The Trial of Charles Taylor

In a dramatic opening to the Charles Taylor trial today, the man long-awaited to confront criminal charges brought against him in the Hague elected not to appear.  And his lawyer, Karim Khan,  interrupted the opening statement of the Special Court for Sierra Leone’s Chief Prosecutor, Stephen Rapp, by walking out of the courtroom in defiance of a court order to continue representing Taylor for the day — in an unexpected move, Taylor sacked Khan and asked to represent himself.  Rapp, and his Sierra Leonean colleague, Mohamed Bangura, continued to methodically present the prosecution case, reading out prepared statements across the room from an empty defense section – except for the court-appointed duty counsel, Charles Jalloh, who throughout the proceedings continued to sit back in the second row from where Khan originally sat, and three seats back from the gallery.  Jalloh, from the Special Court ’s Principal Defender’s office, took over on instruction by the Chamber to represent Taylor in the absence of the accused, and after Khan walked out despite a threat of contempt of court by Presiding Judge, Julia Sebutinde.

Opening Statement

Despite the drama, the main event of the day should have been the opening statement by the prosecution team.  Rapp and Bangura, regardless of the rocky start, appeared un-phased and continued with their opening statement, which was divided into three main parts: (1) an overview of the history; (2) a description of the crimes with which Taylor has been charged; and (3) a description of the forms of criminal liability for which Taylor could be held responsible.

In a nutshell, the key elements of the Prosecution case included:

• Charging Taylor with five counts of crimes against humanity, five war crimes counts and one count of other serious violation of international humanitarian law.  The Prosecution laid out a case which placed Taylor at the center of a systematic campaign of terror waged against civilians in Sierra Leone after November 30, 1996, which included murder; rape; sexual slavery; amputation of limbs; looting; setting fire to property and conscripting child soldiers.
• Although Taylor could be held responsible for participating in a variety of ways in these crimes – including through command responsibility and by acting in concert with others in a joint criminal enterprise – the Prosecution emphasized the “overwhelming” evidence indicating Taylor had “aided and abetted” the crimes set out in their case by providing financial and other support to the rebel army (the Revolutionary United Front or RUF) and its collaborators in the attacks (the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) – a group comprised largely of former Sierra Leonean Army soldiers) and other Liberian fighters. Taylor’s support allowed these groups to undertake systematic attacks against the Sierra Leonean population. 
• Taylor, the Prosecution argued, was not only on notice about the fact that crimes had been committed, but had the intent to further them through his active support and encouragement.
• Rapp and Bangura outlined Taylor’s key subordinates, or “leaders in the bush,” and their efforts to wreak havoc in Sierra Leone in order to fuel a war in which diamonds – and natural resource wealth – played a major role.
• Bangura provided a graphic account of specific crimes, including the plight of amputees, who were told to go to Sierra Leonean President, Ahmed Tejan Kabbah, to ask for new hands.
• He also laid out a system of extreme sexual abuse and violence, which saw women having to make strategic choices “that no woman should ever have to make.”  One victim, Bangura said, described her treatment as being like a “football on a field”.
• Rapp closed by stating that the Taylor trial demonstrated that courts are willing to uphold the law, no matter how high level the alleged perpetrators are. Bangura finished his statement with a Sierra Leonean saying — that “no matter how long the night is, light will come” – today, he said, the court was starting to shed light on Taylor’s alleged crimes.

Taylor’s No-Show and Khan’s Walk-Out

The somber prosecution statement, largely read from notes on the desk in front of them, provided a semblance of normality to proceedings which were book-ended with surprising twists.  In front of two court galleries, packed in with close-to-capacity crowds –  including the two former Special Court prosecutors (Desmond De Silva and David Crane); the former Registrar (Robin Vincent) and International Criminal Court Judge Navanethem Pillay — Khan shook slightly as he began to read out a letter from Taylor.  The letter, in short, stated that Taylor would terminate his participation in the trial by dismissing his lead-counsel.  Due to inadequate time and facilities to prepare a case, Taylor believed he could not get a fair trial.  Taylor terminated legal representation by Khan and decided he would conduct his own defense.

The letter, which Judge Sebutinde truncated by giving Khan two minutes to explain why his client was not in court, stated that Taylor chose “not to be a figleaf of legitimacy for this court.” Khan described a series of complaints Taylor had, including:

• Taylor’s unmet request to speak with the Special Court’s Principal Defender, Vincent Nmehielle, on a matter so confidential that he had not shared it with the Trial Chamber when he had raised it at a prior status conference. 
• The inadequacy of facilities and time to prepare.  Khan argued he had not been afforded office space and had been working from local bars and cafes between June 2006 and March 2007.  (The Acting Registrar, Herman von Hebel, rebuffed this claim later in the day, telling the court that Khan at all times had offices available to him in Freetown and The Hague). 
• The inequality-of-arms in team composition.   Khan, standing alone (except for Jalloh from the Principal Defender’s office) appeared to deliberately  make his presentation one of optical contrast, as he made his points across the room from the Prosecution team, who had seven of its nine lawyers in court today (the prosecution’s lead lawyer, Brenda Hollis, was absent, along with another team member).  Yet when asked about the composition of his team, Khan admitted to having two legal assistants, one part-time pro bono assistant in Monrovia, and one international and one Liberian investigator. 

Distinguishing Taylor’s stance from that of Slobodan Milosevic — the former Yugoslav President who faced trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and refused to recognize that court’s authority over him — Khan stated that Taylor did recognize the jurisdiction of the court.

Khan’s presentation was marked by increasing tension with Presiding Judge Sebutinde.  She sighed loudly and reprimanded Khan after he interjected without the Court’s permission; she chided him for speaking too fast for the translators; and after he started to walk out of the courtroom during Rapp’s presentation, she told him to take his seat and asserted that “sanity will return to this court” (Khan replied “sanity has never left the courtroom”).  She repeatedly asked him to comply with the Court’s order to continue to represent Taylor despite the fact that his client had sacked Khan as counsel.

This increasing tension culminated in a threat of contempt leveled at Khan, as he rose from his seat, collected his books and notes, bowed to the Judges and clumsily tried to open the back door (which was locked).  The Judge called him back, but Khan refused to sit and continue, saying he was “not trying to be difficult but to be principled,” apologized to the court for the disruption, and left by a different (unlocked) back door at the far left rear of the courtroom.  Five minutes later, a security guard came back and collected Khan’s suit jacket he’d left behind.  Only a green highlighter and a stack of papers with yellow post-it notes sticking from the top, remained as a reminder of Khan’s presence.  They were gone when the court resumed after lunch.

The Judges returned to this dramatic event at the end of the day.  Judge Sebutinde told the courtroom — the gallery of which had dwindled to less than half of the original crowd — that she was concerned about the fair trial rights of the accused.  She said Taylor had been denied the opportunity to have the “bare minimum” needed to address his concerns, and this was fraught with potential to delay the trial. She stated that if the delay does impact the trial, it will be the responsibility of the Registry.  Judge Sebutinde laid down two court orders directed at the Registry: 

1. Given Taylor’s request to meet with the Principal Defender was “a reasonable one,” the Registry was directed to immediately facilitate the Principal Defender’s travel to The Hague to meet with Taylor.
2. The Registry was to ensure Taylor had adequate facilities in accordance with Article 7 of the Special Court’s Statute without further delay.

The Prosecutor, in a statement to the press conference held after the day’s events, told a room of international reporters that “His [Taylor’s] rights are not being violated by the court. His rights are being violated by himself.”