Documentary Evidence Proves Taylor is Innocent, Defense Claims in Closing Arguments

After nearly three-and-a-half years, Trial Chamber II at the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) has heard evidence from the Prosecution and Defense about whether Taylor bears the greatest responsibility for the crimes committed during Sierra Leone’s eleven year conflict. After much anticipation, the Defense finally presented its closing arguments today, marking the beginning of the end of the trial of Charles Taylor.

Closing arguments allow the parties to highlight the most important aspects of their cases to the judges. A month ago, the Prosecution presented its closing arguments. Today, Taylor’s Defense team presented its closing arguments. The closing arguments will continue for two hours tomorrow morning, and on Friday the parties have the opportunity to respond to the arguments raised in oral arguments. Then, finally, the judges can retire to deliberate the evidence before them and reach a final judgment on Taylor’s guilt or innocence.

Prosecution Oral Response to Defense Final Trial Brief

The hearings this morning began with the Prosecution’s oral response to the Defense final trial brief. Instead of submitting a written response, as the Defense will later this week, the Prosecution opted to respond orally. The Prosecution requested the oral presentation due to limitations in staff size and the short period they had to review the final brief.

Defense Mischaracterization of Evidence

The Prosecution began by going through different sections of the Defense brief and arguing against the Defense characterization of evidence. The Prosecution focused on key aspects of the trial, including the initial RUF invasion into Sierra Leone in March 1991, Operation Stop Elections, Ibrahim Bah’s relationship with the RUF, and arms and ammunition shipments to the RUF. In general, the Prosecution argued that the Defense mischaracterized and excluded important aspects of the evidence and therefore drew incorrect conclusions about the evidence. The Prosecution also defended its own evidence where the Defense final trial brief suggested it was inconsistent.

Political Motives and Selective Prosecution

The Prosecution addressed Defense assertions that the trial was politically motivated and that Taylor is the victim of selective prosecution before the SCSL. Selective prosecution, where one person is prosecuted even though others in a similar situation could have also been prosecuted, is generally not allowed in criminal trials as it is seen as showing discrimination against the accused.

The Defense argued that the fact that former SCSL Prosecutor David Crane shared Taylor’s sealed indictment with US government officials two months before it became public showed that Taylor was selectively prosecuted.

The Prosecution, however, contended that this practice is normal before international courts. Citing various cases at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the Prosecution argued that because international courts have no police power, they must share sealed indictments with governments so that governments can go and arrest suspects. Otherwise, the Prosecution submitted, there would be no possible way to arrest a suspect. The Prosecution argued that sharing the sealed indictment was completely within the discretion and power of the Prosecutor, and defended Crane’s actions as necessary and completely proper.

The Prosecution also argued against Defense contentions that Taylor was selectively prosecuted instead of Blaise Compaoré, president of Burkina Faso, or Muammar Gaddafi, the leader of Libya, who also allegedly assisted the RUF. The Prosecution drew a distinction between these leaders and Charles Taylor, noting that while they may have assisted the RUF, Taylor’s situation is different because he created, armed and led the RUF as a proxy army that fought on his behalf.

Taylor’s Role as Peacemaker

Counsel for the Prosecution also countered Taylor’s arguments that his meetings with the RUF were the result of his position as a peacemaker. The Prosecution stated that there is no question that Taylor tried to publically represent himself as a peacemaker, but pointed out holes in the evidence that suggest it was merely a façade.

For example, the Prosecution noted the lack of documentary or other evidence about Taylor’s meetings with RUF leader Sam Bockarie in the fall of 1998. Even though Taylor had documents and photos of other similar meetings, there was suspiciously no similar evidence of these meetings, the Prosecution noted. This is because, according to the Prosecution, these were clandestine meetings planning the war in Sierra Leone, about supplying the RUF with ammunition, attacking Kono, and then moving on to attack Freetown.

The Prosecution will have another opportunity to address the Court on Friday, when it delivers its rebuttal to the Defense oral arguments.

Defense Closing Arguments

Lead Defense Counsel Courtenay Griffiths delivered the first part of the Defense closing arguments today. The Defense arguments will continue tomorrow morning, with submissions made by Terry Munyard, and then both the Prosecution and Defense will have the opportunity to make rebuttal arguments on Friday. Key aspects of the closing argument are described below.

