Today, Appeals Chamber judges at the Special Court for Sierra Leone issued a decision granting an appeal by Charles Taylor’s defense team. The Appeals Chamber judges reversed the decision of the Trial Chamber to reject the defense final brief and also ordered the Trial Chamber to schedule a date and time for Mr. Taylor’s defense to make their closing argument.
Mr. Taylor’s trial, which has seen dramatic scenarios unfold recently, was supposed to have been completed in early February after closing arguments by all parties. However, the closing arguments did not take place as Mr. Taylor’s defense lawyers made a boycott after the Trial Chamber judges rejected the defense final brief on the grounds that it had been filed 20 days after the due date of January 14, 2011. Mr. Taylor’s lead defense counsel, Courtenay Griffiths, said then that if the defense final brief was not accepted, he saw no role for himself and his client in the proceedings. Mr. Griffiths eventually walked out of court and, together with Mr. Taylor, stayed away from the Prosecution’s closing arguments. The Trial Chamber later granted the defense leave to appeal the decision rejecting their final brief. Defense lawyers eventually filed an appeal before Appeals Chamber judges of the Special Court.
The Appeals Chamber of the Court, made up of five judges, today issued a decision on the matter. In the decision, the Appeals Chamber judges discussed the decision in the light of Mr. Taylor’s fair trial rights as an accused as well as drawing a line between the actions of his counsel and his own approval of those actions.
“The right to be heard at the conclusion of the trial is the right of the accused, not his Counsel…it is the discretion of the accused that must be exercised, not his Counsel,” Appeals Chamber judges said in the decision.
The Appeals Chamber judges said that if it were not for the fundamental rights of the accused, the Trial Chamber would have been right to conclude that the defense final brief was filed out of time and would not be accepted.
The Appeals Chamber judges noted that “had the fundamental rights of the accused not been at issue…the Trial Chamber would have committed no error in concluding that the defense had forfeited its opportunity to file the final brief as ordered and had no right to file at a latter date of its own choosing.”
“However, when…the forfeiture signifies a waiver of a fundamental right of the accused, there is an obligation on the Court to assure itself that the accused understands that the consequences of the actions and representations of Counsel could be construed to be a waiver of the accused’s right to be heard and to defend at the conclusion of the trial,” they added.
According to the Appeals Chamber judges, the Trial Chamber judges acted unreasonably when they concluded that the silence of Mr. Taylor meant he agreed with his lawyer’s actions and that he understood that by such silence, he was waiving a fundamental right to present his defense.
The Trial Chamber judges erred when they “did not establish that there was a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver by the accused.”
The Appeals Chamber judges noted that right through the process, the accused was silent and such silence should not have been construed as giving his consent to what his lawyer did.
“In the face of the silence of the accused…the conclusion that the accused had waived his right to have his written final argument considered by the court was an error of fact which, if uncorrected, could occasion a miscarriage of justice,” the Appeals Chamber said.
“To rule otherwise would be to disadvantage the uninformed accused for the actions of his Counsel, which would be unfair, particularly as there are other means by which the Trial Chamber can sanction Counsel without affecting the accused’s fundamental rights.”
The Appeals Chamber judges concluded that “the accused’s final trial brief is ordered accepted…and the Trial Chamber is instructed to expeditiously set a date to hear the defense closing argument and rebuttal arguments of the Prosecution and the Defense.”
The Trial Chamber will communicate with both prosecution and defense on when the court will reconvene to hear the defense closing arguments as well as rebuttal arguments from both parties.
We,taylor enemies, accept this final decision of the Trial Chamber, to revise earlier decision.The Appeals Chamber judges concluded that “the accused’s final trial brief is ordered accepted…and the Trial Chamber is instructed to expeditiously set a date to hear the defense closing argument and rebuttal arguments of the Prosecution and the Defense.” Hope this brings to rest the Dramma! Sebutinde can now sit back on Case since she feels so out numbered by the two White Judges who see things not as she does! She can go on to make Africa a better place for Blacks after, seemingly, denying thounsands justice to save a valiant millionare, taylor! I am very disappointed how Africans think!
Fallah Menjor,
The power of the lord almighty is at work; Shame on the haters! . Justice will prevail. MERACLE! MERACLE! …. Jesus is alive!! , he is real..
Blasphemy, NOKO5, you do not sound like somebody who knows the Lord, Jesus. Please stay with taylor, your Savior! He will take you to Heaven when we hang him!
Uncle fallah, enemies do not engage into intellectual exchange. I don’t think you are an enemy to president Taylor rather a friend who want to help show how the prosecution is running off track. Even the prosecution and defense do not see themselves as enemies.
calling yourself as an enemy of president Taylor suggests that you have no place to make comments on Justice Sabutinde’s activities in court or on the bench. Enemies don’t have room for reasoning and logical thinking even if the other side is making sense. Justice Sabutinde’s behavior should be seen as civil and responsible in the face of majority and minority. Don’t you see this as a good example of African in this new century?
