This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Feature Liberia/Sierra Leone


and its only guarantee is the robust and adaptable UNMIL [UN Mission in Li- beria] presence. Te GOL does not have the ability to quell violence, monitor its borders or operate independently to fight crime. A free Taylor could tip the balance in the wrong direction.”


Cable No. 2 As if Tomas-Greenfield’s comments were not revealing enough, the legal counsellor at the American embassy in Te Hague, Denise G. Manning, sent another vexing cable on the Taylor trial to Washington DC on 15 April 2009, talking about “con- tacts” the embassy has in the Prosecution, Registry, and the Trial Chamber itself who were giving inside information to the US government “outside the official lines of communication”. Manning even claimed that one of the


three judges at work on Taylor’s case, the Ugandan Julia Sebutinde, was deliberately “slowing things down” so she would be the one to give the final judgement. He wrote: “Further muddying timing


predictions, Court employees have inti- mated that the Trial Chamber could work more expeditiously. Te Taylor Chamber consists of three judges who take turns presiding: Judge Richard Lussick (Samoa), Justice Teresa Doherty (Northern Ireland) and Justice Julia Sebutinde (Uganda), along with an alternate judge, Justice El Hadji Malick Sow (Senegal). “A couple of Court employees have


grumbled that when the last prosecution witness testified on January 20, 2009, the Court still had 11 outstanding mo- tions, some over a year old. Additionally, one Chamber contact believes that the Trial Chamber could have accelerated the Court’s work by excluding extraneous material and arguments. “Moreover, contacts in Prosecution and


Registry speculate that Justice Sebutinde may have a timing agenda. Tey think she, as the only African judge, wants to hold the gavel as presiding judge when the Trial Chamber announces the Taylor judgement. Reportedly, her next stint as presiding judge begins in January [2010]”. When the cables were published


by WikiLeaks, an embarrassed Justice Sebutinde hotly denied Manning’s alle- gations. In Monrovia, an equally embar- rassed Ambassador Tomas-Greenfield rushed to the Executive Mansion to render


30 | March 2011 New African


“ The WikiLeaks cables...support the Defence


position that the prosecution of Mr Taylor is in fact political and his indictment was selective.”


an apology to President Ellen Johnson- Sirleaf for the unflattering comments she had made about her government in the cable.


Legal arguments As expected, the contents of the two cables were received with shock by Taylor and his defence team. Tey filed a multi-annexed urgent motion on 10 January seeking clari- fications and fair trial assurances from the Court. Signed by the lead defence counsel,


Courtenay Griffiths, the motion said: “United Nations Security Council Reso- lution 1315 (2000) which called for the creation of the Special Court, emphasised


‘the importance of ensuring the imparti- ality, independence and credibility of the process, in particular with regard to the status of the judges and the prosecutors.’ Consequently, Articles 13(1) and 15 (1) of the Statute unequivocally state that the or- gans of the Court must act independently and impartially, and without instructions from any government or other source.” But, from the contents of the cables,


the motion said, the impartiality and in- dependence of the Court appeared to be compromised. “Te probative value of the evidence in the cables is significant... In fact, the Defence submits that the ad- missions of the evidence contained in the cables and the apology [by Ambassador


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92