Politically Motivated Selective Prosecution

Griffiths began with a discussion of the contentious US government cables released by Wikileaks, arguing that these cables demonstrate that Taylor has been subjected to selective prosecution by the SCSL. Introducing these cables into evidence was the subject of litigation in the Taylor trial earlier this year, and was one of the reasons the Defense filed its final trial brief twenty days late.

The Defense further pointed to the political nature of the trial by suggesting that the US government had given Prosecutor Crane a special fund from which he was able to pay witnesses dishonestly for their testimony. Griffiths noted that the Defense had never been given a similar fund, and that the Prosecution had never come clean about where the money came from or how it was used. The issue of witness payments has been raised repeatedly in trials at the SCSL and has been of major significance in the Taylor trial. The Prosecution will have another opportunity to response to these Defense allegations on Friday.

The “Golden Thread”

The Prosecution has alleged that Taylor, RUF leader Foday Sankoh, and others had developed a joint criminal plan in Libya to destabilize the West African region and provide each other with mutual assistance in their respective struggles. This, the Defense said, was the “golden thread” of the case.

As Griffiths moved through various phases of the case in his submissions, he would return to the “golden thread,” pose questions challenging its truth, and ask whether the evidence could answer his questions and support the Prosecution allegations. The Defense suggested that unless the answers to these questions could be found in the evidence, no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the Prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Strength of Documentary Evidence, Weakness of Linkage Evidence

Griffiths focused his submissions on what he claimed was the strength of the documentary evidence exonerating Taylor from the charges he faces.

Griffiths generally tried to raise doubts about the Prosecution’s linkage evidence. Through this evidence, the Prosecution has tried to link Taylor to the RUF and the AFRC, groups that directly committed crimes in Sierra Leone. The Prosecution claims this evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Taylor is most responsible for the crimes committed in Sierra Leone. The Prosecution has alleged that the RUF was Taylor’s proxy force, which he used to gain political control over Sierra Leone in order to exploit its mineral resources.

Today, repeating Taylor’s complete denial of these allegations, Griffiths claimed, “we have never denied that serious crimes were committed in Sierra Leone.” However, the Defense said, “those crimes were committed solely by the RUF, AFRC, or […] the CDF.”

Early Stages of the Sierra Leone Conflict

Griffiths addressed the early alliance between the RUF and the NPFL, when Taylor admits he provided limited support to the RUF so that they could help protect his NPFL forces from ULIMO. However, the Defense has consistently argued that this alliance lasted little more than a year and ended on bad terms in June 1992.

Today, the Defense pointed to specific documentary evidence suggesting that the support was limited, including a letter sent by RUF leader Foday Sankoh to Taylor in May 1992. The letter raises serious doubts about the Prosecution allegations, Griffiths submitted.

In the letter, Sankoh requests increased assistance from Taylor. The Defense noted that Sankoh repeatedly refers to “his” (Sankoh’s) struggle to free “his” (Sankoh’s) people. The Defense asked why, if Taylor was Sankoh’s boss and they were working together (as the Prosecution alleges), Sankoh would have referred to the struggle as “his,” and not “theirs” or Taylor’s. Moreover, the Defense argued that in the letter Sankoh was “begging” Taylor for support.

Griffiths argued, “He shouldn’t be begging, it’s part of the plan,” and went on to ask, “If Taylor’s got [the supplies] and it’s a part of the plan, why is he not providing [Sankoh] with adequate supplies? Given the joint objective [of gaining political control of Sierra Leone to control its natural resources], why hasn’t Taylor given him the ability to do that as quickly and effectively as possible?”

In June 192, due to discord between the NPFL forces and the RUF forces working together in Sierra Leone, Taylor withdrew his forces at the request of RUF leader Foday Sankoh. The Defense submitted that this withdrawal of support created a breach between Taylor and Sankoh that never healed. After this breach, Sankoh was forced to resort to jungle warfare, and survive on weapons captured from ECOMOG or received through trade with ULIMO.

