I expect to learn alot here.

In response to your question of political trials and what we consider to be the elements of a fair and independent trial, I will start by first saying and reiterating that this trial is in my opinion very political but is being held under the guise of justice. While I am quite impressed thus far at the apparent fairness of the judges thus far, I am sceptical as to the final judgement. .

This is because first of all Mr Tauylor has already been condemn in the court of public opinion by the very countries that are financing this trial. They led the world to believe that this man was guilty without doubt and that there was overwhelming evidence to prove it. Mr Bush was so convinced that he insisted that this man should step down from power in 2003. Where in the world is it legally allowed for one president of a country to order another president of another sovereign country to relinquish power? This is the first instance of the political nature of this trial The very way in which Mr Taylor was ordered to step down by Mr Bush.

We also have the way inb which the indictment was unsealed.According to Mr David Crane, “it was to give maximum humiliation to Mr. Taylor” Why should a prosecutor seek humiliation of an African President. He is there to prosecute the legal aspects of the case not get some sick satisfaction out of humiliating a man howbeit “evil” he is perceived to be. The law is not meant to humiliate but to expound justice. When these types of emotive expressions enter the picture they do connote a political context.

Then we have the tacit agreement on the terms of his exile which were bridged by the international community which is again another fact of political interference. The international community was fully aware of the arrangements of the exile of Mr Taylor and in fact assured him, regional leaders and his leutenants that this arrangement would be respected; only to dishonour it.

Now on the involvement of the UN in this trial. We see from the socalled documents that the court used to bas the indictment on “UN Reports” were seriously flawed to the extent of being carefully constructed lies. Why would a socalled august body as the United Nations intentionally put forward such erroneous documents and then go further as to act upon it not just in the instance of Mr Taylor alone but assocuiates of his who hav no direct involvement in the affrars of Sierra Leone or directly in Liberian policies? This is again meant to exercise maximum punitive damage; all without any substantive evidence. This is all because they have the power to do so and can. This in my opinion is political. When the powerful can exercise their power over the weaker without a just or substantiated reason, is a very strong indication of political influence and control.

Now here we have the same UN setting up this court with monies from the same powerful nations that had a beef with Mr. Taylor from the onset. What does it tell us? It is obvious that this is with an ultimate political agenda to bring the man to his knees.

Now as to whether this trial is independent, I am not sure of that. It has already been prejudiced by the western media, and the funders of the court. How can your accusers be the very one who is paying for your trial? This Court would not stand the test under any national jurisdiction. It would have been seen to be biased from the first instance. However let’s for argument sake assume that there is some altruistic reason why the court was set up and that they may try to be fair. What is the guarantee that those who are funding the salaries of the judges will not tamper with the verdict?

iI am not very optimistic that they will be satisfied with Mr Taylor being acquitted as they will see it as a slap in their face after all the hype over this case in the first place. The judges are in a very difficult place, I would say as they have an obligation to expend justice but are constrained by those who fund ansd sponsor the court and pay their salaries. CAN THEY DO THE RIGHT THING? It remains to be seen.

We then go to the rules of the court; where in the world has anyone seen this level of evidence or may I say the lack thereof presented in a court and yet the judges still say that there is a case to be answered? I am shocked that the socalled human rights groups are sitting by and letting this happen; but oh I forgot they too are being finajced by the same people.

Well there it goes Tracey. How can this case be free and fair or for that matter meet the standard of an independent trial. This is a very hard one.

It would meet the standard if the UN and international community would first of all admit that the documents used fro the indictment were flawed and to a large extent manipulated, and then produce more accurate reports based on truth, lift the TravelBan and Asset Freeze on these individuals who are associates of Taylor who have no means of redress in any court.
Allow the judges to make their decision solely based on the legality of the case free from any political interference from them.
Report the truth of this case rto the world just as they were reporting that Taylor was definitely guilty
Let justice be for all rather than selective; only to one group.
Mete out the same burden of proof to others as they did to Mr Taylor regardless of who they are etc.

Shall I go on? I guress I have said more than enough

Accountability has been a major departure in governance of african governments, Liberia included. Taylor’s and the current Ellen administration are no exception. Past and the present government of Liberia have failed to take meaningful steps to ensure accountability and check and balance. There have been suppression of opposition, suppression of press, secrecy of budgets, contracts and expenditures to name a few. These acts brew corruption. The leadership have encourage these acts and they enjoy the consolidation of power to perpetuate selfish agenda. Corruption in Liberia is not unique to Mr. Taylor Administration.

A few have used the wealth of the country to their own advantage while the majority remain poor. 65-80% poverty rate and 85% illiteracy rate are not accidents. The country being backward and underdeveloped is not an accident. They are intentional designs. Ellen can take the bull by the horn and take some meaningful step to begin the breakaway with corrupt acts. For example:

1. She can begin by dealing without favor with anyone including official who is found engaged in corruption.

2. Reduce the power of the presidency by attempting to amend the constitution so that county officials and judges are elected. let county official draw up their budgets, implement it and report to central governments on a quarterly basis.

3. The election commission derives its authority from the legislature with members being nominated by civic groups and the body decides its leadership on a rotating basis. That way the election commission will be free of executive manipulation, even when Ellen leaves office.

4. Her administration can set the pace for contracts to be disclose for public comments and scrutiny before it is signed by government.

5. The LPA system in Liberia be abolished. Government should not be a party to private citizens and their business transactions.

I can go on but I hope the point is clear. But Ellen will not do any of these because government running is supposed to be a secret affair rather than a public one.

But back to the issue at hand, the question posed to Mr. Rapp was not about Taylor’s corruption, but the billions that Taylor allegedly accrued from Sierra Leone diamonds, that are stacked in foreign accounts, which is an issue of contention in this case. Mr. Rapp circumvented the issue to introduce a sidekick. But it is clear that there is no billions of dollars and Rapp misled the world.

Tracey threw a topic for us to ponder over. I expected opinions on the topic to have overflowed or overwhelmed this medium. How is a trial considered to be fair and independent and how does this trial fits in?

I gave my view and some others King, Jose, etc. I hope others can contribute. I you read my comments you will conclude that I believed that the trial is fair. It is easy to evaluate degrees of fairness. However, levels of independence is more difficult to ascertain because it involves some personal judgement. And its determination is done after the fact. This is where questions of doubt lingers. Will the judges be independent in the rendering of the verdict. So far I believe that they are being independent. They have made decisions regardless of fear or favor.

The big question is will the verdict be applied similar standard? A fair answer is we hope so.

The trial has been fair and the judges have demonstrated degrees of independence in their decisions. We hope this will continue to the end of the trial.

To clarify what I wrote in my blog: First, as I note in the post, I may be confused about the discrepancy between what Stephen Rapp said and what the UN report said. But if I’m not, the larger point that Mr. Taylor took kickbacks from multi-national corporations and directly stole funds from his country is supported by both the report and Mr. Rapp’s response to questions from readers of this blog.

Best,

Shelby

If you guys could just follow this link on Shelby Grossman’s Blog you will see what I am talking about. Stephen Rapp continue to decieve the world and waste needed human and capital resources for a political trial. The money wasted on this trial could have done a lot of good for the people of SL.

here is the link:
http://shelbygrossman.com/