Are you serious that enemies do not engage in intellectural debate? The taylor support vs taylor opponents, on this site do not appear to be friends, do they? Besides, I personally do not believe in hypocrisy, that is, I will readily tell you to your face “I like you” or ” I dislike you” without any remorse! That should be fair than pretend to love when you don’t. I told you guys in the beginning that”not that I love taylor less, but love the Motherland best. Taylor’s interests do not surpass the interest of victims, in this case, so I hate taylor to my guts! I challenge taylor in a boxing ring, because I love to give him a TKO!
J Fallah Menjor,
So you agree after the Appeals Chambers decision that Judge Subintunde was right in the first place ?
Dear jfallahmenjor,
I generally try and avoid the anguish associated with the likes of you. You claim to be affiliated with Ms Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and represent her concerns here. The Ellen Johnson Sirleaf I know would more than in all probability disown you due to your lack decorum.
The derision you have shown the Black African is horrible and annoying to Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.
In 1993, on Columbia Road, N.W. Washington, DC, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and I sit down and we talked into the late hours of the night. She showed me family photos of her youth; and who was an attractive young woman. She reveal to me details of her married life and her children; a Son who was in banking; the Tolbert Administration; the ordeal of detention under doe; her support for her hero Charles Taylor; and what is her favorite musical instrument; all in the company of her granddaughter Pam, who was educated in Egypt. Whatever the reason for the split with she and Mr. Taylor I have not ascertained and I am certain that it was a heavy burden for herself.
It was Ellen Johnson Sirleaf who stated “the Public officials cannot use the people’s money to buy fired ice cream.” She expressed a concern for all the people of Liberia; however, the politician is never in charge; in reality, it would be the will, or, fear of the people to allow the politician’s survival.
Freedom is a state of mind; the audacity to exercise that freedom may only come by one’s own volition. It is apparent that you have no desire to see the Black African a free person.
If you truly know Ms Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, tell her that I now have her emery boards.
Wakeup Blackman, stop oppressing your people.
This thing with Mr. Taylor will be worked out whether you agree or not!
Mr J Fallah Menjor,
Is not an African…..!!!!
Fallah,
It is interesting to note that while your are disappointed with the thoughts of Africans, the appeal court upheld and supported the thought process of the African.
jfallahmenjor,
Should Africans think like you?
Fallah,
COMMON SENSE was all that was needed…..THREE WEEKS just to come down to this when everyone with a SOUND MIND knew the outcome.
I just hope those two WHITE JUDGES won’t use this BLOODY FACE and throw out all the evidences and MANDATE and vote GUILTY….but I won’t put my last penny on it
The deciding judge is WHITE FEMALE on the bench…..the Black female votes…NOT GUILTY…the white male judges votes GUILTY….the white female…..???
Please let reason prevail. We are not in the market, but in the court of law where every decision is guarded by law not public option. Sorry for you…yah.
Dear jfallahmenjor
One will agree that the Appeals Chamber concurred with the dissenting opinion of Justice Sebutinde. The rights of the defendant is fundamental in any criminal litigation. The decision of the two white judges of the trial chamber to deny President Charles G. Taylor of his fundamental right is equivalent to miscarriage of Justice, as stated by the Appeals Chamber. Now, let me rubbish your last sentence, “I am very disappointed how Africans Think!”. I am very sorry that you are disappointed, but Africans are great thinkers as evident by the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Sebutinde. There are a growing number of Africans who believe that Africans should now change from being Western puppets. Justice Sebutinde is just one of those African. She has disagreed with the western ideology that President Charles Taylor should be kept in jail for life. The question now is “Where is the so-called western ideology of Human rights”? You Taylor enemies will be put to shame when the final ruling is announced.
Thanks Fallah at least for accepting that Justice Sebutinde is more brilliant than her partial colleagues. even the appeals chamber and all justice lovers have come to recognise her legal expertise. All she is working to achieve is JUSTICE for the victims of the conflict and JUSTICE for Mr Taylor.
Nonsense, if you can say these unfounded things about The true justice Sebutinde, what will you say about those five appeal court justices who concurred with justice Sebutinde. fallah, I think you have a serious problem separating fact from fiction.
As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend justice Sebutine to sit on the International Criminal Court Bench. She has proven herself beyond all reasonable doubt to be the judge dressed in black with a black cloth wrapped around her face covering her eyes.
BIG B, the other two Judges seem to be the true JURY. They are not bringing any personal feelings into this trial as Sebuntinde clearly demonstrates! I am happy to say this and History will bear me out some day. Also, I am happy to get the nerves of all the Sebuntindes on hot platter and ready to finish jfallahmenjor up. That is how I operate and have lived this long in my career, and a happy Old man. And for Sekou, I will say this, I do not expect Ellen to read the garbage we put out here. I only truly believe she is the best for my Motherland and all you cowards should get off her back! Have a Nice weekend everbody.
fallah,
My advice to you is to stick to your journalism even though you write nonsense all the times, but you are pretty good at what you do. Leave the law business to the lawyers, unless you want to be Jack of all trades and master of none.