Griffiths argued that Sankoh was terribly bitter about Taylor’s withdrawal of support in 1992 and remained bitter. The Defense submitted that the evidence proves that any joint criminal enterprise that might have been formed in Libya ended in June 1992. After June 1992 and until the Lomé peace negotiations in August 1999, there is no evidence of Sankoh and Taylor meeting, the Defense suggested. Griffiths claimed that the evidence about radio contact between the two is based on lies.

RUF’s Independent Arms Brokering

Griffiths also discussed two other letters as further evidence of the lack of contact between Taylor and Sankoh during this period. The two letters, written in 1996, dealt with a request to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to fund an arms purchase for the RUF. The Defense contended that the letters, which do not mention Taylor, show that the RUF was acting independently of Taylor and that Sankoh had resources other than Taylor to obtain supplies for the war.

Nine to eleven months later, the Defense noted, a shipment of arms arrived in Magburaka. The Defense claimed this shipment was engineered independently by Sankoh without the assistance of or collaboration with Charles Taylor.

The Defense also suggested that the evidence demonstrates that only small amounts of arms were “trickling” over the border from Liberia. He further argued that there were only two major arms shipments, the Magburaka shipment and the December 1998 shipment.

Griffiths discussed the Magburaka arms shipment in detail, pointing out what the Defense considers gross inconsistencies in the evidence on the shipment. Griffiths noted contradictory statements about how the shipment was paid for, who went to pick it up, when it arrived, and what it included. The Defense suggested that, although some inconsistencies could be expected in testimony about events from so long ago, the extent of the inconsistencies regarding this shipment were too great.

“When evidence is replete with inconsistencies and contradictions, there is only one thing to do with it: throw it in the bin. That is what we suggest the Court do with this bit of evidence: Get rid of it. We suggest it’s garbage,” Griffiths said. According to Griffiths, Defense witness and SCSL convict Issa Sesay had provided the most accurate version of events around this shipment.


The Defense suggested that the documents they highlighted provide a useful roadmap to the truth. Unless answers can be found to the questions raised by these documents, no tribunal could be satisfied that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt to Taylor’s guilt.

Griffiths concluded by stating, “A criminal trial is not a beauty contest. We are not asking this court to like Charles Taylor.” However, Griffiths insisted, regardless of how the media has painted Charles Taylor, he deserves a fair trial by an independent court. If the court adopts the independent, rational and unemotional approach Taylor deserves, the Defense submitted that there was only one possible verdict: not guilty.


  1. Perhaps some may have a concern to read Defence Corrected and Amended Final Trial Brief.

    See link:

    And the Prosecution Response to Defence Motion Seeking Termination of the Disciplinary Hearing for Failure to Properly Constitute the Trial Chamber and/or Leave to Appeal the Remaining Judges’ Decision to Adjourn the Disciplinary Hearing.

    See link:

    Take care,


  2. The evidence is the affirmative defense categorically. Only a bias mind would reject the defense’s evidence.

    Needless to say however, the defense evidence put forth today is the evidence the prosecution relies upon. The prosecution fails to establish the JCE alleged in the indictment as was purported in the Sam Bockarie indictment.

    The question is when was it that the UN found evidence that Mr. Taylor was involved in the Sierra Leone Conflict during the indictment period?

    These post hoc allegations are controvertible and lack verity as proven by the substantive evidence.

    Take care,


  3. “A criminal trial is not a beauty contest. We are not asking this court to like Charles Taylor.” – Courthney Griffiths QC.

  4. Let the record take his talking pen and write this down for the readers: The days of do because we say so, or die not doing as we are over! This floor belongs to Courtney Griffths, the justice protector. I was at the Camp at Oumbloke, Tabou where I prayed so hard that even young Liberians cried to God for peace when I heard Taylor was taking. Not knowing he’d be here today, I heard the Liberian refugees say Taylor said he would come back to Liberia someday before he took off for Nigeria. Yes, it was Taylor’s war that killed my people and kept me in foreign lands for 21yrs today; but I never agreed one second that he should be where he is now. This has been a racist court set up only for those who refuse to spread Democracy (secret cover of the Neo-colonial tragedy) to the victims wanted. Taylor trial had everything to do with US, England and french interests in Africa. US wanted Liberia, so France to have Cote d’Ivoire from where England will have Ghana and so on. Strategically planned to retake Africa as George Bush said before landing Africom.

