made last week by defense lawyers for Charles Taylor after the former Liberian president’s 20th defense witness concluded his testimony.

When court resumed this morning for the status conference, defense counsel for Mr. Taylor, Terry Munyard, indicated that the defense “still have and are still working on a number of motions.” Mr. Munyard reiterated, “I am not ruling it out but it’s unlikely that we’ll call any other live witnesses.”

Mr. Munyard proposed to the judges that after the end of this week, the court be made to take a recess for two weeks.  After the two week recess then the judges would take one week to determine decisions on outstanding motions.  Following that, the court would resume the week of October 4, 2010 with a status conference to close the defense case.

“This will enable us to close our case a full month period before the time that you had ordered us to close our case,” Mr. Munyard said, indicating that the judges had ordered that the defense close their case in November 2010.

When prosecutors were asked to make a response to the defense proposals, Chief Prosecutor Brenda Hollis told the judges, “It is not the parties who decide the management of the case but the Trial Chamber.”

She proposed that the “defense be given until the end of next week to file any motions they intend to file” and that there be “no recess until the end of the evidence of the trial.”

After a brief recess to deliberate on the issues, the judges returned with the following rulings:

1. The defense will file any submissions they are supposed to have filed by September 24, 2010.

2. The court will hold a status conference on Monday, September 27, 2010 during which it will look at the volume of pending motions.

3. On September 27, the court will determine a date for another status conference; and

4. A court recess will commence on Tuesday, September 28, for two weeks.

The court recess will last until Monday, October 11, and court will resume on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

With this schedule, the defense will formally close their case within the stipulated time frame, which will be followed by closing arguments by both prosecution and defense, before the judges retire to assess the entire evidence and issue their final decision on Mr. Taylor’s innocence or guilt.

The court was then adjourned and will resume with a status conference on Monday, September 27, 2010.


  1. Great Day! There is light at the end of the tunnel for victims whose life was cut short by greed and insensitivity of rag-tag rebels in both the RUF and NPFL. There will be rejoicing among families of victims whose love ones were not only raped and turtured, but eaten in some cases by these dispicable set of criminals that ever lived in the Motherland. For now, we have to accept the judgement even if not as we expect. And for those who still walk and are insensitive and arrogant, we say to them, your time will come, believe it or not! we already see crazy zombies on the streets of Liberia and Freetown who suffer mental anguish due to memories of their crimes committed against innocent bystanders that had no part to play in wealth that had played paramount in these senseless wars in West Africa. BRAVO to all contributors for you have brought light to dark Motherland! No man will be above the law anymore! Thank you. Jfallahmenjor

    1. Please do not count your checks when they are stay insides the eggs. The eggs could be snake’s if you don’t mind fallah.

      Harris K Johnson

    2. A MUST READ!!!

      Sorry couldn’t get the link to work, WE the PEOPLE have been saying all along, if this trial was held in the United States it would have been over long time ago.

      Tue, September 14, 2010 11:24:28 PMYahoo! News Story – Lawyer: Smith case prosecutor encouraged perjury – Yahoo! News

      LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch, Ap Special Correspondent – 1 hr 34 mins ago
      LOS ANGELES – Howard K. Stern’s lawyer angrily accused a prosecutor Tuesday of encouraging perjury by a key witness at the Anna Nicole Smith drug conspiracy trial.

      Defense attorney Steve Sadow was red-faced as he asked the judge to strike the entire testimony of Nadine Alexie, a former nanny for Smith.

      “I’m considering it,” Superior Court Judge Robert Perry said without making a ruling.

      The dispute involved testimony by Nadine Alexie that she had taught her sister-in-law Quethlie Alexie to recognize Stern’s name on prescription bottles, even though Quethlie Alexie reads no English.

      Sadow suggested prosecutor Renee Rose had encouraged Nadine Alexie to fabricate the story to explain her sister-in law’s statements on the witness stand that she had seen Stern’s name on the bottles.

      When the judge left the bench, Sadow shouted at Rose: “In my whole career I’ve never seen a prosecutor do a stunt like that. You ought to look in the mirror and think about what you’re doing. It’s outrageous.”

      Rose did not respond to the accusation.

      Asked later if Rose would have a comment, district attorney’s spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said, “Whatever statement she has she will be making in court.”

      Before Sadow spoke, Perry dismissed jurors from the courtroom and appeared to predict what Sadow was going to say.

      1. Big B,

        As usual. thank you for the “Good News.” But there is a difference between this fake and scam court and a real court in the U.S. Even the founding father of this fake court, David Crane, described this fake court as an “inherently flaw court court.” Just imagine, if David Crane can call this fake court inherently flaw court, than they can allow bribery, corruption, paid witness, they say, she say, he say, him say, them say, she she, dead man say, and any other testimony and thing.

  2. If I were a judge or jurist of this case, I would vote not guilty on all accounts because the Prosecution fails to prove their case beyond a reason doubt that Mr. Taylor was in control of or the leader of the RUF from Nov. 26, 1996 until peace came to Sierra Leone. The Prosecution from what I read and listen too of their evidence tell me that Mr. Taylor had some influence and supported some of the RUF decisions about the war in Sierra Leone during that period. Of course during the timeframe Mr. Taylor was part of a West Africa Group appointed to bring peace to Sierra Leone, therefore their were other in this group that also had some influence and supported some of the RUF decisions about the war in Sierra Leone.

    1. That is exactly why you are not and can’t be. You can even sit on the mountain yet see nothing once it has to do with the Papay.

  3. Aki,
    where have you been since the begaining of this trial? especially in your sept. 12 postings. Please permit me to quote ” What does the killings of Sam Bockarie have to do with Charles Taylor’s 11 count indictment?” The killing of Sam Bockarie an indictee of this court, and Charles Taylor’s knowledge as per his own testimony that he knew Sam Bockarie was infact on the list of indictees presented by the SCSL before said killings.While is this picture so bad for Charles Taylor? I will say it again “the ill faithed defense of Charles Taylor”.Their miscalculations is that the criminal enterprise actually existed as charged by the prosesucions,but it only existed between Yeatent & Bockarie. Again allowing Taylor to testified undermines that theory, especially he testified under oath via direct eximanitions by Griffith, That he Charles Taylor had given Sam Bockarie money to buy food and jeans for his RUF tugs, during one of their visit to see him ( Charles Taylor ) in Monrovia.Accounts of other prosecution & defense witnesses including Issa Sesay seems to suggest that Charles Taylor had provided Satellite phones to both Bockarie & Issa. What is also important is that during these periods the RUF was in sole control of the mines in Kono. Strongly linking him ( Charles Taylor ) to criminal enterprise via initial investment of a Satellite phones. Again I will be the first to suggest here that Griffith and his defense team impressed on Charles Taylor to enter a plead of Quilty for a reduce sentencing.I know to this will not sit well with NOKO4 & AKI. I hope this is done during one of the upcoming status conferences.

    1. Ziggy,
      Can you please POINT OUT where in Mr. Taylor’s testimony he said he knew that Mr. Bockerie was a WANTED MAN??? But let’s agree he did, is there any charge for OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE if he is to be blamed for Mr. Bockerie’s death??? If so, would or could you please show me….THANKS.

      Again, whoelse you believe the judges wanted to hear and their side of the story??? Using a SECONDED PERSON to tell us about Mr. Taylor’s dealings during that time frame or Mr. Taylor himself??? Wasn’t it because of him BRILLIANCY on the stand the prosecutors had to BEG to reopen their case.

      Again, BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT is the guideline…..can you TRUTHFULLY tell me you are totally satisfy with the presentation by the prosecutors?? If so, give me ONE AIR TIGHT evidence or testimony I beg. Really, if this was a normal court, do you think or believe this case would have gone pass the FIRST GEAR??

      Again, according to some of the prosecutors’ witnesses, Mr. Bockerie was killed during a fire fight, executed by gov’t’s men etc etc. The official report as reported by BBC was he died at the border. And his death is the reason Mr. Taylor should be found GUILTY?? Are you SERIOUSLY SERIOUS???

      Again, I will vote NOT GUILTY….nothing I saw or heard place my brain BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT!!!!! But it will be…..2 to 1 in favor of Mr. Taylor on MOST of the serious charges….and 1 to 2 against him on the lesser charges….serve 10 years…minus current time serves making his stay less than 10 years.

    2. Ziggy,
      First of all Yeaten not on trial. If he was to be friendly with a rebel is in no way an international crime. Who is a more important witness Sam Bockarie or Issa Sesay who testified that Taylor had nothing to do with the RUF war machine. You cant pin your hopes on what a dead man might have said. Yes Charles Taylor gave jeans and cigarettes to Sam Bockarie. Does this mean that Taylor knew or condoned the atrocities carried out by rebels ? Given support to a rebel in itself is not a war crime. What benefit did Taylor receive in return. Remember there has been no proof of diamond sales made by Taylor no proof of the 5 billion dollar in bank accounts.. ZIGGY SIERRA LEONANS KILLED SIERRA LEONEANS DON’T LOOK FOR A SCAPEGOAT IN MR. TAYLOR.

