admintime . . . ” US Ambassador Thomas Greenfield
In the last episode I dealt with the following:
- the flooding of the prosecution with US operatives in the Taylor prosecution team;
- the bribing of witnesses by the prosecution; and
- the unfair composition of the judges.
In this last segment I deal with the issue of the judges being compromised.
US contacts in Judges Chambers
The CIA did not end its operation in the Court with the placing of its operatives in the Office of the Prosecutor (“the OTP”)and the Registry. It also placed operatives in the judges’ chambers themselves. As a result the CIA was criminally being fed with sensitive information from the judges chambers by a contact or contacts in the chambers. This impinged on Taylor’s right to a fair trial in that such conduct is inconsistent with an impartial and impartial panel of judges. A leaked US embassy cable, dated 15 April 2009, states:
“Additionally, one chamber contact believes that the Trial Chamber could have accelerated the Court’ work by excluding extraneous material and arguments. Moreover, contacts in the Prosecution and Registry speculate that Justice Sebutinde may have a timing agenda. They think she, as the only African Judge, wants to hold the gavel as presiding judge when the Trial Chamber announces the Taylor judgment.”
Article 13 of the Statute of the Court states:
“The judges shall be persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity . . . They shall be independent in the performance of their functions and shall not accept or seek instructions from any Government or any other source.” By extension the above must also apply to legal officers and other employees who are in the Chambers and enjoy the confidence of the judges.
The cables clearly indicate that there were contacts between the Trial Chamber, the Prosecution and the Registry, respectively, and CIA agents outside the official lines of communication. It is indefensible that the prosecution of Taylor by the Court was not independent and impartial. The informers in the chamber actually discussed matters of strategy in the Taylor trial with the CIA as revealed in the secret cable.
The information that the CIA was unlawfully communicating with all arms of the Court, including the Chambers, was released by the Guardian newspaper on 17 December 2010. Accordingly, on 31 December 2010, Taylor’s lead counsel Courtenay Griffiths, QC (“Griffiths”) filed a Court application seeking the following order: “Given the seemingly compromised impartiality and independence of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in light of its connection to the USG as alleged herein, the Trial Chamber must order disclosure and/or and investigation into the following:
i. the identity of the source(s) within the Trial Chamber, Prosecution and Registry who provided the USG with the information in the Cables;
ii. the full nature of the respective sources’ relationship with the USG, specifically including an explanation of the context and circumstances in which each of the comments recorded in the Cables were made to representatives of the USG;
iii. information tending to suggest that the Prosecution has sought or received instructions from the USG regarding any aspect of the Taylor trial; and
iv. a full explanation of the money provided by the USG to the Prosecution, including the amounts of money given and when; the purpose of the funds; how the funds were used; and who the OTP was responsible to in the distribution and use of the funds.”
Despite the apparent urgency and sensitivity of the matter the Registry refused to give permission for the defence to file it during the judicial recess. On January 6, 2010, the President of the Court was approached and he also refused to have the matter expeditiously dealt with. It is not surprising that this was so given the fact that all organs of the Court had been corrupted by the US’ blood money. Whilst the sponsors of the Taylor trial deceptively alleged “blood diamonds” the reality of it was that it should have been the US’ “blood money” that was supposed to have been on trial.
At this juncture, a digression is pertinent as I have to link this up with the atrocious lies by the US and the British that Zimbabwean diamonds from Marange were “blood diamonds”. The concept of “blood diamonds” was a smoke screen by Western diamond dealers who had bought stolen stones from Sierra Leone and wanted to divert attention from themselves. The issue of “blood diamonds”, spearheaded by the NGO Global Witness, was a ruse that was created by the very criminals in Antwerp, Amsterdam and Tel Aviv, who purchased these stolen diamonds. The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (“KPCS”) which they created in 2003 was therefore a sham. It was later used to curtail the free and unhindered mining, processing, marketing, sale and export of Zimbabwean diamonds in furtherance of their imperial and thieving objectives. They knew all along that it could never work but for the Western thieves it was to be used to hide their thieving activities.
The application was finally filed on January 10, 2010.The Court refused to grant the application. Clearlyt, the entire organs of Registry, Prosecution and the Chambers had been infiltrated. It was not a question of a few individuals having been compromised. In my view, if the Chambers had nothing to hide and had not been compromised they would have allowed an investigation to be set up as what was stake was a man’s life. The wheels of justice themselves were also on trial in the wake of the WikiLeaks revelations. The refusal to grant the application, it is submitted with respect, raised more questions than answers and is a serious negative indictment on the credibility of the Court.
No Deliberations Undertaken
Crucially no deliberations were undertaken during the trial. Direct evidence of this is that on April 26 , 2012, when the Taylor judgment was delivered, the Alternate Judge, Justice Sow, declared publicly and in open Court that no deliberations had been undertaken in the trial. He stated: “The only moment where a judge can express his opinion, is during deliberations or in the courtroom, and pursuant to the Rules, where there is no deliberations, the only place left for me is the courtroom.”
According to Garner, Bryan A, Black’s Law Dictionary the ordinary meaning of “deliberations” encompasses “the act of carefully considering issues and options before making a decision or taking some action.” Justice Sow defines deliberations and their importance in the following manner:
“When the totality of the evidence is gathered, closing arguments presented, the judges declare solemnly the hearing closed and they retire in private for deliberations. It is the segment of the trial where judges meet in secrecy and confidentiality to weigh the evidence, and to determine guilt or innocence. Deliberations are the crucial stage where judges must express their own convictions and positions. And explain why. That’s where judges express opinions about the trial . . . It is the crucial stage, the heart of the trial. It is where you have the totality of the evidence reviewed, analysed, and weighed against the law and the facts.
Trust Sengwayo is an expert in International Humanitarian Law and a lecturer at the Midlands State University.
Online Reporter