    1. Tomas the time for changing subject is over. Why are you still bringing this silly childish debate about Western Conspiracy? We have heard these over dozen times and it doesn’t seem to have helped taylor one bit, so please focus on closing arguements! What is wrong with the US or Great Britain coming to the aid of the poors against such individuals as rebel taylor or Rebel sankoh? Do you really understand the word, “protectorate” after Independence from colonialism? Sierra Leone stay needs the protection from Britian, just like Liberia had continued to depend on The United States from 1847, after Independence! These are facts and not jfallahmenjor’s opinions! Tomas as you rightly say it,” Yes, it was Taylor’s war that killed my people and kept me in foreign lands for 21yrs today”. Why didn’t you stay and duke it out with taylor but take refuge in other land? You see most of you are very imature and short sighted with no vision for the future of your destiny. You talk lot of garbage and have foreigners shaking their heads about your mental ability to reason or think constructively! Believe me, I have lived nearly 30 years among foreigners, and have heard their perceptions about some Africans’ ability to distinguish between collective interest vs individual interest. That is, African mentality seems to be ‘sucess’ is perceived as luck for an individual and never something perceived collectively. You guys need serious review of your mental state after this trial!

    2. I don’t think you love your self and your parents. Just worship him like your god. If you think that Liberia will be a save heaven for former warlords to resurrect, you miss the mark.

      The poor people of Liberia are trying desperately to rebuild their lives. There is no more room for these African tyrants anymore.

      His god father in Libya is now feeling the heat. Just a matter of time.

      1. we have no moral ground to say yes or no however in acriminal trials there has to be proof beyond reasonal doubt… whether guilty or not you have to prove it and thats law!!! the prosecution failed here!

    3. If Taylor could do that to you a Liberian, What about others who bear no kinsmanship with Taylor.

  5. Yes! He did it. Perry Mason was superb. This guy put up a class act show. At times, I thought that he was a Baptist Preacher, a psychologist, an actor, a professor, and above all an excellent lawyer.

    Before I log on my desk top this morning I said to myself, Big B you must listen with an open mind, don’t take a position until Perry Mason is finished with his closing. I took a neutral position because I really wanted to find out if Perry Mason could or couldn’t raised sufficient reasonable doubts in my mind to decide President Taylor’s faith. Less than half way into Perry Mason’s closing there were reasonable doubts running all over my head. Unconsciously, I was back to the same old Big B trashing the prosecution.

    The prosecution evidence needs to go into the bin where it belongs. Trash it.
    ~Perry Mason.

    1. Big B is already rejoicing because, to him, griffiths is the pillar of truth and thus, only means to taylor acquital! Wow, Big B thinks less of justice for the thousands. Isn’t this remarkable and brilliant mentality for an African brother, who turns around and blames Westerners for supressive behavior, to rejoice that some one he worships, is about to go free of alleged crimes! This will satisfy your ego, Big B, great thinking and unselfish behavior! You probably deserve a Nobel Peace price for brilliant thinking! I only want for Big B to do one thing for the victims of Sierra Leone, do not poke fun at their agony today, as they are now, so shall you be! all those responsible shall pay their dues, because the Law of Karma says so, Big jfallahmenjor, we shall speed the process somehow!

  6. “In general, the Prosecution argued that the Defense mischaracterized and excluded important aspects of the evidence and therefore drew incorrect conclusions about the evidence.”

    How did the prosecution come to those conclusions? It sound like something “Bundu” would say.

    1. Here are some more quotes from the great Courtenay Griffiths in closing arguments to the Judges:

      Charles Taylor’s lawyer branded the war crimes case against the former Liberian president “neocolonialism” built on circumstantial evidence, calling on the judges at the trial Wednesday to acquit his client on all counts.

      In his closing statement, Courtenay Griffiths sought to take apart the prosecution case against Taylor, charging that the trial of the once-powerful West African leader is “politically motivated” to ensure he does not return to power in Liberia.

      Sometimes mocking the prosecution’s evidence, Griffiths told judges that if they looked at the case in an “independent, reasonable, unemotional way, there can only be one verdict on all these counts and that is … not guilty.”