  4. What do you call no man will be above the law anymore, I am sorry to tell you that you are one of the fool in Africa because you do not know what you are saying, if you think you know then tell me why former President of America George Bush and Tony Blair former premier minister still moving around freely with out indictment issue on them? if you are following evens just received something happen to Tony, why you think this happen? brother stop fooling your self, what is going on is beyond your imagination, the Dublin incident why these so called Global Witness are not speaking or these so called international human and were is this amnesty international? what happen to these organizations are they alive or dead? Oh because these former rules are not african. Tell me something because you spoke about law.

  5. Wow! Before I make my so-called objective review of this trial, it’s probably best that I state my personal views, I am not a supporter of Charles Taylor. I personally think he is a terrible guy, who has blood on his hands (both Sierra Leoneans and Liberians) however, for the sake of discussion, I set aside my personal views and looked at the legal process from my spectrum.

    I think both sides presented its side well, even though, I think there were many contradictions and mental lapses on both sides. To sum the trial, I think the prosecution did a disservice to the victims for which they were trying to seek justice. I personally think Ms. Hollis et team either miss calculated the defense or BS their way to the chambers hoping that the evidence or something will stick. In my opinion, they were drawing water out off the well with a sifter. Some of their witnesses were not credible (for lack of a better term), and the prosecution themselves showed several points of mental lapses. As a result, Hollis et al legal arguments at times seem lost and misdirected. I believe that the prosecution failed to link CT to the crimes or command structure of the RUF. The only real connection to CT and stones was the rough diamonds, which themselves have not spoken scientifically about its origin. For now, the prosecution couldn’t establish a link between CT and the Campbell diamonds. Moreover, even this had conflicting accounts.

    On the defense team, they knew they had nothing to lose and a good fight would either lead to an acquittal at best and at worse jail time. Like a boxer against the ropes and trying to avoid the last “punch” to the that would lead the a TKO, the defense swung back viciously and relentlessly, at times even confusing the prosecution. The lead defense was magnificent, mentally superior and a student of the law profession (I wish I could say the same about the prosecution).

    If the court retains its transparency and independence I predict CT will walk. However, if there are external parties involved (who have vested interest in the region), which I believe is the case, CT will be found guilty and serve at least 20 years. A free CT is dangerous for the region and Liberia. But if the verdict is based strictly on evidences, or lack thereof, CT is a free man.

    One would think that I am a supporter of CT, absolutely not. I was trying to step aside from my personal opinions and see things objectively–I hope I did. For those of us who want to see himl jailed for life, we may be disappointed (oh, I wish I am wrong). For those who want to see a free CT and pop the bubbly, you may have your chance to do so and the souls of the victims will remain unhappy and hoover over the lands–Liberia and Sierra Leone.

    The real victim in this trial is not CT for facing the legal process, which he denied many, the real victims are the innocents who were murdered in cold blood; those who are still mentally and psychologically scared by the barbaric acts of this man and his cohorts. The victims were let down by Hollis and her team! I certainly hope she can sleep knowing that she failed at her task!

    Well, that’s my two cents! We await the verdict and the lengthy appeal process thereafter!

    1. Dear Charles,

      Your objectivity is noted; as reasonably fair; but for your conclusion.

      In my view, the plight of the Liberian people began with the assassination of William Richard Tolbert, Jr., on April 12, 1980; and the country has been cursed continually since.

      As Charles Taylor has gone on record to admit, war is war; it is not a nice thing; the solution is peace. Your statement:

      • The real victim in this trial is not CT for facing the legal process, which he denied many, the real victims are the innocents who were murdered in cold blood; those who are still mentally and psychologically scared by the barbaric acts of this man and his cohorts.

      unjustly characterize Mr. Taylor, since there were innocent Liberians who were murdered by those opposing Mr. Taylor. To be fair, one must accept that there was slaughter on every side.

      The real blame for the bloodshed in Liberia rest squarely with samuel kanyon doe; who since September 9, 1990 is no longer among the living; and may her soul not find comfort in HELL.

      1. Sekou,

        Thanks for your response. I think its best that we acknowledge that Liberia’s most progressive mind was quieted the morning of April 12, 1980 allegedly by Samuel Doe. Since this day, Liberia saw a rapid decline. You are probably wondering why I used the word “allegedly” referring to the events of 1980. Mrs. Victoria Tolbert (the late great leader’s wife) who was present chronicles that her husband murderers were not done by the “fools” (Doe et hoards), but rather by “white” men.

        I remember Charles Taylor has gone on record as saying war is bad and bad things happen. No doubt, but terrible things could have been minimized or contained. When the leadership itself is tainted, one would expect the organization to be a reflection of its leadership…in the case of the NPFL, this is true.

        You mentioned that Taylor was unjustly classified since all parties committed crimes, true, I have condemned all parties of the Liberian conflict. I also think that all parties should suffer similar fate as those war criminals in SL if the legal process deem that necessary. Yesterday, Chuckie was on trial and found guilty (97 years), today Charles Taylor is on trial and we still await the verdict, tomorrow George Boley will be prosecuted (he is still in the slammer too). I think this is a good thing for Africa. I dare Kromah, Johnson, Conneh and all other warlords to visit the US. There are jail cells awaiting them too…..let mother justice speak!

        1. Dear Charles,

          Being 10 thousand miles away but for a brief visit to Ghana, Ivory Coast and Nigeria in 1991; allots my only factual details of what transpired in Liberia and Sierra Leone and that comprise of alleged eye witnesses and a conversation I had with a former member of the Tolbert administration and current Liberian politician and what I read in the news. So when you speak of the NPFL and the reflection of its leadership, I cannot rightfully comment.

          I do see that George Boley faces serious offences in the U.S. and I am sure his history will speak for him too. It is sad indeed that there has been no indictment by the Liberian government that addresses Mrs. Victoria Tolbert’s account of April 12, 1980; and for this failure I believe the Tolbert curse will continue for Liberia West Africa.

          I believe you have touched upon a vital point in your September 15, 2010 at 4:52 am post when you say:

          • “think every men should be accountable for his action and President Taylor is accused of doing some horrible crimes. But the law is not made to serve as a haven for revenge. It’s serve as a place for justice, which require a process.

          I think you will agree that in general terms; a large percentage of the Special Task Force (STF) members were Liberian would in essence consist of a majority. And that majority at some point in time had sought to kill the accused Mr. Taylor. As egregious as it was for the people of Sierra Leone, it was Liberians that draw up the charges against Mr. Taylor; charges which are not reflective of proven facts; and it would not necessarily be the prosecutions culpability if this case was don’t won for the people of Sierra Leone; but rest squarely with David Bropleh, a Liberian and self-proclaimed founding member of ULIMO, who later formed and controlled the STF.

          It was Bropleh who gathered the evidence in this case and who obviously had no sustainable evidence linking Mr. Taylor with the RUF. Please, do not blame the prosecution if there is a not guilty judgment, but put Bropleh on trial for presenting false evidence; and corrupting the process.

          You can view support to this claim from the link on my September 14, 2010 at 11:20 pm posting.

        2. Charles,
          You are right that the most progressive leader Liberia ever had was William Tolbert. If on April 12th 1980 Doe and his cohorts had stayed in the barracks were they belonged. Liberia could have been one of the most developed countries in West Africa. As an example when Ghanians use to come to Liberia in the 1960’s and 70’s they felt they were in America. Today it is shameful how much more developed Ghana is then liberia.

    2. Charles,
      WELL SAID…..most think we DEFEND Mr. Taylor means we are SUPPORTERS…..this is a LEGAL MATTER and PERSONAL VIEW is out of the window…..EVIDENCES presented are the guide.

      1. Noko4,
        For the record, I am not defending and don’t wish to ever, but you are right, the evidence in my view was immaterial….but I am not a lawyer…

        1. the wonderful thing about western justice is that you don’t have to be a lawyer to weigh the evidence. Just use your common sense. Charles you have more than enough common sense to form an opinion.

    3. Charles,
      I respect your analysis. You must remember though that unlike you and some others on the forum. The people of Liberia forgave Charles Taylor by given him 73% of their vote. Once he was elected there were no atrocities commited by Mr. Taylor in Liberia. Yes there were some murders which occured but murders happen all over the world. As far as Sierra Leone is concerned all Sierra Leoneans have to do is look in the mirror to see who was responsible for the mayhem which engulfed our sister republic.

