Thanks for your question, Sylvanus — I think it is one that a lot of people have.

Best,
Tracey

Will be glad to hear your response. Thank you.

You made several good points that I hope African leaders and the people they rule understand. Moral compass is needed in many African leadership. You are right, to ensure that African and their leaders avoid such public spectacle as this trail we need to ensure that our leaders are held responsible for their actions. First, as you mentioned the political will has to exist, second the judicial temperance has to be nurtured and encouraged, and finally, the political interference into the judiciary must be discouraged. If Africans leaders don’t start setting the foundation for these programs and policies today, then tomorrow we will see more of them on trail, albeit real on charges or bogus ones.

Having said that, I am not convinced that this trial is not based on evidence, but it is a big political conspiracy. I don’t want to the categorized as a supporter of Taylor, God knows I am not. However, I am concerned about the transparency of the proceedings. I personally think that he was involved in SL, still the burden of proof is on the prosecutor and they have failed to established that. Since their case is based on circumstantial evidence and witnesses testimony; most if not all have depicted gross inconsistency; it makes the prosecution case all the more challenging. Now, neither my personal opinion nor the prosecution’s should matter in the court of law; though it seem to be the basis of their argument.

We understand that when building a case psychologist review evidences and behavior pattern to better understand the defense (in this case CT). Using this concept, one may readily say that the patterns of crime committed in Liberia does not mirror those of Sierra Leone (no pattern established here). OK, there are the two Nigeria’s who had their limbs hacked. This incident was not the norm in Liberia. These guys are on 1/8 of 1% of the total victims (those who lost their lives). If NPFL fighters were in the habit of chopping limbs, I think they would have continued same in SL. If the prosecution said that CT sponsored the war and his men and RUF looted everything even the name, “Sierra Leone”, I would say “guilty”, because they is a consistency about that. Sadly, this is not the case.

We can further argue that CT financed the war in Sierra Leone, I understand that there might have been an exemption under the principle of Joint Criminal Enterprise; which suggest that a person who finances a (in this case) war, is equally as guilty as though who perpetrated atrocities during the execution of the war. In the commanders of Kono, who lived in Freetown were given exemption because they were not physically in Kono that district at the time of the crimes. So under this assumption, (even if there are evidence that Taylor commanded RUF from Liberia), he should get such exemption or waiver–verdict will then be innocent.

But, this will not happen, this case is political. Taylor during this time as rebel leader and President angered a lot of people and nations and they all want to see him pay. Now, I could be very wrong, and if I am, he will “walk” (ie if the trail is not political motivated). The ICC were not prepared and besides, they didn’t conceive that the defense will take such a bold move by putting the accused on the stand. It was a bold calculative move, that I think has the prosecution in corrective mode and changing tactics

Again, Tracey, GREAT JOB!

My comment is in response to Concerned Liberian in the US

The issue raised on Taylor being tried under the Liberia judicial system for crimes committed against the people of Liberia is not debatable. Legally Mr. Taylor can never be tried under the Liberian legal system. Here are the reasons:

1. The timeframe of the alleged crimes is not litigatable. The period of the Liberian civil war leading up to the 1997 election of Taylor and his subsequent election was covered in the numerous peace accords adopted and blanket amnesty was granted to the warring factions thereby excusing them from criminal liability. Hence it would be a violation of the spirit and provision of those accord to attempt to bring anyone to trial.

2. The constitution of Liberia forbids as treasonous the use of force to remove a seating government. The seating government has to arrest the subversion and try the accused. In the case of the civil war, the government of Samuel Doe collapse and no one was available to arrest surrogate forces and try them. De Facto governments were formed through accords in order to restore some semblance of governance. Similar accords granted blanket amnesty as stated above so I do not see any legal basis for a trial of members of various warring factions.

3. Mr. Taylor government did not breakdown in the face of military challenge from LURD and other factions. Rather, he signed an accord to excuse office and hand power to Mr. Blah. So under what conditions can he be tried for alleged crimes committed during his presidency. Besides what are those specific crimes? Who defined such crimes, and who granted anyone the authority to define such crimes, etc.

3.