Dear jfallahmenjor,
Just one question . . . if you think that Ms Ellen Johnson Sirleaf would not care to read the garbage you post here, why do you think anyone here at Ms Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s level would want to read it themselves?
It seems as though your time has pass.
Take care,
Sekou
Guys,
I got rushed to the emergency room of the Veteran Affairs (VA) Medical Center about two days ago. I am seriously sick. Please join me in prayers so that I can get well. Thank God for America and God bless both America and Liberia.
General Fix It,
I am very sorry to hear about your illness. I have you covered in my prayer.
Get well soon soldier!
Jose!!, oh! my pekin,
Whats going on, very very sad to know you are ill. we will all keep you in prayers. Gods willing , you we get well soon. Trust the lord and leave the rest with him.
Jose,
please accept my sympathy. Get well soon brother. We true lovers of justice need you here.
Dear Jose Rodriguez,
I have you in my prayers always since you are a believer in GOD.
In the event you were a Marine; Semper Fi . . .
Take care,
Sekou
Jose Rodriquez.
Get Well Soon ! We will be praying for you
The question is, will the inept remaining judges allow for the lead defense counsel’s disciplinary hearing to convene before closing arguments; Mr. Taylor is entitled to counsel of his choice.
I find it rather amusing that the Appeals Chamber would say:
However, in the face of the silence of the Accused, and given the ambiguous and contradictory representations made on his behalf, the conclusion that the Accused had waived his right to have his written final argument considered by the Court was an error of fact which, if uncorrected, could occasion a miscarriage of justice. To rule otherwise would be to disadvantage the uninformed Accused for the actions of his Counsel, which would be unfair, particularly as there are other means by which the Trial Chamber can sanction Counsel without affecting the Accused’s fundamental rights.
It is a shame that the remaining inept judges fail to perceive such an importunate fundamental right of Mr. Taylor; the events unfolding is an occasion of a miscarriage of justice.
I agree with you absolutely Sekou. The erring judges are inept and their sense of judgement is put to question over a shamefully simple matter. All they could have done was to sincerely consider their own delay with regards to the outstanding motions and balance the lateness by accepting the defence brief. Instead, they have thrown the court into an unnecessary maze due to their own ego.Next: In response to certain elements on this site who choose to argue and debate at a morally bankrupt and demeaning level, my advise is that they be ignored and discussions be continued with others of sound background. Cheers.
P.S: The blunt reality is that doherty and lusick have disgraced themselves.
Dear rgk007,
There is no doubt that they are responsible for the confusion in the Trial Chamber; it is time for the Appeal Chamber to acknowledge it.
Take care,
Sekou
Is Miss Hollis lauging now? Did she assume she and her team won this case? The court did the right thing in the intrest of justice. I’m shock jfallahmenjor had anything positive to say about Taylor. I give him credit for a balance when he concluded he’s disappointed. Griffith cannot do anything in this case without the approval of Mr. Taylor. Finally, we’ll hear from classic Perry Mason (Griffith). This case will de concluded shortly … so close and yet so far.
Sekou,
To the best of my recollection the trial chamber has not denied Mr Grifiths the right of appearance. Even though the issue of his disciplinary hearing is pending, he still has a right of appearance so he can still adequately represent Mr Taylor. even if Mr Griffiths disciplinary hearing is resumed, he still has the opportunity to defend himself and until his case is fully heard, the court cannot impose sanctions on him. in any event, the defence has filed a motion to terminate proceedings against Mr Griffiths on the ground that the court cannot be properly composed given the unwillingness of Justice Sebutinde to sit on the matter. They also sort an alternative relief which is a leave to appeal the decision to exclude Justice Sow from the proceedings thereby delaying the proceedings and denying Mr Griffiths and opportunity to defend himself.
Sam & Sekou,
Griffiths sanctioned will be dismissed by the court, in my opinion.
Mr. Griffiths has not been sanction he chose to have a disciplinary hearing instead of apologize to the court for walking out. In my opinion the disciplinary hearing for Mr. Griffiths has already been throw out just has not be official put on record.
Like the judges assumed Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Griffiths about the filing of the final brief but fail to put it on record by simply asking Mr. Taylor. Judge Lussiks and Doherty forgot all about that this was Mr. Taylor trial for a moment and has put themselves under the watchful eyes of the Appeal Chamber. The judges cannot err any more. In my opinion the Appeal Chamber need to take control of the rest of the trial proceeding.
Dear Sam & Big B,
Perhaps the punishment will be a fine and or a reprimand.
But no matter what happens; the remaining judges cannot be excused for their judicial bias.
Take care,
Sekou
The reasoning of the appeal chambers except for the concurring justice shows that this case is seriously stack against the defense. The majority opinion attempted to cast blame on the defense but only for the issue of fundamental right granted relief. The majority failed to consider the law in its decision but focuses on the action of the defense lawyer by exploiting a narrow excuse that the trail chambers did not gather intelligent consent from the accused. That is a weak reason given by the chamber. One is convince that this would be the same kind of simple emotional reason that would be provided to convict Mr. Taylor, not on the merits of facts.