      He urged judges not to be swayed by public perceptions of Taylor as a warlord. “A criminal trial is not a beauty contest,” Griffiths said. “We are not asking this court to like Charles Taylor.”

      The prosecution had produced “very little direct evidence to link the accused to the crimes alleged,” Griffiths told the panel of international judges. Instead, their case was built on “hearsay, circumstantial evidence and broad assumptions.”

      “It is to the shame of this prosecution that it has besmirched the lofty ideals of international criminal law by turning this case into a 21st century case of neocolonialism,” he said.

      Underscoring what he called the political nature of the case, Griffiths questioned why Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi was not indicted along with Taylor, suggesting Britain blocked such a move to protect its economic interests in Libya.

      Campbell said she was given diamonds, but said she did not know they were a gift from Taylor. Griffiths mocked prosecutor Brenda Hollis for bringing Campbell to court, saying it backfired when she failed to link Taylor to diamonds. “Ms. Hollis was left looking at a bleeding hole in her foot and a smoking gun in her hand saying ‘I didn’t know it was loaded,'” he said.

      1. I don’t think that people are stupid. I am sure diamonds don’t drop from the sky. There were physical evidence, the diamonds are there in the hands of the South African Police.

        Remember Campbell said that Taylor was a very bad man and she was afarid for herself and family.

        So you expect her to say that Taylor give her diamonds. The fact remains that Taylor was in that gathering evidence with a photograph.

        Remember Taylor is a warlord, capable of perpetrating voilence at any time. Don’t expect the lady to put herself in danger when the courts of won’t be there to protect her at all times. So how did her friend manage to know about the diamonds when she cliamed that it was given late at night?

  7. “Ms. Hollis was left looking at a bleeding hole in her foot and a smoking gun in her hand, saying I didn’t know it was loaded” Courthney Griffiths

  8. On the streets of Monrovia, they are saying “A WASTE”. What took place today has gone into the BOOKS of HOW TO.

    The entire system was put on displace….even the Bench was served prompting a inquiry from the Bench….ARE YOU SAYING WE ARE ON A PAYROLL??? A rapid fireback…..I DIDN’T SAY THAT. Now if there are doubts placed on the various HEARSAYS…Perry Mason gave them SUNLIGHT.

    Yes why weren’t those other leaders charged??? They are as GUILTY as Mr. Taylor if we are buy into the prosecutors SWEET TALKS.

  9. Good job QC, history will surly remember you as one of the world BEST LAWYERS. Congratulations to you and your entire team.

  10. So the two female justices are seeking confirmation in the record concerning Mr. Taylor’s role (if any) in Sierra Leone from 1996 to 1999.

    This request was initiated by Justice Julia Sebutinde and followed up by Justice Teresa Doherty.

    This request seems to address the leadership role Mr. Taylor would have enjoyed during the indictment period; a question that surly should put to rest the allegation of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE). Without a conviction of JCE there should come the release of Mr. Taylor.

    Justice Julia Sebutinde’s questions tend to show what the defining issue in the case is.

    Take care,


  11. Aye ! My people.
    We got the mo!! got it, commando got it. Major Taylor, got the mo!! got it, commando got it… Major Ray!! got the mo!! got it. commando got it…. OH GEH!… Aye wey la pieh…

    1. So very shameful, still thinks that they are on Taylor’s killing field. These were the kind of songs that send thousand of Liberians to their early graves. It tells a whole story of the kind of individual you are. Now we understand what you did and where you came from and heading.

      Since you came from the closet we now know you better. Your mentality, what you did to this country and its people.

      But the big and good news that we have for you, will soon be here.

      Keep tune

  12. Jfallahmenjor
    Stop insulting our sacred African culture. Singing the name of a leader with praises is not a rebel mentality but a cultural thing. But let focus on this “political motivated” case for a moment. The prosecution excused that the indictment was given to the US Congress, two months prior to unsealing it , IN ORDER TO seek police assistant is pure rubbish.

