Charles Taylor Trial ended, but Burkina Faso and Libya incriminated

By Ramata Soré

On March 9 and 11, in Leidschendam near The Hague (Netherlands), the trial against Charles Taylor came to close. Taylor has been accused for allegedly arming and supporting Sierra Leonean rebels during the country’s civil war.

This trial has lasted about three years. This paper summurizes the minutes of the trial’s closing arguments. The Court’s sentence about the case will be made before the end of this year.

During the trial, Prosecutor Nicholas Koumjian told the judges that leaders such as Muammar Gaddafi and Blaise Compaoré of Burkina Faso had also supported the RUF, but it remained “a proxy army under one person, Charles Taylor.” But, Gaddafi, Compaoré, “helped build that web [of the crimes in Sierra Leone] and they helped maintain that web through Charles Taylor. The international community did not go to Gaddafi, did not go to Blaise Compaoré; they went to Charles Taylor, because he’s the one who had control over the leaders of these groups that were perpetuating such horrific crimes.”

According to Koumjian, “the involvement of Muammar Gaddafi and Blaise Compaoré has been proven… certainly there is evidence that these individuals or the governments that they headed aided the RUF.” However, he added that “The RUF didn’t fight for Blaise Compaoré. It didn’t fight, as far as we know, hopefully not now, for Muammar Gaddafi” even though as Koumjian said, “the arms and ammunition came from either Burkina Faso or Libya.” Also he mentioned the fact that the defense cited the UN panel report, in relation to General Diendéré from Burkina Faso, “who signed the end user certificate for shipment of arms to Burkina Faso in February 1999.”

Also, the prosecution said that based on evidence from the UN panel of experts, the March 1999 shipment was Ukrainian arms routed through Burkina Faso. This fact was confirmed by a testimony of a witness who was present on that delivery of arms from Burkina Faso to Liberia.

“This was a court, ostensibly and publicly, set up, we are told, to try those who bear the greatest responsibility. So why is Colonel Muammar Gaddafi not in the dock?” Courtenay Griffiths, Taylor’s lawyer said.

During his statement, Griffiths insisted on the fact that Ghaddafi is one of the key people by whom the war strengthened in Sierra Leone. He mentioned a handwritten letter dated the 4th of December. It’s from Corporal Foday Sankoh, leader of the RUF to brother Mohammed Talibi, People’s Bureau of Libyan Arab People’s Jamahiriya, Accra, Ghana. In this letter Sankoh wrote that the officials of Burkina Faso “really have not shown any keen interest in assisting us as a movement. I even had conversation with Commandant Diendéré these few days but with no positive results. I would therefore suggest that you prepare a letter for me to meet President Compaoré on this issue, as we never received anything from them, and even my delegates at Ouagadougou have returned ever since to my location here. Please advise on this issue.”

To Griffiths, justice should be applied equally to all, “whether you are a princess or a prostitute, whether you are the president of the United States or the President of Liberia, the law is above you that should be the guiding principle.”

Griffiths called the trial against his client Taylor a “selective prosecution […] politically motivated.”

Griffiths stressed the fact that David Crane, the first prosecutor at the UN-backed SCSL, said Muammar Gaddafi was responsible for the conflicts in West Africa.

“Have you not heard of the recent utterances from David Crane? Have you not heard that this Court would have been refused funding by the British government had they attempted to indict Gaddafi because the then British government led by Tony Blair were anxious to pursue their economic interests in that country? Have you not heard that? What about Blaise Compaoré? What about Tejan Kabbah, the defence minister who allowed his deputy to carry the can and end his days in custody?” mentioned the lawyer.

During his plea, criticizing the Court, Griffiths said that “it’s 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 form of neocolonialism, and I’m not apologizing for saying that.” Also, he mentioned that Taylor believed some powerful countries to be “out to get him,” and declared the prosecution had paid witnesses, “some of them extravagantly, out of a fund obtained by the first Chief Prosecutor, David Crane, from the Government of the United States.”