However, the granting of relief was the correct decision but the reasoning was atrocious.
KG,
Now you see why Perry Mason said Mr. Taylor’s best chance is in this court for the Appeal Chamber is all about politics…….Mr. Taylor will not be walking FREE after this DISGRACEFUL DISGRACE administered on the Trial Chamber.
Ken,
You couldn’t have said it any better. That’s the end of the ginger bread boy.
Jfallahmanjor, I am disappointed on how you think…
What is needed in litigation is competent counsel; not some lackey sucking up to the bench. I view Mr. Griffiths to be competent with due diligence.
There may be among the lawyers in The Hague some resentment of Mr. Griffiths impudence for his client. He is the representative all clients hope for.
The Appeal Chamber came down hard on the Trial Chamber. I knew that Judge Lussick was saying total nonsense.
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUSTICE GEORGE GELAGA KING
10. It is clear to me that Justice Sebutinde has hit the nail squarely on the head, factually
and legally, succinctly and accurately. I agree entirely with her even-handed and correct
reasoning and endorse it. As she rightly holds in respect of the Accused, “to ultimately strike
out, on a procedural basis, his Final Trial Brief that essentially contains his Defence to the
charges in the indictment is to deny him his fundamental right to defend himself.”
11. That apart, it is also crystal clear to me that the aforesaid Order of the Trial Chamber
of 22 October 2010 that “the Parties shall file their respective final trial briefs by 16.30 On 14
January 2010” cannot supersede the provisions of Rule 86(B) which states:
“A party shall file a final trial brief with the Trial Chamber not later than five days
prior to the day set for the presentation of that party’s closing argument.”
As I pointed out supra, the Trial Chamber had set Wednesday 9 February 2011 for the
Defence to present its closing argument. The Defence filed its Final Trial Brief on 3 February
2011 – six days prior to 9 February 2011 – the date set for the presentation of the Defence
closing argument. It is beyond argument, therefore, that under the provisions of Rule 86(B)
the Defence filed its Final Trial Brief within the time stipulated in Rule 86(B).
12. It is my considered opinion that the Trial Chamber, when setting 14 January as the
date for filing Final Trial Briefs and 9 February 2011 as the date for the Defence closing
argument, should have taken cognizance of the provisions of Rule 86(B) and added to its
Order for filing Defence Final Trial Brief the words: ‘in any event not later than five days prior
to 9 February 2011’, or words to that effect.
13. I am reinforced in this view by Rule 26bis which provides:
“The Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber shall ensure that a trial is fair and
expeditious and that proceedings before the Special Court are conducted in
ac.cordance with the Agreement. the Statute and the Rules. with full respect for the
rights of the accused and due regard for the protection of victims and witnesses.”
(Emphasis mine) “The Agreement” is, of course, ‘Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone’; the Statute is
‘Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone’.
14. The Rules, undoubtedly, derive their efficacy from Article 14 of the Statute of the
Special Court for Sierra Leone which provides:
“1. The Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal for Rwanda
obtaining at the time of the establishment of the Special Court shall be applicable
mutatis mutandis to the conduct of legal proceedings before the Special Court.”
Bnker,
Brother, I believe you have traverse the ruling of the appeal chamber on the issues at hand in the trial. I urge you to read the concurring opinion of Judge King of the appeal chamber. My advice was for us to wait for the appeal chamber. Well in summary Judge King said that he agreed every inch with Judge Sebutinde and moreover the defense did filed its final brief with the limits set by rule 86b of the court.
He argued that the administrative and procedural date of January 14, 2011 as set by the trial chamber did not supersede nor outdo the statutory time frame set by rule 86b.
The Judge said the Justice Sebutinde hit the nail on the head and that he agreed with her factually, legally succinctly and accurately.
Hey brother, what say you? Hit let me hear you.
Hey Andrew,
I preamptively believe strongly, that the devils advocate will rightly be on your side,but let me not jump the gun. Go ahead Bnker..
We all knew except for jfallah and his likes that the white judges allowed their selfish emotions to lead them to public disrepute. I see their action as another eye opener as to why Mr. Taylor was brought in this court. But as far as justice is concern, Mr. Taylor will walk free. Bravo to the level headed judges of the Appeal Chamber.
Harris,
This is the exact problem with JFallah. He got his three master degrees in book. Now, we need him to go back to school and get atleast a high diploma in wisdom and common sence. This will enable his comprehension mode. THAT PARTICULAR SWITCH NEED TO BE TURNED ON. Fallah, can you please except my recomendation..
While I agree with the reasonable decision reached by the appeals chamber, I am not impressed by their reluctance to address the merits of the issues raised in the appeal based on the grounds of appeal raised by the defence. In my view, the appeal is well addressed in the separate concurring opinion of Justice King (reproduced below).
Well reasoned concurring opionin of Justice King on the grounds of appeal raised by the defence as responded to by the prosecution.