    If this was simply for police business, the prosecution was aware that Charles Taylor could not visit the United States. So why would they expect for TAYLOR to be arrested in the US? More so, if the intent was purely for police power, than why they did not inform West African governments, a region that president Taylor was frequently visible? Worst of all, why was the indictment unseal when Taylor was on a peace keeping mission in Ghana?

    The chief prosecutor at the time, David Crane, boasted that unsealing the indictment against Taylor while Taylor was on a peace mission, IN GHANA, was purely intended to “humiliate” president Taylor. The prosecution sought to weaken president Taylor against their sponsored rebel forces of LURD and MODEL; that was murdering innocent Liberians, raping women, and forcing children to fight their wars. What a mammothic hypocrisy on the part of this prosecution, to chargeD president Taylor for war crimes while at the same time they were sponsoring war criminals to destroy Liberia!!!

    No wonder, Mr. Taylor correctly describes this she say, her say, he say, they say, those say, them say, say say case as TOTAL TOTAL NONSENSE! That exactly what this case is about TOTAL TOTAL NONSENSE!

    I am still convince that the rules of this Kangaroo court will favor the prosecution and they will get a conviction based on the political policy of the court. Despite the best efforts of the defense team, the judges would be compel to convict, to satisfy the political rules of the court. I would be SHOCK AND SURPRISE if Mr. Taylor was found NOT GUILTY.

    1. King Gray, the Bassa Chief, if this case is total nonsense as you claimed, why are you all having all these silly efforts striving to plead with the Law? You will fine out soon if this case is total nonsense or justice being sort for the thousands of victims who happen to be your own black brothers and sisters. You are not hurting the US or Britain citizens, so please get this in your brains King Gray.If taylor goes free for alleged crimes against humanity, so be it but please get it that you are not hurting Americans nor Westerners, okay? That is why I always question the mental status of some commentators on this site! Say something concrite and back it up with facts or convincing arguement than coming out of blue to call case ‘nonesense’ just because taylor said so even though taylor himself is full of nonsense!

    2. King Gray,
      You are so spectacular. Thanks for teaching Fallah Menjor, some micro,but very important and major aspect of his cultural up bringings that he failed to retain as a true african… Fallah I hope you learned something from King Gray.

  13. Here is the hidden fact behind this case as was asserted by the brave Courtney Griffiths. This trial of Charles Taylor is a “21st Century form of neo-colonialism.”

    Lets examine the clearest fact here. Foday Sankoh was a former military officer in SL, who had attempted to overthrow the government of SL. He , along with a group of SLs, under the command and control of Ali Kaba went into Libya to undertake military training while Taylor was still, in prison, in the US.

    Yet, the prosecution is telling the whole world that it is Charles Taylor who influenced and plotted with Foday Sankoh, in Libya, to terrorized the people of SL; and take over the wealth of SL. So how did Sankon get into Libya, and what was the purpose of Sankoh going to Libya?

    Even , if for some weird reason, the lied is view for the sake of legal arguments, the fact that Sankoh and a group of SLs plotted to waged war on their own nation, by themselves, cannot be excuse. It was Sankoh and other SLs, without the assistance of Charles Taylor that went into Libya for the sole purpose of gaining military training, to waged war against their own country. What role did Taylor played in that aspect? ZERO!

    So the deception and outright caging of Charles Taylor is simply to impose a “21st Century form of neo-colonialism” on Africa, nothing less. This case is TOTAL TOTAL NONSENSE!

    Americans are good people with good hearts but their current foreign policy leaders are seriously undermining America’s global power, and it is worrying for some of us who love to see America remains as the moral leader of the world. We need America to be what has made America the most LOVED nation on earth: a moral leader of good deeds. The fight for social justice is urgent and cannot be left in the hands of profiteers and moral rapists. The greed that crumbled wall street should be restrain from over burdening America with all kinds of foolish wars around the world.

    America, the world needs your moral leadership and not military power. Bullying others will weaken your ability to understand the complexities of this social changing world. Please America, use your goodness for humanity SAKE and stop getting in silly wars. The world needs PEACE.