Taylor’s trial has started since June 2007. It is about Taylor armed Sierra Leone’s Revolutionary United Front rebels in exchange for diamonds. Taylor has pleaded not guilty to 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Ramata Soré

—-

Here the whole documents : minutes of the 9th and the 11th on marche 2011

THE PROSECUTOR OF THE SPECIAL COURT V. CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR WEDNESDAY, 9 MARCH 2011 (minutes) THE PROSECUTOR OF THE SPECIAL COURT V. CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR FRIDAY, 11 MARCH 2011 (minutes)

—-

We are publishing here below extracts of transcripts of the trial of
former Liberian leader Charles Taylor, translated into French. These
minutes deal with hearings on 9th and 11th March 2001 during which
Burkina Faso, président Blaise Compaoré and Gilbert Diendré, his
personal military advisor are mentionned.

—-

Minutes of the 9th on march 2011

page 49346

MR BANGURA: Your Honour, with this evidence that there had been the training at Camp Naama and there is a place called Sokoto where this — Foday Sankoh and his fighters were trained, and the – this witness, 532, referring to a plan having been made in Camp Naama was obviously referring to that period that the — Sankoh and his men were in Sokoto. But before that there is also a wider strategic plan that had been laid even before Sokoto, and even before Naama, and there is evidence before this Court that, in fact, as far back as Burkina Faso and Libya, there had been a wider strategic plan to attack Sierra Leone. First Liberia, and then eventually Sierra Leone. So basically what happened in Voinjama was simply a plan to implement that strategic,

Page 49351

The previous brief and we’ve had to reconcile them with the new renumbering of paragraphs. The paragraphs I was referring to, by way of example, is paragraph – is paragraph 169 – it’s 1069 and it’s numbered 1 to 4, the Defence lists as sources of – for arms and ammunition supplied to the RUF – AFRC/RUF as follows: One, overall – stockpiles of arms and ammunition held by the junta government. They said that was one source. Also, arms and ammunition captured from ECOMOG soldiers. They also mention arms and ammunition from countries in the region, and arms and ammunition from Liberia, that the AFRC/RUF junta had acquired through trade with ULIMO. And finally they mention arms came directly from Liberia, which they say was not from Taylor, but from intermediaries.

Now, these listings of sources obviously does not fully reflect the position in terms of the proper sources of arms and ammunition that the AFRC/RUF had during the – during the period that we are referring to, that is to say, February 1998 to January 1999. A proper and true reflection of the evidence points to the following sources: One, the stockpiles held by the junta government; 2, captured arms and ammunition from ECOMOG soldiers; 3, arms and ammunition from countries in the region, notably Burkina Faso, by the arrangement and coordination of Charles Taylor; 4, stockpiles of arms and ammunition from Monrovia through – from – through intermediaries working under Charles Taylor; and also finally, arms and ammunition that came from ULIMO fighters, through the arrangement and coordination of Charles Taylor.

Page 49353

I’ll read the quote again. “In some accounts, the arms and ammunition were given by Bockarie to – to Bockarie by Taylor. DAF testified that he was told the ammunition came from Monrovia.” The brief cites Abu Keita in support of that. “On other accounts, the arms and ammunition came from either Burkina Faso or Libya. That is what DAF stated.”

Page 49354

Mr BANGURA…….” Anybody reading this is left with the impression that all of the witnesses underlying these assertions were inconsistent. And the truth is that these assertions are basically mischaracterisations, and to some degree, it affects the overall testimony of – testimonies of these witnesses.

The third assertion is that on other accounts, the arms and ammunition came from either Burkina Faso or Libya, and they also cite Daf. Again, this is just a blatant misrepresentation.

Page 49355

Mr BANGURA. Daf’s testimony is that he never testified as he has already – as we’ve already seen, Daf never testified as such, and it is clear that the Defence are seeking to invent an inconsistency which does not exist.