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUSTICE GEORGE GELAGA KING
1. I agree that the appeal must be allowed and that the Decision of the Trial Chamber
majority (the Impugned Decision) in which it “refuses to accept the late filing of the Defence
Final Trial Brief’l reversed and the Accused’s Final Trial Brief accepted. I also agree that the
Trial Chamber be directed to fix a date to hear the Defence closing argument, and rebuttal
arguments, if any, of the Prosecution and Defence.
2. I opine that the Appeals Chamber is under a duty to identify the main issues raised in
an appeal, more especially so in an interlocutory appeal as this one and then deliver a reasoned
judgement for the guidance of the Trial Chamber and all interested parties.
3. As I see it, taking into consideration the procedural history and background of the
case, particularly the Trial Chamber’s Order of 220d October, 20102
, the main issues which
arise for determination in this appeal are:
(a) How should the Trial Chamber’s Order that “the Parties shall file their respective
final briefs by 16.30 on 14 January 2011″3 be viewed in the light of the provision in the
Rules of Procedure and Evidence (the Rules) that “a party shall file a final trial brief
with the Trial Chamber not later than five days prior to the day set for presentation of
that party’s closing argument.?”
(b) Where the Defence wishes to present its closing argument and the Trial Chamber
has, consequently, set a date for that purpose – “Wednesday, 9 February 2011″5 should
the Defence Final Trial Brief not be accepted by the Trial Chamber on the
ground that the Defence “did not file its final trial brief until )’d February 2011, 20
days out of time when all outstanding decisions had been received “6, that is to say 20
days later than 14 January 2011 – the date ordered by the Trial Chamber – but earlier
than five days prior to the date set for presentation of the Defence closing argument, as
provided in the Rules?
(c) The Prosecution takes issue on the question of page limit of the Defence Final Trial
Brief, submitting that “the Accused, through his Defence Counsel, filed a brief 228
pages over the 600-page limit, falsely claiming that it was now able to do so as all
Outstanding Matters had been resolved.”? Was the Defence in breach then of the Trial
Chamber’s Order that “the length of the final trial brief filed by each party shall not
exceed 600 pages’T”
4. In resolving those issues, 1 shall begin by referring to the reliefs sought by the Defence
and the Grounds of Appeal in this Interlocutory Appeal. 1 refer also to the Prosecution
submission that “the Majority did not err in fact or in law, or abused its discretion in refusing
to accept the late filing of the Defence Final Brief. The Appeal, including all requests for relief,
should be denied'”
The Defence, in its reliefs sought, requests “the Appeals Chamber to order the Trial Chamber:
i. To reverse its decision and to accept the Defence Final Trial Brief (including the
annexes); and
ii. To set a date for Defence closing arguments and any rebuttal arguments.,,10
5. With regard to the Grounds of Appeal, 1refer to Grounds 3 and 5.
Ground 3: Determination that the Defence was in Flagrant Breach of a Court Order states:
The majority erred in law in holding that the Defence, in failing to file its final brief in
terms of the Court’s scheduling order, was in the circumstances of this case, in flagrant
breach of the Court’s order.
Ground 5: Impact of the Request for Leave to Appeal and Stay of Proceedings
Given the overall circumstances of this case, including the fact that on 14 January 2011
at the time it was scheduled to file its final brief, the Defence instead filed for leave to
appeal which included a request for a stay of proceedings (necessarily including that of
the final brief deadline), the Trial Chamber erred in refusing, in the interests of justice,
to accept the Defence’s final trial brief under Rule 86(B) of the Rules.
6. 1 shall deal with Grounds 3 and 5 together. Was the late filing of the Defence Final
Trial Brief on 3 February 2011, instead of 14 January 2011, a flagrant breach of the Chamber’s
order? The Defence exculpates itself as follows:
“On 10 January, the Defence requested a stay of proceedings pending the resolution of several
outstanding decisions before the Trial and Appeal Chambers, which it respectfully submitted,
significantly impacted on the Accused’s ability to present a conclusive and well-reasoned Final Brief. The
Trial Chamber however refused the Motion on 12 January 201l.
Faced with the prospect of filing a half-backed Final Brief, which is the most significant stage of this
three and a half year old trial, Mr Taylor was of the considered view that it was not in his best interests to do so. Thus he instructed his Defence team not to file a Final Brief on his behalf until the defence had
exhausted all legal avenues to ensure that all the outstanding issues were resolved. As a result, the
Defence did not file its Final Brief on 14 January 2011 as scheduled and instead sought leave to appeal
the trial Chamber’s refusal to stay proceedings.
Between 14 and 28 January 2011, the Trial and Appeal Chambers issued the bulk of the outstanding
decisions. The final decision on the Defence’s request for leave to appeal the Trial Chamber’s refusal of
its Motion for stay was only issued this morning, the 3rd February 2011. As all of the outstanding
Decisions have now been rendered, the Defence is now in a position to file its Final Trial Brief.
