February and March 2011, parties in the trial for Charles Taylor amidst controversies, made closing arguments to Judges of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) sitting at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) in The Hague. The oral arguments which were presented pursuant to Rule 86 of the Court’s Rules were meant to supplement final written briefs earlier submitted by both prosecution and defence, and not to reiterate the briefs themselves. Both written briefs and supplemented oral arguments were presented to respond to issues presented by the Judges and the opposing party during the course of the trial and to assist the Judges in their deliberations for a final judgment as to whether Taylor is guilty or innocent of Eleven counts of war crimes, crimes against humanity and other serious violations of international law. In its written brief, the Prosecution attempted to expose what they considered as Taylor’s deceitful efforts to appear as a peacemaker, whilst providing support for the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) to commit crimes in Sierra Leone. Chief prosecutor Brenda Hollis submitted in her oral argument that the defence had attempted to turn the proceedings into a political forum, and reiterated the quality of prosecution’s evidence in discharging their burden of establishing Taylor’s guilt. The defence in rebutting prosecution’s claims, attempts to show that the prosecution has not been able to establish Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) as pleaded in the indictment and submitted that the whole theory should be disregarded.
The Prosecution in their submissions emphasized that documentary evidence tendered by the defence have helped prove the case for the prosecution in establishing Taylor’s guilt. They submitted that documentary evidence from the defence corroborated prosecution’s evidence especially where they were lacking. It was recalled by the Chief prosecutor that the prosecution lacked documentary evidence to show that Taylor was holding secret meeting with members of the RUF, where plans were made to commit crimes and take control of the diamond areas in Sierra Leone. This situation, she argued, was remedied by defence documentation relating to meeting between Taylor and Sam Bockarie then Commander of the RUF in 1998. She further noted that the defence did not establish that such meetings were meant to broker peace, and submitted that discussions to take control of Sierra Leone were done in such private meetings. Also Ms Hollis recalled that Taylor has claimed that meetings relating to RUF and their activities were transparent and were mostly organized by other West African leaders, but documentary evidence from the defence shows that Taylor was in fact meeting secretly with members of the RUF. On this rubric, she concluded that the Trial Chamber should evaluate the probative value of evidence submitted by both parties and submitted that all of the prosecution’s documents attempted to establish Taylor’s guilt.
In discrediting the case for the defence, the Prosecutor submitted that it was baseless and that the defence throughout the proceedings has mischaracterized prosecution’s evidence by alleging inconsistencies. She submitted that there has been no inconsistency in the case for the prosecution and that the defence has completely misconstrued their case. Further, looking at defence witnesses, the Prosecution submitted that witnesses such as Issa Sesay should not be relied upon, noting his character as one of a ‘rapist’ and a murderer.
Turning to the issue of diamonds, the prosecution argues that Taylor’s aim of supporting the RUF was to control the diamond areas of Sierra Leone. Ms Hollis submitted that the defence argument that there is no evidence to show that Taylor was involved in the war should be disregarded as there is enough evidence to show Taylor’s motive as one of pillage of mineral resources, thereby exploiting Sierra Leone’s natural resources.
Finally, the Prosecutor noted that the defence has attempted to make the proceedings one of a political and propaganda theatre for Taylor. Noting the defence’s comment of the trial being one of a ‘21st century form of neo-colonialism’ she submitted that such comment may suggest perversion of justice as it implies that Africans should only be tried by Africans and in an event where there is a lack of an institution to try alleged perpetrators, victims will never find justice.
Lead Defence Counsel, Courtenay Griffiths, QC used his time to discredit the prosecution’s theory of JCE and a number of inconsistencies in their case. A central theme of the prosecution’s case is that Taylor had at all times acted in concert with members of the RUF and AFRC to exploit the natural resources of Sierra Leone, thereby perpetrating atrocities on the civilian population. The defence submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish a JCE involving Taylor and that he cannot be linked to the commission of crimes in Sierra Leone through a JCE. In looking at what they considered to be a disjoint, the defence discussed alleged agreement in Libya between the RUF and Taylor, training activities in Liberia and the 1999 Freetown invasion. It was submitted that there is no evidence to establish these claims as propounded by the prosecution and that they have not succeeded in proving a JCE between Taylor and any warring faction. Further, it was submitted that there is no evidence to show a common purpose between Taylor, RUF and AFRC, to take over the mining areas of Sierra Leone.
In looking at a common purpose between Taylor and the warring factions, the defence recalled division between the RUF and the AFRC and between Taylor and Sankoh, and submitted that there could be no common purpose when such fractions existed. In concluding, the defence submitted that for a JCE to exist, the accused participation must be significant and that the prosecution must fail because there is no evidence to show any substantial contribution made by Taylor.
Finally Griffiths recalled the basic principle of criminal law – that the prosecution has the burden of proving their case beyond reasonable doubt – and that the prosecution has sort to transfer this burden to the defence. He submitted that the defence is not obliged to prove its case and this can only be challenged in certain circumstances. Whilst the defence has attempted to produce some evidence to establish Taylor’s innocence, this was only done to corroborate any general defence raised by Taylor. Lead Counsel concluded by apologizing to the Judges for any disrespect shown during the course of the trial. The hearing was declared closed pursuant to Rule 87 of the Court’s Rules and the Judges be made to retire for private deliberations before reaching a verdict of guilt or innocence.
Charles Ghankay Taylor was indicted under seal on 7 March 2003 and subsequently published on 4 June 2003 during his first trip outside of Liberia. He was arrested and transferred to the SCSL in March 2006 and transferred to The Hague on 30 June 2006. The Prosecution opened their case on 4 June 2007, with the accused being absent and subsequently dismissing his defence team. Following the appointment of a new Counsel, the Prosecution opened witness testimony on 7 January 2008 and closed their case on 27 February 2009 calling 91 witnesses, including 58 crime base witnesses, 29 insider (linkage) witnesses and four expert witnesses. In addition, written statements were admitted from four crime base witnesses, and reports from two additional expert witnesses. On 4 May 2009 the Trial Chamber dismissed in its entirety a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal brought by the Defence. The Defence opened their case on 13 July 2009, and concluded on 12 November 2010 calling 20 witnesses, including Mr. Taylor himself.