They, basically, are saying that this certificate, the exhibit, points out that the certificate, which shows that the shipment was to Burkina Faso establishes that the RUF could have independently obtained arms without Taylor’s support but this is not what this evidence says.

Page 49359

Mr BANGURA . . Your Honour, regarding this point, the – there is absolutely no aspect of TF1-548’s testimony as cited by the Defence that Charles Taylor, Foday Sankoh and Dr Manneh were three equal principals. Basically this is the language of the Defence, that these were three equal principals, there is nothing in the testimony of 548 to suggest this. What this witness says is that at a meeting in Ouagadougou in Burkina Faso between Taylor, Sankoh and Dr Manneh, the three agreed that they would assist Taylor to fight his war first in Liberia and then Taylor would in turn assist the others, and the witness goes on to say that this was, “Because at the time we were very powerless.” And he continues again, because, “We were people who were powerless at that time in terms of human resources, in terms of money, we were not very powerful.”

Page 49366 49367

MR KOUMJIAN : The Defence goes on to argue, in the beginning of their brief, they discuss the Celibici standard for improper – I’m forgetting the word, for a prosecution that’s – where is my mind? Target against an individual improperly. Selective prosecution.Thank you.

The RUF, the evidence shows, overwhelmingly in our view, was a proxy army of Charles Taylor. The RUF didn’t fight for Blaise Compaoré. It didn’t fight, as far as we know, hopefully not now, for Muammar Gaddafi. But the evidence is overwhelming that Charles Taylor used them, not just in Sierra Leone, he used his proxy RUF army in Liberia to fight against his enemies there; he used them in Guinea, to fight against his enemies and forces in Guinea, to invade that country; he sent them to the Ivory Coast and had them fight for him, Sam Bockarie and others in the Ivory Coast.

Page 49368

Mr Koumjian : One interesting statement by the Defence in paragraph 1087 of the corrected brief, I believe, the Defence states in a sentence in that paragraph that the Defence submits that the RUF was able to arrange the supply of arms and ammunition from Burkina Faso completely independently of Taylor. Well, your Honours, we only have to look at a map to question how the Defence – perhaps they can answer this in their oral arguments – how can the RUF, independently of Charles Taylor, deal and obtain arms from Burkina Faso? There is no border between them.

Sierra Leone borders two countries, Guinea and Liberia, and Guinea throughout this time period, particularly of the major arms shipments in 1998, in March 1999 from Burkina Faso, we have evidence, including one person who was along on the trip in March 1999 and persons who were waiting for the shipment when Sam Bockarie came back in late November or early December 1998, the only way to get those large arms shipments to the RUF was through Roberts International Airport, Charles Taylor’s main airport in Liberia. And that is exactly what was done.

Page 49390

This was a court, ostensibly and publicly, set up, we are told, to try those who bear the greatest responsibility. So why is Colonel Muammar Gaddafi not in the dock? Have you not heard of the recent utterances from David Crane? Have you not heard that this Court would have been refused funding by the British government had they attempted to indict Gaddafi because the then British government led by Tony Blair were anxious to pursue their economic interests in that country? Have you not heard that? What about Blaise Compaore? What about Tejan Kabbah, the defence minister who allowed his deputy to carry the can and end his days in custody?

Page 49437

And it’s quite clear that Sankoh had no intention to abide by the terms of the Abidjan Peace Accord, and we have to ask in due course and will, whether, in fact, he had any intention of abiding by the terms of the Lome agreement.

Secondly, why is there no mention of Taylor in this letter?
Recalling, of course, that golden thread, fashioned in Libya, including among its operatives, Gaddafi, a person who will have to loosen the purse strings for this one and a half million, and Burkina Faso. So why no mention of the other pillar of that triumvirate, Charles Taylor, why not?

Page 49440

…. That’s another prong of the triumvirate, Blaise Compaore in Burkina Faso. And remember, this is an aspect of the golden thread. So what is Sankoh doing saying this?