      1. Aki,
        Bolony! You cannot say that since CT was elected no one was killed or otherwise tortured. Have you forgotten this man has a child called “Chucky” who is in jail for crimes all of which were committed under his fathers watch! Please Aki, I hold your foot mehn!

        1. Charles,
          Do you really believe the evidence in Chukie’s trial? If Chucky was so ruthless do you think any of those witnesses would have really survived to come to trial. They had a story to gain political asylum which is what they have gotten. Let me be clear I for one shed no tears for Chucky. I first had contact with him in Gbarnga when he was only fifteen years old. I said to my friend that this boy would never amount to nothing. Sure enough he did not even graduate from high school in Liberia where his father was president. Having said that I know those witnesses were untruthful in his trial in the States and said only what the prosecutors wanted them to say.

        2. Charles
          I think aki is saying that CT election was sanctioned by the same people behind this court debacle. Therefor, it is not possible for them to reach back to actions committed prior to that election.

      2. Aki,
        I tell you what bothers me…people speak of human life so casually. Lets forget about the trial, take a seat and think for a second. Who the HELL are these rebels of anyone who think they have the authority to take life—and shamefully are scared to die themselves. We need to place more value on human life, mehn! So, because killings happened around the world, does it make it less impactful that someone lost their father, mother, sister, grand parent(s), and the list goes on? We need to start to think humanely. We technically have the highest levels of intelligence of all earthly creature, but we are the only one that kill because of dumb reasons. Aki, so if you or someone was raped (yea, boys were raped during the war by rebel men, did you know that?), would it be less painful and traumatic for you if you knew that thousands of boys and girls are raped annually worldwide? NO! Your comments about killings in other places marginalizes the pains and vacuums created in some families lives to a mere “daily occurrence” and frankly it is offensive, I think you officially “dehumanized” yourself. EVERY LIFE IS PRECIOUS–Darn it! Gosh!

      1. My Personal views of Charles Taylor or the trial is clear! I am of the opinion that CT was greatly involved in the activities in Sierra Leone, but the evidence presented by the prosecution does not show such. Regardless of the verdict, people’s opinion will remain unchanged. Like in the case of OJ Simpson (the murder trial), some believed he did it (regardless of the verdict) and others believe he was framed. We expect the same reaction in this trial. I personally will think that he (CT) was the “godfather” for RUF. However, my and others views do not impact the trial or its result.

        I will give you my opinion about the verdict:
        1- CT will be found guilty even though the evidences do not link him directly to RUF. The trial is highly political and the region’s and western countries economic life could be strangled by a freed Taylor. Hint: West Africa is the new market for the West’s oil and other natural resources. The region has lots of potentials especially for nations whose demand for crude oil has increased substantially. These nations are looking for a new favorable and more predictable–the middle east is not a predictable climate

        2- CT will be jailed for approximately 20 years

        I think there should be a larger drag net for those who have commitment crimes against humanity. I was elated when George Boley was arrested and now he is facing crimes of extra-judicial killings (it sweet for him). I was pleased with Demonte Conneh was jailed in Guinea. Look, I respect the people of SL for making and executing a difficult choice to prosecute those that were responsible for their crisis. Because of this, the likelihood of civil war reoccurring there is much slimmer than Liberia. Why? SL prosecuted rebels; we, reward ours with jobs and titles such as “chief”, “the boss”, “general”, “speaker and former speaker”, now “senator”, “professor” (Kromah–a damn UPS driver when he lived in Maryland).

        I guess I better stop, my frustration is clearly visible!

        1. charles
          i was going to say you seem frustrated.
          your personal views are clear. I’m interested in how you formed your personal views. Some of us are only privy to what has been revealed in these proceedings and thus have reached the conclusion you have as to what the verdict may or may not be. Again, if you care to share, what information or experience are you basing your personal views?

  6. Fallah have you already been hinted by the judges about their decission on the verdit? You are sounding very positive in your quest to see Taylor’s guilt. Or you just want to satisfy public sentiments?

  7. Let’s hope that the Judges can work out the difference between a Google Map and a Google Earth image. Neither the Prosecution nor the Defence could. Distance A to B is greater going up or downhill, rather than on flat ground, as DCT 008 tried in vain to point out.

    Mr. Anya went some way to clarify this.


  8. OMG !!! Did he really say “Dark Mother land” Is ther a corollary here? “White Father land” Riding on his White Horse to save the heathen Black Africans ? Straight out of 15th Century Anglo rationalization.

    Binary Thinking, Zero Sum Mentality, Deterministic Conclusion- Unless we can get pass these minimalist ideas we will never know who ” Killed my ma, killed my pop, Enslaved my Grandma and Lynched GrandPa , I wil still support their claim to moral superiority.”

    “I’ve m et the enemy, and it is our selves.”

    I’ll relieve you of your anguish- Charles Taylor will be convicted and kept in prison for the rest of his life. he will be let out when decrepit and feeble on humanitaria grounds 20 years from now if he lives.

    Forget this show trial- it was to appease the plebeians

    Question: Where, how do you vent your anger next? Surely you do not believe Taylors imprisonment wil relieve you of your anguish, Did you?

    As I said , the people responsible for the death of your people are now in your forest cutting the timber, mining your gold, digging the oil wells etc., while bribing your leaders to get at those riches for pennies on the dollar and you will work for slave wages. This is the New era of enslavement-NeoSlavery, leave them in Africa, let them pretend to have governments who sill serve as over bosses maiming, killing to intimidate the little people into working of pittance.

    This Neo- Enslavement is most cost effective and morally appealing, even the liberals endorse this.

    ‘The White man came with his bible, While we were praying to his God, with our eyes closed, he took our land Jomo Kenyatta

  9. I have two prediction. Upon the reading of the verdict, I believe there will be many attempts to insult individual due to their stance on this trail. Tracy, Taegin and Aphla have done a great job screening and weaving out these postings. I think one or two comments might slip through the cracks. So I urge everyone to practice restraint and show respect for themselves as well as others, upon the reading of the verdict. Secondly, due to the countless times the prosecution were denied to present evidence that conflicted with defense witnesses testimony (because it pointed to the guilt of Mr. Taylor) and the motion to reopen their case (due to the finding of new evidence) were denied. Draws me to believe there will be an appeal to a guilty or not guilty verdict. In addition I think the defense team can question the credibility of a large portion of the prosecution witnesses due to allegation on witness bribery/compensations.

    1. Dear Al-Solo Nyonteh,

      I am not familiar with the ICC procedures and cannot say with certainty whether there will be an appeal to a not guilty judgment, but normally this would not be the case. The reason there would not be an appeal is the prosecution represents the people and the court is considered as the people.

      When you say:

      • In addition I think the defense team can question the credibility of a large portion of the prosecution witnesses due to allegation on witness bribery/compensations.

      cause me to realize that you are unsurprisingly a fair and rational thinker.

      I pray that you can get through this no matter what the outcome.

        1. Sekou,
          There is this comment, and I think it’s responsible and balanced….

          “think every men should be accountable for his action and President Taylor is accused of doing some horrible crimes. But the law is not made to serve as a haven for revenge. It’s serve as a place for justice, which require a process. The law is not based on “what you think you know”. It’s what you can prove without a reasonable doubt. Yes, it’s bad when the law protects the guilty but it’s created to protect the innocent and every man is innocent until proven guilty. It’s an embarrassment to the history of Liberia to accuse a former president without strong verifiable evidence.”
          Al-Solo Nyonteh

        2. Sekou

          It is almost frighten how good your investigative skill are. Don’t get me wrong about my opinion about “embarrassment to the history of Liberia to accuse a former president without strong verifiable evidence”. I was comparing and contrasting to most major powers philosophy. This type of accusation would have only seen the light of day with strong verifiable evidence (in Mr. Taylor case a paper trail which can be trace back to millions of dollar from the sell of SL conflict diamonds) and then be ingeniously down played before an indictment was ever issued, resulting in no criminal chares pursued in the court of law. I was trying to insinuate that most major powers would consider it not only an embarrassment to the country (a foreign nation trying their president in court) but a direct threat to their country and their way of life which would be interrupted as an act of war. With emotions aside and the SL conflict not in mind, I think it was real disrespectful to try Mr. Taylor (as being a former head of state) in a foreign court for his alleged support for the RUF. I believe for the best interest of a country there is a widely used/untold strategy to support a group that can be influenced by the their government but there is line that needs to be drawn (I think Mr. Taylor crossed it). With that said, the fact that many innocent people loss their lives or was violated and Mr. Taylor past track record, I don’t think Mr. Taylor or any former president should have a free pass. If caught, it should be mandatory to answer to a respectable court.