The Defence is aware that its Final Trial Brief is being filed out of time in terms of the Trial Chamber’s
Scheduling Order. In that regard, the Defence humbly requests the Trial Chamber to condone its
conduct, given the circumstances, and submits that it is in the interests of justice that the Trial Chamber
considers this Final Trial Brief.”!’
7. The Prosecution was unimpressed by that Defence plea. It was forthright in its
disapproval of the late filing of the Defence Final Brief and castigated it as a “deliberate
disregard of court orders”, calling it an “attempt to hijack these proceedings”, but submitting,
however, that “it is this Trial Chamber’s discretionary decision whether or not to accept the
Defence final trial brief notwithstanding that it is 20 days late and 228 pages in excess of the
page limit”IZ
8. The Majority recalled the status conference on 20 January 2011 when the Trial
Chamber (by a majority, Justice Sebutinde dissenting) held “that no submissions had been
heard from the Defence which would cause the Trial Chamber to review or amend the original
orders made on 22 October 2010 and the majority decision of 12 January 2011.”13
9. Justice Sebutinde, who presided when the Scheduling Order was made on 22 October
2010, in her Dissenting Opinion of 7 February 2011, maintains that “the Accused has
presented a plausible/justifiable reason for the delay”:”. She posits:
“It is a fact that as at the 14 January 2011, there were several Defence motions and appeals pending
before the Trial and Appeal Chambers, none of which were foreseeable on the 22 October 2010 when
the Scheduling Order was issued. The bulk of these decisions were issued by the Chambers between 14t1
‘
and 18th January 2011. The last of the said decisions was issued on 3 February 2011, the same day the
Defence filed its Final Trial Brief. In my view, none of the said motions or appeals can be described as
“frivolous” or “a calculated attempt by the Defence to delay the trial”. Quite to the contrary, some of
these were resolved in favour of the Accused, resulting in additional Defence evidence being admitted
into the record, which evidence no doubt, would impact Mr Taylor’s defence as contained in his Final
Trial Brief. The issue now is whether the Accused should be penalized for opting to wait for the outcome
of the motions and appeals before filing a comprehensive Brief or alternativelv whether he should be
penalized for the time taken by the Chambers in deciding the outstanding issues. In my view, both
would be contrary to the interests of justice and to the tenets of a fair trial”
10. It is clear to me that Justice Sebutinde has hit the nail squarely on the head, factually
and legally, succinctly and accurately. I agree entirely with her even-handed and correct
reasoning and endorse it. As she rightly holds in respect of the Accused, “to ultimately strike
out, on a procedural basis, his Final Trial Brief that essentially contains his Defence to the
charges in the indictment is to deny him his fundamental right to defend himself.Y”
11. That apart, it is also crystal clear to me that the aforesaid Order of the Trial Chamber
of 22 October 2010 that “the Parties shall file their respective final trial briefs by 16.30 On 14
January 2010” cannot supersede the provisions of Rule 86(B) which states:
“A party shall file a final trial brief with the Trial Chamber not later than five days
prior to the day set for the presentation of that party’s closing argument.”
As I pointed out supra, the Trial Chamber had set Wednesday 9 February 2011 for the
Defence to present its closing argument. The Defence filed its Final Trial Brief on 3 February
2011 – six days prior to 9 February 2011 – the date set for the presentation of the Defence
closing argument. It is beyond argument, therefore, that under the provisions of Rule 86(B)
the Defence filed its Final Trial Brief within the time stipulated in Rule 86(B).
12. It is my considered opinion that the Trial Chamber, when setting 14 January as the
date for filing Final Trial Briefs and 9 February 2011 as the date for the Defence closing
argument, should have taken cognizance of the provisions of Rule 86(B) and added to its
Order for filing Defence Final Trial Brief the words: ‘in any event not later than five days prior
to 9 February 2011’, or words to that effect.
13. I am reinforced in this view by Rule 26bis which provides:
“The Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber shall ensure that a trial is fair and
expeditious and that proceedings before the Special Court are conducted in
ac.cordance with the Agreement. the Statute and the Rules. with full respect for the
rights of the accused and due regard for the protection of victims and witnesses.”
(Emphasis mine)
“The Agreement” is, of course, ‘Agreement between the United Nations and the Government
of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone’; the Statute is
‘Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone’.
14. The Rules, undoubtedly, derive their efficacy from Article 14 of the Statute of the
Special Court for Sierra Leone which provides:
“1. The Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal for Rwanda
obtaining at the time of the establishment of the Special Court shall be applicable
mutatis mutandis to the conduct of legal proceedings before the Special Court.”
15. It necessarily follows from all I have said that the Majority were wrong in law to refuse
to accept the Defence Final Trial Brief which was filed on 3 February, 2011.