“When I went in last week” – now, this is a reference to the helicopter trip – “when I went in last week I was able to organise serious mining operations in precious minerals which I believe will help us to generate the needed foreign exchange for our mission.”

—-

Minutes of the 11th on march 2011

Page 49525

Government of Sierra Leone went to Charles Taylor in order to influence the RUF, because they knew he was the one behind the RUF, he controlled the RUF. When the peacekeepers were held hostage, of course the United Nations and others went to Charles Taylor to get them released. They knew he was the one that could get the peacekeepers released. But, your Honours, look at whatever answer, if any, the Defence gives you to Justice Sebutinde’s question. They will not show you a document about Charles Taylor meeting with Sam Bockarie in 1998. And then you must ask : Why not? And the answer is obvious: Because as shown in the Prosecution evidence, Charles Taylor was meeting with Sam Bockarie to plan the war, to plan the offensives, to receive diamonds, to use some of those diamonds to finance the RUF, to obtain ammunition for them from his own stocks and from – Liberia clearly does not produce ammunition but from other countries, including through Burkina Faso, which also does not produce ammunition but which the evidence shows and the Defence brief seems to concede was where this huge amount of ammunition from 1998, late 1998, came to the RUF, from Burkina Faso through Roberts International Airport, to Buedu. This was the ammunition Issa Sesay said the RUF was out of ammunition, it was the ammunition from Liberia that made that December 1998 offensive possible. Now, this is particularly significant, the lack of such a documents, because of what Charles Taylor testified to. He told you that all of his meetings with Sam Bockarie were transparent and were open, that it was done with the consent of everyone. Even though Sam Bockarie was on the United Nations travel ban, he said the UN knew about it, ECOWAS knew about it, Kabbah knew

Page 49529

talking about the links of Charles Taylor to the RUF, specifically discussing links between Taylor and a Mr Ratcliffe [phon], the diamond dealer, the fact that Sam Bockarie had been in Monrovia, the fact that Johnny Paul Koroma’s wife was in Monrovia, and that arms and ammunition were being stockpiled there, reportedly to be used for an attack, again, on Sierra Leone, remember the date of this is March – the date of this document is the 30th of March, 1999. We’ve received evidence in this trial, both from the UN panel of experts, I believe that’s P-18, about that March 1999 shipment, which was Ukrainian arms routed through Burkina Faso. We even had the testimony of a witness who was present on that delivery of arms from Burkina Faso to Liberia, and then onwards, most of them, or at least a truckload of them, onwards to Sierra Leone with Sam Bockarie.

Page 49547

testimony on key things. For example, he tried to say here Superman went on his own, after Fitti-Fatta, to the north, but he testified in his own trial that Sam Bockarie sent Superman to the north. Most importantly, he came and he testified and counsel went through the testimony of key Prosecution witnesses like Isaac Mongor, like Karmoh Kanneh, and there were many others, who talked about the shipment that Sam Bockarie brought back from Burkina Faso. And it’s also documented in Prosecution exhibits that that shipment that huge amount of arms that came – made the December 1998 offensive possible, that that was brought back from Burkina Faso through Roberts International Airport, through Charles Taylor’s airport, and we know, even Charles Taylor let it slip, the person he sent with Sam Bockarie on that trip was his own principal arms dealer, Musa Cisse.

He tried to say, oh, I sent Musa Cisse because he spoke French but Blaise Compaore has translators, and two of the delegation spoke French, Eddie Kanneh and Lawrence Womandia. So Issa Sesay came up and was supposed to rebut all these Prosecution witnesses, he was going to prove that they were lying and he said, no, absolutely, he said, they are lying, they are lying. Sam Bockarie got the ammunition from Benjamin Yeaten. 11th hour, the Defence tried to pin everything that was happening in Liberia and Sierra Leone on Benjamin Yeaten. But it turns out, four times in his own trial, four times in his own trial, Issa Sesay had said the ammunition came from Burkina Faso. And if you read the Defence brief, they seem to have abandoned Issa Sesay on that line. They recognise the ammunition came from Burkina Faso. And how could it get there? It had to go through Roberts International Airport. That’s what all the testimony