          According to SCSL rule106 section A the prosecution has the right to appeal the judges decision under certain conditions. The condition I mention should fall under subsection c (An error of fact which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.) click the link The Rules of Procedure and Evidence

          I’m a natural born leader therefore I’m unable to follow the crowd and pick a side. I can only listen to both sides and weight the situation for what it’s worth. It’s a gift/curse

    2. al
      evidence denied to the prosecution is not b/c it points to guilt. it is denied b/c it is too prejudicial…meaning it could make one think the def is guilty when in fact he is not. Any evidenc that is fair and credible is not likely to be denied in to evidence. I hope this helps. If not then a course on rules of evidence and procedure may help.

      1. cen

        We are talking about one in the same thing. You are right it is prejudicial but (in my words) it is because the prosecution has closed their case and the defense prepared their case around casting doubt to the prosecution’s case. Any thing that points to the guilt of the defendant that was not mention in the original presentation of the prosecution case, is a form of blind siding the defense’s case (which is not fair to the defendant). It is vital that the defense team and prosecutor has total transparency in the court of law. The most important of all is the prosecutor must explain and prove why they are accusing the defendant to allow the defendant a chance to properly explain and prove any discrepancy.

        it would be very helpful and nice if you can direct me this “course on rules of evidence and procedure” you mentioned. Please don’t give me the same direction you took, because I will hate to get lose.

        1. al
          you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink the water!
          “because I would hate to get lose” do you mean lost?
          I did a simple internet search. If you desire to expand your knowledge base then feel free to apply at any accredited law school. good luck and god’s speed to you!

  10. This case is going for appeal….the verdict will be a political decision not a legal decision based on the facts. We already know that western governments have constructed a prison for Taylor in Britain and just awaiting the political decision from this court to hold Taylor forever.

    1. Momo Dahn,

      So Momo Dahn, you mean to tell us that the prosecutors fail to prove Naomi Campbell “blood diamond” story? You mean to tell us what the prosecution said about President Taylor appointing Issa Sessay as interim rebel leader for the RUF was not true, when in fact, Issa himself said Taylor was not his boss? Do you mean to tell us that the prosecution lied, when they said Taylor “has” 5 billion dollars? Are you saying that the prosecution massively failed to show the European arms dealers Taylor was buying RUF arms for diamonds from? Do you mean to tell us that the joint criminal enterprise of Taylor and Foday Sankor as RUF leader in Libya was not true; when in fact, Alli Kabbah was the leader of the RUF in Libya? Are you also saying that the judges will ignore all of these things and render a political verdict? Good Lord, Almighty, which way should we turn?

    2. Dear Momo Dahn,

      I would not appear so pessimistic and say there will be no support for Mr. Taylor if this proves to be a kangaroo court. The African Union (AU) may be willing to lend support and this assumption is made from what occurred in Kenya concerning Omar Hassan al-Bashir.

      It was believed by some that Kenya would surrender him to the ICC to face his indictment; but this was not the case. The question is, where does ECOWAS stand and what affect will their action have in a relationship with the AU.

      I believe this court would not want to be seen as corrupt; if they are as corrupt as you purport them to be, I believe they would have shown it by now. There have been people acquitted by the ICC. Are you involved in politics?

      1. Sekou,
        Charles Taylor is beign tried not by the ICC but by the Special Court for Sierra Leone. They are two distinct and independent bodies. I have more confidence in the ICC than I have in this inherently flawed court. If this case was brought before the ICC it would have been thrown out a long time ago.

  11. Well, it seems part one of the Taylor case is about to conclude. I want to say thanks to all members pf this brilliant team who has kept this forum for us all to express our views on this trial and to all the many contributors, many of whom disagree with me on many issues.

    This case has created heated debate particularly on this forum. I am of the school(unlike many) who believe that it was right that Taylor was brought to court to defend himself. We have heard/seen some of the arguements both from the defence and prosecution team and now the judges will now decide.

    The outcome will indeed be the begining to the end of impunity in this region. Once this case is over, we should focus our attention to Liberia.

    I am sure we will all be here again to discuss the verdict.

    1. Dear Eagle-eye (Returns),

      Not to appear to be a pundit in this area; the ICC prosecutes at the invitation of the host country, even though the ICC indicts whomever it finds libel. There does not appear to be the political well of the Liberia government to prosecute for war crimes in that country. According to reports concerning the surrender of Mr. Taylor, it was the Liberian government that affected that action against him only.

      If the Liberian TRC has any credence with whom that shares the responsibility for the conflict there; the setting president would probably face charges herself. Let’s be realistic, just because the Liberian government rescinded Mr. Taylor’s pardon; do you seriously believe they will allow for their own trail to come about? (That is a rhetorical question)

      The defense here has effectively accursed ULIMO, David Bropleh as the architect of the charges against Mr. Taylor. See the first link in my post of September 14, 2010 at 11:20 pm.

      It does not appear likely that the current government of Liberia will heed to your plea. The cry for fairness must extend to Sierra Leone as well; that is for all who has been charged.

      Just my opinion of course.

      1. sekou,

        Sierra Leoneans are fine,it is Liberian who deserve justice,we have tried the people that created the war in our country…i am more likely to request compensation from Libya,Burkinabe and Ivorian not liberia or charles taylor….

        Don’t want to shoot the messenger as liberia and ghana were a mere transit for the suppoertes of the RUF!!!

        But as you can see the flawed moralist are saying otherwise and when they speak is like god speaking to some of our brothers and sisters is liberia/sierra leone

        1. Dear Cee,

          I understand what you are saying, but Liberia does not appear to be ready for that. There have been threats that unless all responsible parties are indicted, there will be a conflict.

  12. On September 9, 2010 the defense filed motion seeking admission of eleven documents relating to the Special Task Force of the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (collectively “STF Documents”), pursuant to Rule 92bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (“Rules”) which the defense believe will establish the presence of “Liberian fighters” in Sierra Leone during the conflict.

    • The STF Documents are fact-based letters, reports, lists, and attestation forms which are relevant to the personnel and operations of the Special Task Force of the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces during the Indictment period. As a large percentage of the Special Task Force members were Liberian, these documents, inter alia. are relevant for the purpose of explaining the presence of “Liberian fighters” in Sierra Leone during the conflict.” Specifically, the STF Documents (DCT-452, DCT-453, DCT-454, DCT-459) show that the STF was headed by General David Bropleh, a Liberian and self-proclaimed founding member of ULIMO, who later formed and controlled the STF.

    • As the Defence is no longer calling any member of the Special Task Force to testify.’ the Defence seeks admission of the STF Documents, which do not go to proof of the acts and conduct of the Accused, in lieu of oral testimony.

    The motion with its annex’s consist of 78 pages.

    See link:

  13. Well, thank you all for your comments on this site. most of us readers were enlightened by your thoughtful deliberations. many of you showed how passionate you are for justice, others demonstrated how diligent they are in keeping records of events. Most of us including myself could not share our opinions with the public in most instances but agreed and disagreed with many of your views on this site.

    at this stage, i would like to just give my opinion based on the legal aspect of this issue:

    JCE (Join Criminal Enterprise )

    Well,from the judgment from this link, i think the prosecution failed to prove JCE for CT please read this carefully and tried to see whether you could see the answer to the following questions when the prosecution presented their case.
    1. what was the common purpose during the indictment period? when and where was it formed? was Taylor part of this plan? did he know or has reasons to know of the plan?

    the prosecution tactics was to link CT too the decisions of this judgment by which they intend to use as precedent but from all legal reasoning arising from this judgment, I think it did not prove
    i) a plurality of persons;

    (ii) the existence of a common plan, design or purpose which amounts to or involves the commission of a crime provided for in the Statute;

    (iii) participation of the accused in the common design involving the perpetration of one of the crimes provided for in the Statute.

    JCE is critical in this case. once it is not proven beyond all reasonable doubts, I may retire. good luck guys and thank you.


    1. Dear sasco,

      I agree, without a link establishing Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) there should be no conviction. I have not followed this trial throughout but judging from what I have seen, the only evidence that may bear against Mr. Taylor are witnesses of which Mr. Taylor alleges has been paid off by the prosecution; eliminating the prosecutions sort after material facts pleaded in the Indictment; as the Appeals Chamber necessitated in the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council Appeal Judgment from the Special Court for Sierra Leone. I hope this answer your question.

      See paragraph 82:

      • The Appeals Chamber holds that the common purpose of the joint criminal enterprise was not defectively pleaded. Although the objective of gaining and exercising political power and control over the territory of Sierra Leone may not be a crime under the Statute, the actions contemplated as a means to achieve that objective are crimes within the Statute. The Trial Chamber took an erroneously narrow view by confining its consideration to paragraph 33 and reading that paragraph in isolation. Furthermore, the Trial Chamber erred in its consideration of “evidence” adduced at trial to determine whether the Indictment was properly pleaded. THE ERROR AROSE BECAUSE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE PROSECUTION PROPERLY PLEADED A CRIME MUST BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER THE PROSECUTION PLEADED ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS IN THE INDICTMENT, NOT WHETHER IT HAD ADDUCED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATIONS.