16. The Prosecution complains, strenuously, that the Defence Final Trial Brief is 228 pages
over the 600-page limit. 17 The Trial Chamber in its Scheduling Order of 22 October 2010 had
ordered that “the length of the final trial briefs shall not exceed 600 pages’l'”. A perusal of the
Defence Final Trial Brief reveals that it is made up of 547 pages of arguments and submissions
plus 295 pages of appendices, giving a total of 842 pages. The total number of pages is within
the provisions of the Practice Direction on Filing Documents before the Special Court for
Sierra Leone (Practice Direction) which states: “Any appendices or authorities do not count
towards the page limit” 19 There is, therefore, no merit in the Prosecution’s complaint.
17. As I have finally come to the conclusion that Grounds 3 and 5 cover the main issues,
there is now no need for me to consider the other Grounds of Appeal.
For all the reasons I have given, I allow the appeal and reverse the Majority Decision of the
Trial Chamber in which it refuses to accept the Defence Final Trial Brief. I order that the
Defence Final Brief as filed be accepted. I further order that a date be fixed by the Trial
Chamber to hear the Defence closing argument, also rebuttal arguments, if any, of the
Prosecution and Defence.
Done this 3rd day of March 2011 in Freetown, Sierra Leone
….
Justice George Gelaga King
This opinion by Justice King adequately addresses Justice Lussicks view that the orders of the trial chamber is some how superior to the rules of the court. It was therefore proper for the defence to rely on rule 86 B when submitting its brief 20 days outside the date ordered by the chamber but 6 days before the deadline stipulated in the rules.
Yesterday was a wonderful day for those who believe in true Justice. We can’t move forward yet until the question of Mr. Griffith taking part in the closing argument resolve! To bad for those who don’t see this as true Justice, shame on you!
Alpha,
Is there any reason why my posts on March 4, 2011 at 8:30 & 8:36am can not be seen here?
Dear Harris,
We approved both of your posts, and you should be able to view them. Please let us know if you still are having trouble.
Kindly,
Taegin
Are these drama judges are real judges or some justice of the peace clerks turned judges. I questioned their abilities to interpret and fully understand the complexity of the law. Their behaviors have shown a total disrespect to those honorable judges who work so hard day-to-day rendering justice without malice aforethought.
@ Fallah, don’t be too personal. Had you name being different or a western name, more people would’ve tend to suggest that you’re a racist. I think you should’ve said; I the enemy of Charles Taylor than saying ‘we the enemies of Charles Taylor’. I for one knew that from the word go, this trial would’ve had several stumbling blocks. The decision by the Appeals Chamber is welcomed by all those that deserve to see justice takes place.
very early to claim victory Sekou, Noko 4&5. The appeal chamber has just issue an order for the trial chamber to accept Charles Taylor’s clossing arguments; Now Griffith is placed under the bright lights, what will be next move? Is going to refuse this order, when a date is set,because the judges did not rule on his wiki leaks papers? Or will he take another sick leave as he has in the past? Like it or not this is the end game. Griffith’s delay tatices will not hold any longer. The people are ready for a verdict! Enough is enough Guilty it is…
Dear Ziggy Salis,
You raise an interesting point; the issue of the wiki leaks papers will unquestionably be made part of an appeal. Needless to say, I am not part of the defense team; I am just an observer.
This is a good question since the integrity of the Trail Chamber has been drawn into the fray be these documents.
Again, good point; keep up the good work.
Take care,
Sekou
Sekou,I hope Ellen watch out for your types! Seriously! If you were that closed to Ellen, as claimed, why would you have all these senseless postings in which you attempt reinfocement of negative remarks against her? You even claimed sitting into long hours of the night talking with her in your shed, somewhere in the Eastern Coast of the United States, and etc.. I would be the last to believe any such garbage from any of you taylor “die Hards!” Ellen is High Profile Diplomat and had always being. Besides, I know Ellen from the “grass root” days in Liberia and she is not going to open to someone like you in a conversation! Sekou, bring another “stunct” that will hold water! Let’s leave Ellen out of this mess, for God Sake!
Dear jfallahmenjor,
You obviously do not know Ms Ellen Johnson Sirleaf as you claim. Ask her what her favorite brass musical instrument is. Unlike you, I know what the woman feels like; she is soft and tender; like a woman who has never done hard labor; and she was kind too.
You see jfallahmenjor, I knew her when she and Mr. Traylor were friends; don’t you remember those times. I met her in a church doing a prayer meeting for the peace of Liberia. We talked about her days in Kenya; her excursions in Bermuda and where she wanted Liberia to go.
Judging from your grammatical diction, you are probably 70 years of age or older, and you should know to be respectful to women.
Ms Ellen Johnson Sirleaf can hold her own; after all she is called the Irion Lady; do you know why? I do.
Why don’t you tell her about me? That is, if you really do know her; or, are you just a wantabe and do not know her at all?
Take care,
Sekou
So, the trial’s judges were wrong according to the appeal court. Will they also be judged wrong for leaving serious matters untouched on the table? This is the argument from Mr. Taylor’ defense team. Justice a a thin line between death and life. Should judges like this be allowed to preside over big fish case after finding out they were wrong? Fallah, it’s your call to answer!