Page 49555

independent connection with Burkina Faso and so the Magburaka shipment was through an independent connection , as evidenced in these letters. We suggest to you, look at these letters very carefully and you will find just the opposite. Because what is Foday Sankoh doing in these letters? He is complaining that Burkina Faso is giving him no assistance, that they will not assist him, and he mentions by name a gentleman, Diendere. Well, you’ve heard that name before and you’ve seen that name in P-18 because indeed it was this gentleman, Blaise Compaore’s subordinate, who signed the end user certificates by which Burkina Faso got the materiel that was sent on to Charles Taylor in March of 1999. What these letters show you is that, unless Charles Taylor endorsed the efforts of the RUF and later the AFRC/RUF to get assistance from Burkina Faso and also Libya, that assistance didn’t come. It was Charles Taylor’s connections with these individuals that made possible the assistance that was given.

For example, the assistance that was given in late 1998 with the huge amount of materiel that was brought from Burkina Faso, may well have originated in Libya, but was brought from Burkina Faso to Monrovia, to Charles Taylor’s RIA airport, and from there was taken through Charles Taylor’s territory to Sierra Leone. And you recall also this name Diendere. This March 1999 shipment, the Defence counsel talked about large shipments to the RUF or AFRC/RUF. Well, in fact, the evidence shows you four large shipments. We have, of course, the Magburaka shipment, which was a very large shipment, the only one that came in to Sierra Leone by aircraft. But then what else do we have? After Magburaka, we have of course the very large shipment that came in for the Fitti-Fatta mission

Page 49561

your Honours, when I refer to the Defence final trial brief, I’m referring to the corrected brief, not the latest filing. We simply did not have the time to do a correlation between those. So it’s 890 of the corrected final trial brief, where the Defence tells you that this same witness testified that the attack on Freetown was entirely Sam Bockarie’s idea. Well, we invite your attention to the testimony of 30 January 2008, at page 2641 and 2642, where the witness told your Honours that the instruction to go to Freetown originated in Monrovia from Charles Taylor. That’s the evidence of record. So, inconsistency or mischaracterisation, misstatement, of the evidence? Yet another instance with this same witness, at paragraph 1079 in the Defence final trial brief, wherein the Defence assert that this witness and another witness, Karmoh Kanneh, TF1-571, give no account of Sam Bockarie meeting with Charles Taylor regarding a shortage of arms and ammunition prior to Sam Bockarie’s travel to Burkina Faso. Now, maybe we have a little wordplay there, but we invite your attention to the testimony of the 28th of January 2008 at page 2403, where the protected witness testified that according to him, meaning Sam Bockarie, they were going to meet Musa Cisse in Monrovia and meet Mr Taylor. Ibrahim Bah was to escort them to Ouagadougou, but they were going to stop at Monrovia first, and meet Mr Cisse and Mr Taylor before they took the trip to Ouagadougou. And as for Karmoh Kanneh, on 13 May, we invite your attention to that transcript, 13 May, page 9639, where Karmoh Kanneh told you, “Well, he,” meaning Sam Bockarie, “did not explain to me how he,” meaning Sam Bockarie, “travelled to Liberia…

Page 49574

the Prosecutor to make decisions about the crimes that will be charged and the offenders that will be prosecuted. And that it’s a very high burden that must be met, that it must be shown that indeed the intent of the Prosecution was to discriminate on improper motive and that similarly situated persons were not prosecuted. Well, the Defence haven’t shown you either of those. There is no intent to prosecute for improper motives. This accused is before you because he earned the right to be here through his choices, through his actions, through his failures to act. The evidence is overwhelming of his involvement in all of this. That’s why he’s before you.