      Select searchable on link:

      See link:

      I seriously believe that the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council conviction is to be blamed on effectiveness assistance of counsel (of which that does not appear to be the case for Mr. Taylor) and below are the reasons given by the Appeals Chamber beginning at paragraph 36:

      B. Defective submissions

      36. The Appeals Chamber has the inherent discretion to find that any of the Parties’ submissions do not merit a reasoned opinion in writing and summarily dismiss arguments that are evidently unfounded. In particular, the Appeals Chamber cannot effectively and efficiently carry out its mandate without focused submissions by the Parties. In order for the Appeals Chamber to assess a Party’s arguments, the Party is expected to set out its Grounds of Appeal clearly, logically and exhaustively. Accordingly, submissions that are obscure, contradictory, vague or suffer from other formal and obvious insufficiencies may be, on that basis, summarily dismissed without detailed reasoning.

      37. In the instant proceeding, the Appeals Chamber has identified the following seven types of deficiencies in the Parties’ submissions.

      38. First, some submissions are vague. An appellant is expected to identify the challenged factual finding and put forward its factual arguments with specificity. As a general rule, where an appellant’s references to the Trial Judgment or the evidence are missing, vague or incorrect, the Appeals Chamber will summarily dismiss that alleged error or argument. The Appeals Chamber has summarily dismissed a number of the Parties’ argument on this basis.

      39. Second, some submissions merely claim a failure to consider evidence. A Trial Chamber is not required to refer to the testimony of every witness and to every piece of evidence on the record, and failure to do so does not necessarily indicate lack of consideration.” This holds true as long as there is no indication that the Trial Chamber completely disregarded any particular piece of evidence. Such disregard is shown “when evidence which is clearly relevant to the findings is not addressed by the Trial Chamber’s reasoning. Where the Appeals Chamber finds that an appellant merely asserts that the Trial Chamber failed to consider relevant evidence, without showing that no reasonable trier of fact, based on the totality of the evidence, could have reached the same conclusion as the Trial Chamber did, or without showing that the Trial Chamber completely disregarded the evidence, it will, as a general rule, summarily dismiss that alleged error or argument.” The Appeals Chamber has summarily dismissed the arguments suffering from this type of deficiency.

      40. Third, some submissions merely seek to substitute alternative interpretations of the evidence. As a general rule, mere assertions that the Trial Chamber erred in its evaluation of the evidence, such as claims that the Trial Chamber failed to give sufficient weight to certain evidence, or should have interpreted evidence in a particular manner, are liable to be summarily dismissed. Similarly, where an appellant merely seeks to substitute its own evaluation of the evidence for that of the Trial Chamber, such submissions may be dismissed without detailed reasoning. The same applies to claims that the Trial Chamber could not have inferred a certain conclusion from circumstantial evidence, without further explanation.” An appellant must address the evidence the Trial Chamber relied on and explain why no reasonable trier of fact, based on the evidence, could have evaluated the evidence as the Trial Chamber did, and the Appeals Chamber may summarily dismiss arguments that fail to make such a minimum pleading on appeal. The Appeals Chamber has summarily dismissed the arguments that fail to comply with this rule.

      41. Fourth, some submissions fail to identify the prejudice. Where the Appeals Chamber considers that an appellant fails to explain how the alleged factual error had an effect on the conclusions in the Trial Judgment, it will summarily dismiss that alleged error or argument. The arguments of the Parties suffering from this deficiency have been summarily dismissed.

      42. Fifth, some submissions are mere repetitions of arguments at trial. The Appeals Chamber will, as a general rule, summarily dismiss submissions that merely repeat arguments that did not succeed at trial unless it is shown that their rejection by the Trial Chamber constituted an error warranting the intervention of the Appeals Chamber.” The Appeals Chamber emphasizes that an appellant must contest the Trial Chamber’s findings and conclusions, and should not simply invite the Appeals Chamber to reconsider issues de novo. Submissions that merely put forward an appellant’s position without addressing the Trial Chamber’s allegedly erroneous finding or conclusion therefore fail to properly develop an issue for appeal. Some of the Parties’ arguments have been summarily dismissed on this basis.

      43. Sixth, many submissions are otherwise incomplete. Submissions may be dismissed without detailed reasoning where an appellant makes factual claims or presents arguments that the Trial Chamber should have reached a particular conclusion without advancing any evidence in support. Indeed, an appellant is expected to provide the Appeals Chamber with an exact reference to the parts of the trial record invoked in support of its arguments.” As a general rule, in instances where this is not done, the Appeals Chamber will summarily dismiss the alleged error or argument. Similarly, the Appeals Chamber will, as a general rule, summarily dismiss undeveloped arguments and alleged errors, as well as submissions where the appellant fails to articulate the precise error committed by the Trial Chamber.91 The Appeals Chamber has, therefore, summarily dismissed numerous arguments because they are unsupporred.” undeveloped.” or fail to articulate the precise error alleged.

      44. Lastly, some submissions exceed the applicable page limit. The Parties are obliged to comply with the page limits for their appeal briefs set out in Article 6(E) of the Practice Direction on Filing Documents before the Special Court for Sierra Leone, as amended, and to seek authorization pursuant to Article 6(G) of the said Practice Direction before filing appeal briefs which exceed that page limit. In the present case, the Parties were granted extensions of pages for their appeal and response briefs.” Additional arguments of the Parties presented in annexes to their Appeals in violation of the page limit thus imposed have been summarily dismissed.

      45. In addition to the abovementioned formal deficiencies in the pleadings, the Appeals Chamber observes that large parts of the Parties’ Grounds of Appeal are, in general, poorly structured and organized. For instance, rather than making distinct challenges under separate grounds of appeal, the Parties arrange different parts of different grounds to support a variety of arguments without indicating which portion of each argument develops which ground of appeal. Similarly, in other instances the Parties group a range of disparate arguments, each concerning a substantial issue, under a single ground of appeal. The Parties also frequently raise the same argument in numerous grounds of appeal. Finally, the Parties have often used “sub-grounds” of appeal to designate apparently new grounds of appeal, rendering meaningless the practice of pleading distinct errors as distinct grounds of appeal. In the interests of justice, the Appeals Chamber has endeavored to fully consider these problematic submissions, subject to the summary dismissals outlined above. We note, however, that the poorly structured and disorganized grounds of appeal failed to assist the Appeals Chamber in its consideration of the issues and arguments.

      46. Finally, the Appeals Chamber observes that the tone and language of some submissions do not meet the standard expected of those appearing before the Special Court. Although zealous advocacy is encouraged, Counsel should nevertheless maintain a respectful and decorous tone in their submissions.

  14. Dear Al-Solo Nyonteh,

    You have undoubtedly misconstrued my statement. When I say:

    • I am not familiar with the ICC procedures and cannot say with certainty whether there will be an appeal to a not guilty judgment, but normally this would not be the case. The reason there would not be an appeal is the prosecution represents the people and the court is considered as the people.

    I did not intend to imply that there is never a basis for the state to appeal a not guilty judgment. [Normally], the prosecution accepts the court’s decision because the prosecution and the court represent the state (country).

    Your citation of Rule 106 do in fact governs appeals from persons convicted by the Trial Chamber or from the Prosecutor. It actually prescribes three points of error that entitles an appeal:

    • Rule 106: General Provisions (amended 1 August 2003)

    (A) Pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute, the Appeals Chamber shall hear appeals from persons convicted by the Trial Chamber or from the Prosecutor on the following grounds:

    (a) A procedural error;

    (b) An error on a question on law invalidating the decision;

    (c) An error of fact which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

    Given the facts here, I to will agree that there is likely an appeal forth coming in the event there is a not guilty judgment. And the facts here are based on the allegation of bribery; a charge that the prosecution would probably face Pro Se. And an appeal may not necessarily be the case since it would appear apparently frivolous to challenge the court’s judgment where the court is seen to have made the correct judgment.

    In hindsight, I see where I went wrong by expressing support for Mr. Taylor and what his expressed goal was for Liberia and the oppressed people under samuel doe. I would like to make it clear that I do not purport to defend Mr. Taylor’s morality! I appear here in line with Courtenay Griffith to defend against the alleged crimes.

    Here is an excerpt from a BBC article:

    • “The morality of Charles Taylor is none of my business.