Dear bloggers. I read through all your fancy posts; mostly in support of Charles Taylor. Today, I am angrier than I have ever been since I SAW Charles Taylor’s fighters in Sierra Leone shooting at and hacking civillians down. Not that I am disappointed there are people capable of writing good things about Charles Taylor; did’nt Hitler have friends? Mr Fallah is not entirely wrong for being disappointed with the African mentality. It is only among us people will air public support for monsters like Taylor; as manifested by your endless shameful posts. Until we start isolating bandit/leaders Africa will always remain a slum. I would prosecute Taylor if he was my father; well, except if I took some part in the massacre he carried out in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Then I would post blogs here in his defense. Shame on you, and may the almighty punish you for attrocities against your fello Africans. I think Mr. Fallah is a HERO.
Sjabbie or whoever,
Didn’t you made a mistake in your lasr paragraph? I think you meant fallah is a ZERO.
lol
SJabbie,
Need I remind you that this is a trial in a court of law where charges need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt and not a village square were tales by moonlight are told?
If there is an allegation in a court of law, justice demands that evidence must prove the charges. In this case, the prosecution has presented a very bad case there is no way they can prove the charges with the evidence they have presented.
Sjabbie,
From your rants above it is obvious that you didn’t follow the trial.
I have discovered from another source that there is a status conference for the CT trial today in The Hague at 14:00. Why has this info not been posted here?
J
Dear Jennifer,
Yes, there was a status conference today. We will be posting a report shortly about what happened.
Best,
Taegin
I am just taken aback by the many arguments for and against the accused in this case. From these postings, I do see personal sentiments riding high in every line. What amazes me is that with all of the resources and time at the disposal of the prosecution, absolutely no substantial evidence warranting a guilty verdict has been displayed. Every person of some understanding of litigation should expect a non guilty verdict in this trial. To the extent that the verdict is contrary, it will suggest one thing” THAT THE TRIAL IS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED’ We wait to see the outcome!!!
This is totally just a lie. Why would you post this? You may not like the evidence but what do you call 91 witnesses and over 400 exhibits. You may have your issues and disagreements about the politics but are not allowed to post misinformation so blatantly.
Bundu,
Can you admit that at the beginning of the trial you thought that the prosecution would have presented far more concrete evidence then they did ie: bank accounts totaling at least 15 million, diamond buyers who said they bought from Mr. Taylor, audio of commands given to the RUF ( remember both US & UK had these capabilites to intercept) real inside witnesses ( like Issa Sesay testifying for the prosecution) etc.
Please answer
3-9-2011
@Bundu
91 tainted and biased but possibly well paid witnesses
400 irrelevant and/or manufactured exhibits
Bundu,
Which langauge do you want us to use so that you get this thing once and for all. Whats your tribe, Limba/Gio/Mano or lorma. I am telling you for the last time my man. The judges are not look at numbers in this case ok. They will be looking for substantive factuall evidences. NOT THEY SAY.
Dear SJabbie,
We cannot approve your comment as it is. When stating a person’s criminal liability, unless they have been convicted, we cannot post something as a fact. It has to be expressed as an opinion or use the word “alleged” before mentioning the crime.
Also, to all readers, in the remaining days of the trial please remember to focus on the issues and not individuals. It should be an interesting week ahead.
Kindly,
Taegin
Okay NOKO5, the gate keeper for the congor people during Tubman’s days, as your name clearly means! Let’s stick to the Subject: Griffirths is ready to conclude his closing statements about why he believes taylor should be acquited of all 11 counts against him! Bundu is listening, and so is jfallahmenjor. Let’s stay focused, pretty soon taylor will be celebrating his acquital and eating dumboy or fufu with you at the Whiteflower Mansion, that was sealed and renovated by Aki, who just returned from Liberia. I see you smiling because you guys seem to know no difference between satire or fun, especially if it is in taylor’s favour! Wow, Let me stop here before I get tempted to strike!
Dear jfallahmenjor,
Isn’t it true, you are just a prosecution jester?
There is no consistency (reliability) in the evidence.
Take care,
Sekou
Fallah,
You cracked me with laughters again; I will definitely call you to swallow some GB first, before dumboy..then, we will go to gbarnga in the village of Tomu and drink every five gallons of palm wine, like we did when in battle. Major Taylor, our leader, our leader, Major Taylor… Oh GEH!!!!
A word of caution. When people are engaged in a intellectual and specifically legal debate, it is important to stick to the legal issues. If any one thinks a particular legal position is correct, let him say so and defend it using the law. There is no need to bring in discussions of race and other kinds of divisive social elements.
Talk of Black Judges, White judges and so on do not advance the legal debate. Did the judges err? I am sure the Appeals Chamber has resolved the matter.
Indeed this wonderful.
I can see that both Judge Subtunde and Barister Griffin were correct in their thoughts about fundermental rights of the accused. At least I have learned that Silence does not mean consent.
Hey this interesting, I am scientist but have interest to see how legal arguments are made.
Bravo Judge Subtunde and Griffin both Learned as you call your selves.