Secondly, similarly situated accused? In trying to show you about similarly situated accused, one of the things that the Defence told you was, well, let’s look at ECOMOG. Well, look at ECOMOG, both in Sierra Leone and Liberia. ECOMOG was the group that the people fled to, these foreigners in their land, they fled to them. How much worse must have been their own countrymen who were committing these crimes against them that they fled to ECOMOG? And in addition, no one in this case is similarly situated to this accused. He was at the very centre of the web of the crimes in Sierra Leone. Gaddafi, Compaore, they helped build that web and they helped maintain that web through Charles Taylor. The international community did not go to Gaddafi, did not go to Blaise Compaore; they went to Charles Taylor, because he’s the one who had control over the leaders of these groups that were perpetuating such horrific crimes. Now, the Defence at paragraph 21 of their brief cite you to

Page 49590

who were the founding members by Mr Sankoh. Another Prosecution witness, TF1-371 testified also about ideology and how at Camp Naama, Mr Sankoh had something that was similar to the Geneva Conventions that had to be taught to the trainees at Camp Naama. Camp Naama, in Liberia, 1990, Prosecution tells you that two years before criminal means was contemplated to achieve criminal objectives, at least they say one of the objectives was criminal, pillage – we will come to that, because they have a problem there as well – and yet in Camp Naama documents whose contents are similar to the Geneva Conventions are being handed out or considered and used for training of RUF members. This is where you apply the law to the facts, and we are no longer speaking about allegations and theories; we are looking at what the evidence shows. Now, we leave Libya and the next place of interest is Burkina Faso. Following Suwandi Camara’s evidence, Suwandi Camara says that in Burkina Faso, that there was a meeting in Burkina Faso. He starts out by telling us that the Liberian delegation to Libya and the Sierra Leonean delegation all ended up in Burkina Faso after training in Libya and that in Burkina Faso they also met the Gambians. And he says in Burkina Faso there was a meeting between Charles Taylor, Foday Sankoh, and Dr Manneh, where they each agreed to help each other take over power in their respective countries. That’s his evidence. Take over power in their respective countries. I don’t recall him saying anything about pillage the resources of their countries. The fact of taking over political power, is that a crime that this Court has the authority to consider? That issue arose in your Honour’s AFRC trial judgment.

Page 49591

Who else spoke about Ouagadougou? Moses Blah spoke about Ouagadougou. Moses Blah told the Court that there were no Sierra Leoneans to be found in Ouagadougou, following the NPFL’s training in Libya and when Taylor went to Burkina Faso. Indeed, the evidence of TF1-371 was that Taylor did not frequent Libya. He was actually more likely to be found in Burkina Faso. You notice how this is evolving. I have not even mentioned the Defence witness, this is Prosecution evidence. Moses Blah, there were no Sierra Leoneans in Burkina Faso. Moses Blah says there were no Sierra Leoneans in Burkina Faso, how did this meeting take place that Suwandi Camara is referring to, a meeting between Dr Manneh, Foday Sankoh and Charles Taylor? Conflict between their witnesses. Now, Suwandi Camara is also impeached by the absence of evidence. What am I referring to? If there is a meeting of the minds between these three persons to assist each other and his evidence was that after Charles Taylor was assisted in taking over power in Liberia, Taylor would then, in turn, assist the Gambian leader, Dr Manneh and also Foday Sankoh for each of the others to take over powers in their respective countries. Well, there is no evidence before this Court that the Gambians played a role in the invasion of Liberia by Charles Taylor.

The Gambians did not play a role in December 1989 when Taylor entered Liberia through Nimba County with his forces. How about the Sierra Leonean delegation? What substantial or significant contribution did Foday Sankoh provide to Charles Taylor in Charles Taylor’s revolution at its outset? There is no evidence on record. What is the support? If there was a quid pro quo, a meeting of the minds in Burkina Faso, an agreement or the extension of an agreement originally arrived at in Libya, what did the Sierra Leoneans do for Taylor, when he started his revolution? Nothing. No evidence on record.