    “That’s between him and his God, whichever God he chooses to worship. My job is to present his case in court. I’m certainly not going to be making moral judgements about any of my clients. I’ve defended, for example, terrorists – but to make a moral judgement about such defendants is to forget that, you know, one man’s terrorist is another man’s war hero.
    See link:

    To be absolutely earnest, I do not see the probable cause to arrest Mr. Taylor. I have seen no material evidence to link him with the charges. What I see is David Bropleh being in charge of the Special Task Force of the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces during the Indictment period; As a large percentage of the Special Task Force members were Liberian. Were it not for this large bias percentage of the Liberian Special Task Force members, it is reasonable to say the charges against Mr. Taylor would not have emerged.

    Al-Solo Nyonteh, I am on the side of fair play in the court room; if the defense out lawyer the prosecution in the case where guilt is apparent, then that is the way of the system and the accused should be let go.

    You did not answer my question, is that you in the article?

    1. Dear Al-Solo Nyonteh,

      You stand to be corrected in your September 15, 2010 at 1:11 pm posting which state:

      • It is almost frighten how good your investigative skill are. Don’t get me wrong about my opinion about “embarrassment to the history of Liberia to accuse a former president without strong verifiable evidence”. I was comparing and contrasting to most major powers philosophy.

      You are incorrect when you say “embarrassment to the history of Liberia to accuse a former president without strong verifiable evidence”. I have no verifiable evidence that there is embarrassment to the history of Liberia to accuse a former president without strong verifiable evidence.

      The correct statement should read:

      • There is embarrassment to the history of Liberia to accuse a [setting] President without strong verifiable evidence!

      As I will factually state here, it is a Sierra Leonean court trying Mr. Taylor but the charges were drawn up by Liberians that Mr. Taylor’s forces drove out of Liberia and who later joined the Sierra Leonean Armed Forces. When you read the motion currently pending before the court you will see that it was David Bropleh who controlled the Special Task Force of the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces during the Indictment period; who bears the greater responsibility for any decrepitly in the charges; he was the one responsible for gathering the FACTS.

      See the first link in my posting of September 14, 2010 at 11:20 pm.

    2. Sekou

      My comments were not intended to misconstrued your statement. I was just elaborating on how I came to the conclusion of my opinion. I have to agree with you on your comment “if the defense out lawyer the prosecution in the case where guilt is apparent, then that is the way of the system and the accused should be let go.”. We can’t ignore these built in fail safe. If we do a lot of innocent people will be hurt and in order to protect 50 innocent people, one guilt person will slip through the cracks.

      Yes, I wrote that post you asked about.

      Due to your contribution of informed information. I must thank you for your dedication, since I’m not a man of apologies.

      1. Dear Al-Solo Nyonteh,

        I found something that may help you to understand the reasoning given for Rule 106 of the Rules. These portions come from the Sesay appeal judgment beginning at page 20, paragraph 32.

        32. In regard to errors of fact: On appeal where errors of fact are alleged also pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute and Rule 106 of the Rules, the Appeals Chamber will not lightly overturn findings of fact reached by a Trial Chamber; the error of fact must have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.” The appellant must provide details of the alleged error and state with precision how the error of fact occasioned a miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice is defined as “[ a] grossly unfair outcome in judicial proceedings, as when a defendant is convicted despite a lack of evidence on an essential element of the crime. For an error to be one that occasioned a miscarriage of justice it must have been “critical to the verdict reached. Where it is alleged that the Trial Chamber committed an error of fact, the Appeals Chamber will give a margin of deference to the Trial Chamber that received the evidence at trial. This is because it is the Trial Chamber that is best placed to assess the evidence, including the demeanor of witnesses. The Appeals Chamber will only interfere in those findings where no reasonable trier of fact could have reached the same finding or where the finding is wholly erroneous. The Appeals Chamber has adopted the statement of general principle contained in the ICTY Appeals Chamber decision in Kupreskic et al., as follows:

        [T]he task of hearing, assessing and weighing the evidence presented at trial is left primarily to the Trial Chamber. Thus, the Appeals Chamber must give a margin of deference to a finding of fact reached by a Trial Chamber. Only where the evidence relied on by the Trial Chamber could not have been accepted by any reasonable tribunal of fact or where the evaluation of the evidence is ‘wholly erroneous’ may the Appeals Chamber substitute its own finding for that of the Trial Chamber.

        The Appeals Chamber applies the same reasonableness standard to alleged errors of fact regardless of whether the finding of fact was based on direct or circumstantial evidence.

        33. The same standard of reasonableness and deference to factual findings applies when the Prosecution appeals against an acquittal, however, the Appeals Chamber endorses the view that:

        Considering that it is the Prosecution that bears the burden at trial of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the significance of an error of fact occasioning a miscarriage of justice is somewhat different for a Prosecution appeal against acquittal than for a defence appeal against conviction. A convicted person must show that the Trial Chamber’s factual errors create a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. The Prosecution must show that, when account is taken of the errors of fact committed by the Trial Chamber, all reasonable doubt of the convicted person’s guilt has been eliminated.

        See link:

        So there is some difference; the prosecution must show that, when account is taken of the errors of fact committed by the Trial Chamber, all reasonable doubt of the convicted person’s guilt has been eliminated. This does not mean the prosecution cannot file appeal; it simply implies unless the prosecution can show that, when account is taken of the errors of fact committed by the Trial Chamber, all reasonable doubt of the convicted person’s guilt has been eliminated; otherwise, their effort is frivolous.

        Hope this can help.

  15. Folks,

    This is what I think happening right now. President Taylor will be acquitted of all 11 counts, based upon the evidence before those judges. However, a deal is being negotiated behind the scene. And the deal is, President Taylor will be afforded the opportunity to choose from a list of ten European countries to live in for the rest of his life and not to return to his homeland, Liberia. Notwithstanding, there are three fundamental reasons why they don’t want him returning home. !. to continue reaping the benefit of all the investment in Liberia by signing oil, diamonds, rubber, iron ore, gold, timber and other natural resources of Liberia. 2. To protect their puppet government that they have in Liberia. 3. He will be elected overwhelmingly by the Liberian people. My advise to him, is to not sign any paper of that nature of him not returning home. We the Liberian people desperately need him back to complete the good job he started and was disrupted by these trigger happy warmongers. I think, these liars will once again say he was escaping to return to Liberia in violation of the deal, just like what they did to him when he was seeking asylum in Nigeria. And this time around, they will put him away forever.

    1. Jose Rodriguez

      I have two question for you.

      1.) Do you really think Mr. Taylor can return to Liberia (are you suggesting Benjamin Yeaten are preparing the troops in anticipation of Mr. Taylor’s return and if not Yeaten who)?

      2.) Why do you hate President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf so much (is it because she is a women)?

      1. Al-Solo Nyonteh,

        I Jose Rodriguez was born by “TWO MEN” and no woman brought me into this world and no woman was involved. That’s why I hate women including Ellen. Genius !!!!!!Just when I thought this thing can not get any much dumber, is when you prove me wrong. Sure indeed, yes it can. Solo, you are just too clever by half. Genius.

        1. Jose Rodriguez

          Hate is a strong word. Here is a little understanding why I chose the word hate. There were two appropriated words I could have used to explain your stance on President Ellen, “disagree” or “hate”. A person whom is physiologically stable has a reason why they disagrees with an individual. The main reason a person displays hate is because they have anger towards that person due to a past experience. Since I assumed that you do not know President Ellen personally, I assumed your anger is not from a past experience with President Ellen but maybe from a women in a powerful position. That is why I concluded to “hate her because she is a women” ( I stand corrected I should have said “hate her because she is a women in a powerful position”).

          You commented “Just when I thought this thing can not get any much dumber, is when you prove me wrong.”. I hate to inform you that you proved yourself wrong with your semi psychotic thinking. Mr. Taylor version of the reason he stepped down was to keep the peace in Liberia (If he is tell the truth why would he return). The other version is the groups that oust him will never let him return without a fight. Maybe you need to go hold a sign (which say Free Charles Taylor) outside of the court house in the Hague to limit your psychotic out burst .

          Here is a link below, this is the first step toward getting help with your issues toward “women in powerful position”

        2. Your statement just dipicts you level of insincererity and empty arogance. How do you think of the Ladies on your
          pro- taylor board . I would even not be suprised if they remain indifferent to this aswell.

  16. “At the invitation of His excellency Mr. Alpha Oumar KONARE, President of the Republic of Mali, Chairman of the Authority of the Economic Community of the West African States (ECOWAS), and in the framework of the regular consultations on issues of peace, security and stability in the sub-region, a follow-up meeting on the decisions of the ad hoc Committee of the ECOWAS heads of State and Government (Abuja, September 6 th, 1999) was held in Bamako on March 2nd, 2000.”

    “2 . The consultation meeting was attended by the following Heads . of State:
    His Excellency Mr. Alpha Ouinar KONARE, President of the Republic of Mali, Chairman of the Authority of the ECOWAS

    His Excellency General Lansana CONTE, President of the Republic of Guinea

    His Excellency Dakpanah Dr. Charles Ghankay TAYLOR, President of the Republic of Liberia .