    1. King Gray, for once you have soften your tone and attempting to be rational even though you still seem to have difficulties distinguishing between facts and personal opinions. You can say whatever you wish to vent on America or the West, but to say the wEST CONSPIRED TO GET TAYLOR IS opinion and not a fact. And to request that you would like to see American leadership and not miltary is constructive critigue and in place in the civilized world and order. However, to say, “We need America to be what has made America the most LOVED nation on earth: a moral leader of good deeds. The fight for social justice is urgent and cannot be left in the hands of profiteers and moral rapists. The greed that crumbled wall street should be restrain from over burdening America with all kinds of foolish wars around the world” unquote, is not only silly, but stupid and unrational. This statement is purely your opinion and should not expect the world to agree with your approach nor cheap language used. That is how you guys turn off listeners in this debate and get others questioning your thinking capability. Seriously Bob Gray, the Bassa Chief!

  14. in as much as a kola nut stay longer in the mouth of those who value it, the chewing does not last for a life time, The Trial of Charles Taylor will finish one day!!!

  15. jfallahmenjor,
    This is the very first time I am commenting on this website. And this is being triggered by your abusive and vigorous descriptions of others. Why will you want everybody to think like you? I agree that couple of guys on this exchange medium possess a high level of ‘mental inbalance’. But you potray yourself as one of the mental upright Africans on the medium, don’t you? Then, I aspect a lot of decency and maturity from you in your rebuttals. As I always say, poor vocabularies = rich insults. Like you keep mentioning in your rebuttals (because you seem not to be building your own points), some of your guys are sentimental (taking side-the Taylor side) rather than being realistic. You, on the other hand, are sentimental (taking side-the prosecution side), though I stand to be corrected.

    My advice to you: Treat your colleagues with respect and culture. Do use refined and interesting words to make them change their mentality and perceptions about things. Using abusive and offensive language can’t help, you know. But above all, I admire your courage and determination. Though the trial has almost ended, I am happy to have been triggered by you. I have been following all these arguments on this site since the inception of this trial.


    1. Thanks Foxy for your candid ctitigue and respect for others. However, It ‘takes an iron to cut an iron’ a popular african saying! That’s all I can say about that. These guys understand street language best and as for my spellings, it’s irrelevant since I do not edit when I write because I simply want my message as raw as I envision it to be! The relivance here is the trial and its impact of future African leadership and blind followers!

  16. The Fake and Politically motivated case by bothe the United States and the United Kingdom as the Ex-Libya trained Liberia’s Rebels claimed it to be according to their series of writing infavor of their Leader Charles Taylor is now before the Judges for final decision. These writers must take into account the following facts. Charles Taylor, Prince Y. Johnson, Foday Sankor and many others graduated from Libya Mercenary Training Camp. Upon arrival in Liberia, Camp Naama in Liberia became the Mercenary Training Camp. Prince Y. Johnson seperated from the most beloved and Human Right Activist Charles Taylor who was elected by his rebels “You killed my Paa and my Maa, I will vote for you”. Foday Sankoh was commander in Bong Mines and later picked up Sam Bockary who had a Babing Shop in Monrovia and other Sierra Leoneans who were waiting for them in Liberia.
    In 1992 the most Holy and Human-Right Activist President in Africa, training mercenaries in Liberia sent Foday Sankoh and other Sierra Leoneans like Sam Bockary including other fighters from Liberia to attack Sierra Leone through Koindu Town in Sierra Leone.With all these activities by so called President Taylor, yet he did not take part in Sierra Leone rebe war. If Charles Taylor is a Millionair or Billinair today, where these money came from since all the properties in Liberia at the time cannot make a man hold this position. Yes, the Holy and Human-Right Activist President Taylor of Liberia did not take part in Sierra Leone diamonds. The next rebel war in Guinea by NPFL and RUF was to capture Bandakolor in Guinea becaus of its deposit of very high grade daimonds. Bandakolor in Guinea is as rich as Kono in Sierra Leone on line of diamonds. This short note is telling you all that your Holy and Human-Right Activist African President will hardly survive this case because of too many innocents death in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea just for his selfish gain.

  17. Dear vem,

    We appreciate your comment, however, we are unable to post it because it does not comply with our website policy. We cannot post a statement of fact that individuals have committed crimes unless they have been convicted by a court of law. If you rephrase your statement or use the word “alleged” before the crime noted, we will then post.

    Thank you.

Comments are closed.