    His Excellency Alhadji (Dr) Ahmad Tejan KABBAH, .president of the Republic of Sierra Leone.”

    “They .requested the President of Liberia, His Excellency Dakhpannah Dr. Charles Ghankay TAYLOR, to get personally involved in solving .the issues which hamper the peace process in Sierra Leone and -to seek adequate solutions in consultation with the other Heads of State.”


    1. Sorry Al Solo Nyonteh,

      Whether your choice of words was incorrect or not, we can care less. You said Jose hate Ellen because she’s a woman. And he replied appropriately within my view. I think you are just grabbing dry leafs now. I hope Jose can just come up with his insightful piece again to just put this thing to rest.

  17. “They .requested the President of Liberia, His Excellency Dakhpannah Dr. Charles Ghankay TAYLOR, to get personally involved in solving .the issues which hamper the peace process in Sierra Leone and -to seek adequate solutions in consultation with the other Heads of State.”

    1. Dear Momo Dahn,

      It is good to see that someone can comment on certain issues found in the links posted. I believe you are probably stating that Mr. Taylor’s involvement with the RUF after 1999 was the result of a request made by the ECOWAS Heads of States; which was reported by Issa Sesay during his testimony. So there is documentary corroboration that during this time Mr. Taylor was merely assisting Ahmad Tejan KABBAH president of the Republic of Sierra Leone in solving the issues which were hampering the peace process in Sierra Leone and to seek adequate solutions in consultation with other ECOWAS Heads of State.

      I would like to point out an important issue if the court finds Mr. Taylor guilty of the charges which accuse him of collaborating with the RUF during this period; the basis of his appeal will almost certainly be Rule 106 (c) “An error of fact which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”
      Momo Dahn, I have stated a number of times on this page; that David Bropleh a Liberian and self-proclaimed founding member of ULIMO, who controlled the Special Task Force of the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces during the Indictment period; who bears the greater responsibility for any [decrepitly] (discrepancy) in the charges; he was the one responsible for gathering the FACTS.

      Take care

      1. Sekou
        I would think it is the other way around. Bropleh was simply abused and misused by David Crane to helped gathered lies. Bropleh had no choice , otherwise he would have been arrested and charged with war crimes. Unlike Issa Sesay, who refused to allowed himself to be abused and misused by the prosecution.

        After all, Bropleh was a mercenary in SL and only care about the money. Did you not see all the hotel bills they paid for him. So I would not blame Bropleh, he did what he was told by his masters. He is a mercenary soldier, and feeds of lies and deception. The prosecution knew all the facts from day one, but their interests have always been in the expliotation of our natural resources.

        Only one man was standing in their way-Charles Taylor. They had to get him down by any and all means necessary, this case is not about justice and truth. It is political!

        1. Dear Momo Dahn,

          But isn’t it true, Bropleh worked for the Sierra Leone Government during the conflict ?; correct me if I am wrong, but there were no pro-Sierra Leonean fighters indicted.

    2. Dr.Who? This is an insult to people who earned their Doctorate through studies and intellectual presentations! It seems some go nuts over this guy so much that they get wierd and silly in how to address taylor, the alledged rebel! Taylor has no doctorate and is not a member of that arena nor even close! Show me the college taylor graduated from before Masters and PhD. Doctor, my foot!

      1. J Fallah Menjor,
        Charles Taylor graduated from Benley College now Bentley University in Massachussetts , USA with a degree in Economics. He also has an Honary Phd from a University in Taiwan.

        1. Aki, I am not talking about Honory Doctorate! Besides,There is no such record of taylor earning a degree from Benley. Check your information again! We already did background check of taylor! Don’t get fooled, because you guys worship this guy next to God! How pathetic!

        2. Fallah,
          Are you serious or joking??? Do you believe if Mr. Taylor was not a student we won’t have heard of it from the prosecutors by now….in relationship to his CREDIBILITY???

      2. Fallah,
        I thought you claim to be a scholar.. How come you wrote this one????Is it that, it is true, most scholars don’t know the simplest people expect??? Anyway, Bentley, the school Taylor attended, is 15minutes drive from Boston city in the town of WALTHAM ,MASS..ok..Ah! my head aches…WOW

  18. So here is the question. Charles Taylor was asked to get personally involve to bring peace to SL, so how did these Taylor’s haters expect for Mr. Taylor to get involve if he did not interact with the RUF? But more interestingly, did Mr. Taylor’s involvement not bring peace to SL? Did Issa Sesay not disarmed?

    1. Dear Momo Dahn,

      I believe your question is addressed by sasco in his post dated September 15, 2010 at 9:52 am that address the element of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE); which should explain the nature of the charges against Mr. Taylor.

      The request you refer to is where His Excellency Dakpanah Dr. Charles Ghankay TAYLOR, President of the Republic of Liberia, and His Excellency Alhadji (Dr) Ahmad Tejan KABBAH, President of the Republic of Sierra Leone were presence.

      They reaffirmed their attachment to the Mano River Union Non-Aggression Agreement, concluded in 1996, and their strong will to have it implemented.

      In this regard, they reaffirmed their commitment to refrain from any act of aggression against the territorial integrity of each of their countries, to ban the use of their respective territories for undertaking actions of destabilization; and they agreed to coordinate their activities in the area of border security.

      They requested the President of Liberia, His Excellency Dakhpnah Dr. Charles Ghankay TAYLOR, to get personally involved in solving the issues which hamper the peace process in Sierra Leone and to seek adequate solutions in consultation with the other Heads of State.

      In this framework, the Heads of State of the three countries decided:

      a) – to convene a Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, on March 18th , 2000, in Monrovia, in order to define all practical modalities for the revitalization of the Mano River Union. Such Meeting shall be formally convened by the Executive Secretariat of the Mano River Union which shall be immediately made functional.

      Here is an excerpt from Mr. Taylor’s indictment:

      • All offences alleged herein were committed within the territory of Sierra Leone after 30 November 1996.

      • At all times relevant to this indictment, CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR supported and encouraged all actions of the RUF and AFRC/RUF alliance, and acted in concert with FODAY SAYBANA SAANKOH and other leaders of the RUF and AFRC/RUF alliance. FODAY SAYBANA SAANKOH was incarcerated in Nigeria and Sierra Leone and subjected to restricted movement in Sierra Leone from March 1997 until about April 1999. During this time the ACCUSED, in concert with FODAY SAYBANA SAANKOH, provided guidance and direction to the RUF, including SAM BOCKARIE aka MOSQUITO aka MASKITA.

      It appears from the indictment; even through the offences alleged were committed since 1996; the indictment alleges Mr. Taylor’s involvement was from March 1997 until April 1999. See the indictment:

      The indictment does not state that Mr. Taylor performed any act of aggression against the territorial integrity of Sierra Leone. Nevertheless, Mr. Taylor charges that Sierra Leone committed acts of aggression against the territorial integrity of Liberia; of which I have not seen Sierra Leone deny.

      I have reiterated here for clarity.

      1. Aki, I did not see any Dr. Charles McAuthur Ganghay Taylor on this link!~ What else? Are you guys serious that taylor has a degree in Economics? You guys must not be serious at all! Maybe he has degree in “scham” and probably needs to learn computers while in Britain Prison so he can earn a credible degree from the United Kingdom!

        1. Fallah,

          Is the United Kingdom the only place one can acquire a credible degree from? Fallah, President Taylor is a honorary doctorate degree holder just like Ellen and President Obama.

  19. Charles & Sekou,
    Please permit me to deferred, from your lines of thinking in the middle of a trial of this mignitude. In wish all evidance points to Charles Taylor’s quilt. quote namely: Sekou ” The real blame for the bloodshed in Liberia, rest squarely with Samuel Kanyon Doe; who since sept. 9, 1990 is no longer alive.” Charles ” Sekou thanks for your response. I think its best that we acknowledge that Liberia most progressive mind was quieted the morning of april 12, 1980 allegedly by Samuel Doe.” Guys as much as these comments have values on Samuel Doe and his carnage against innocent Liberian. Lets also admit that he was not given an opportunity to defent himself, in the court of law as Charles Taylor is privilaged to.Therefore let avoid the roaming of intellectual psyche. Frankly it is even an ignorance to to mentioned other culprits, although their many. This time around Charles Taylor is the accused. And in this world court trial of the SCSL both the defense & prosecusion has the rights to appeal any judgement by the trial chamber. Again I assert that Griffith and his Charles Taylor defense team, knowing what is at stake, entered a plead of QUILTY, for a reduce sentencing.I also know that this might not sit well with AKI, KOKO4, Rodriguez,Sekou & Charles.

    1. Dear Ziggy Salis,

      I prefer not to belittle anyone by asserting an inference of their comments as being [ignorant]. Even through samuel kanyon doe did not receive a trial in what one would believe that was a competent court; the lack of such does not diminish his responsibility with the causation of the conflict in Liberia.

      Whether Mr. Taylor enters a guilty plea or not; has no connection with me. I have no knowledge that would confirm his innocence or guilt. Nevertheless, on the other hand, the wished-for evidence I have seen against him; does not in my opinion support the charges.

      Tell me, would you confirm with reliable evidence that Mr. Taylor has entered a guilty plea?

      1. Sekou your effort to confront the propaganda of the anti Taylor people will end in futility not because you are not competent to take them on based on FACTS, but because they having learned very well from this fake prosecution, keeps changinf the topic and comming up with new lies and deceptions just to give an impression that they are saying something. Just take the cross examination of Issa Sessay Vs the cross examination of DCT008.

        In the Issa Sessay cross examination, Mr Koumjian contended with Issa Sessay’s assertion that Jungle was an RUF member and not an SSS personel deployed with the RUF. In his efforts to discredit Issa he presented a purported list of SSS personal in which a Daniel Tamba was listed therein as an evidence that Jungle was actually an SSS member. But curiously during the cross examination of DCT008 the only SSS member who has testified in this Taylor trial, Ms Hollis never confronted DCT008 with that purported list of SSS personnel even though it is a court exhibit alrerady instead she merely suggested to the witness that Jungle was an SSS member a suggestion that the witnessvehemently denied. The question now is, was the prosecution afraid to confront DCT008 with that purported list? he surely is the best person to either confirm or deny wether the list is genuine or wether the Daniel Tamba in the list is the same Daniel Tamba that is known as Jungle. We all know that many people share the same first name and last name a simple search on facebook will prove to you that its true. For example when I searched for the name BRENDA HOLLIS on facebook, it brought out FIVE people who have that name.

        1. Dear Sam,

          It is good to hear from you again. And thanks for the correction on the ICC; but isn’t it true that this court rely upon precedence from the ICC; where is their guide?

          Sam, I was reluctant to post on this site for fear that my views would be too interposing upon some of you; for the reason that I am not directly connected to the ramifications of this trial. I believed initially that someone would have asked that I not comment because I am not Liberian or Sierra Leonean. I did not want to interfere of the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) many of you are enduring.

          It does appear however that there are some that may be conscientious objectors and would oppose anyone that was part of a conflict where there was bloodshed; otherwise, they are playing a game with themselves.

          You know the issue of Jungle during Issa Sesay’s cross did surprise me and it appeared to surprise Issa as well. I cannot recall during the cross of DCT 008 when he was presented with that suggestion, but he should have known because he was himself an SSS personnel.
          I believe that DCT-097’s evidence will impeach all of the so-called insider witness since they all probably received funds from the prosecution; but the defense must pursue ALL financial records pertaining to prosecution witnesses; I have not seen that motion yet.

          Here is a link I would like for you to look at because it relates to JCP in this case.

          See link:

          I see that Justice Richard Lussick filed his dissenting opinion with the decision on public urgent defense motion regarding a fatal defect in the prosecution’s second amended indictment relating to the pleading of JCE on February 27, 2009. This I believe was a good thing because he appears to be the most conservative member on the panel.

          See link:

          As I am sure you are already aware, the Trial Chamber granted the defense’s motion for admission of documents pursuant to rule 92B/5- Special Task Force; holding that:

          • FINDING that Defence Documents DCT-460 and Annex J are relevant to the purpose for which they are submitted and that the issues raised by the Prosecution relating to the identity of the addressee, the date and the incompleteness of the document contained in Annex J are factors that go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.

          See link:

          This in part establishes that there were “Liberian fighters” in Sierra Leone during the conflict.

          The court also granted an unopposed defense application to correct transcripts of Issa Sesay’s testimony, which I am sure a great deal of testimony was being lost thought translation; I saw that during 008’s testimony as well.

          See link:

          I am signing off; hope you had a good weekend.

  20. The blatant double standard some of you emotionally inbalance people are encouraging is mind boggling ,you people are caught in the western spell….how on earth are you people hoping to maintain this nonsense…

    The western countries is trying to turn back the clock,,, to the times when they can say anything however stupid to an African ‘and the African will run with their nonsense as gospel truth, but don’t be too ashamed guys you are not alone there are Arabs been used like you aswel …what you guys have in common with the fools running Iraq & Afghanistan is that you are all weak sellouts suited to the bad old days,that will lead a sick murderers into your family home just because you hate your brothers and sisters and you want money.

    You people and your masters are so 20th century.

    Ooops i have blasphem’, critising your master’s old fashioned mischieves, Mr Fallah,Vem,Ms Sirleaf Johnson,Mr Tejan kaaba,,Ms Teague,Al solo… etc etc.

    I hope to god you guys are all quite old,because the future needs more than this..

    1. Cee, be careful on how you Get The Arab Brothers in this mess! They have nothing against you, except if your paranoia is extending to them too, now that you failed against caucasians! Chill, and talk with some sense, Brother!”.. but don’t be too ashamed guys you are not alone there are Arabs been used like you aswel …what you guys have in common with the fools running Iraq & Afghanistan is that you are all weak sellouts suited to the bad old days,that will lead a sick murderers into your family home just because you hate your brothers and sisters and you want money.” I say to you,CEE, your piece here is not only racist, but targeting Arab Brothers unfairly! Don’t think you are talking rubbish to fallah, this time!’ A hint to a wise, is sufficient.’

  21. In continuance!!
    I srongly believe we should grab this moment in the 21st century,the century of true human development is upon us as the shackles on the mind and physicality has been removed due to recent human development in asia who ultimately need african resources let try and do business with someone else ,the relationship between asians and african is new and it seemed to be much respectful,profitable and less conning and patronising.

    May god help us!!

    1. cee
      WAKE UP! China is desperate to find more land to relocate their people. Their population problems continue to grow. Next, Liberia and other african countries will be run over by asians. Liberia should be cautious because of the Lebanese problem today. Even the US has immigration laws for protective reasons.


      1. You need to stop spreading this ‘nonsense’ about Asians and Chinese over-running you ‘impoverish country, Cen. You are quick to forget how taylor gave ‘citizenship to lots of foreign nationals that filled the vacuum of the native population taylor wipe out through 14 years of murder! Don’t claim to be a “protectionist” for Liberia. You are all opportunists and we will make sure you never get your foot back in the door ever. trust me! You haven’t seeing nothing yet, Cen and others!

      2. Cen,
        I don’t meant for us to just let China do whatever they want in our countries,i think a respectful businesses relations and contolled immigration can be arranged.

        There is propaganda’s already about China ripping Africa off,instigated by you know who…and followed by the usual hypnotised eurocentric Afreaks.

        It beggars belief how the man that has been ripping me off for centuries in our business relations is telling me now that i have found a rather more sincerely business partner,that i am just a fool because he will only rip me off in time as wel…..are we freaks???.

        1. Cee
          yes, very controlled regulations. I’m sorry, I am always suspicious of others who invest in African countries without leaving transformational technology. I hope to see the day when African and other disadvantaged countries ascend to an economic position on par with the U.S.

          Fallah… fallah, i see you are still off your meds.
          By the way, I’m in Liberia right now petitioning the Liberian government to revoke your Lebanese aka Liberian status…lmao. Next, I will travel to the U.S. and have your status there revoked as well. If you really want to reside among the civilized, you must take your medication starting…………. RIGHT NOW!
          peace, blessings and sanity and education and civilization to U!

    1. Here is another erroneous account Naomi’s testimony.

      • In August, supermodel Naomi Campbell told the court Taylor gave her several diamonds in South Africa in 1997. Taylor has denied involvement in the diamond trade.

  22. YOUR PIECE OF SEPTEMBER 22, 12:45 A.M reads as follows;”Fallah… fallah, i see you are still off your meds.
    By the way, I’m in Liberia right now petitioning the Liberian government to revoke your Lebanese aka Liberian status…lmao. Next, I will travel to the U.S. and have your status there revoked as well. If you really want to reside among the civilized, you must take your medication starting…………. RIGHT NOW!
    peace, blessings and sanity and education and civilization to U!”
    You are an opportunist CEN, because here you hiding behind ficticious name, CEN, and then secretly going in and out of Liberia to do budiness at Governmental level! Ellen should be very mindful of the type of you! Fallah is not in such double life, and cares less if you lobby the Government of Liberia about citizenships, and etc.. what fallah is interested here with, is, the bringing to justice taylor’s crimes against the people of Sierra Leone and Liberia. If fallah writes and is coherent about what he writes, to heck with cen’s assumption that he is on medication! People get personal when they run out of ideas, it seems!

Comments are closed.