Global Criminal Media Expert

When the FBI Comes Calling…^®

August 30, 2006

Liberia: U.S. Firm Condemns Taylor's Lawyers

Shortly after former President Charles Taylor landed in Freetown under thick security escort to answer 11-count indictment for war crimes and crimes against humanity, a horde of legal specialists rushed to his defense. In his line of legal counsels were local lawyers and lawyers from Ghana and Nigeria.

Even the US-Indian Evangelist A.K. Paul threatened to sue U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo for conniving to extradite Taylor to Freetown. But surprisingly, no sooner was Taylor's argument against the Special Court's lack of trial jurisdiction was defeated than it was clear that he was an indigent. As indigent, the Special Court took over the responsibility of providing qualified defense counsel for Taylor, but that has not explained up to date what happened to those that were lining up in defense of Taylor. Now there is change of venue from Freetown in Africa to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague in Europe and there are claims that Taylor's rights under the law are being tampered with. Some blame ICC and the Special War Crimes Tribunal for Sierra Leone for the lapse, but a group of US Criminal Defense Firms thinks Taylor's own lawyers are to blame. The Analyst Staff Writer has been finding out how that is so.

Two senior members of the global criminal defense firm, McNabb Associates, Douglas C. McNabb and C.J. Dresden, have condemned Taylor's lawyers for the reported violation of his rights.

According to them, besides not visiting Taylor's ICC prison cell to asses the conditions under which Mr. Taylor is being held, they seem completely unprepared to fight by responding to the barrage of media images against him.

The immobility of the lawyers and their unpreparedness to challenge and chide some of the issues that have been raised against Taylor, they contended, may do injustice to him.

It appears disturbing to the senior lawyers of the global criminal defense firm that while though they have obligation to respond to more than 30,000 pages of evidence adduced by the Special Court, the lawyers appeared contented with what was happening to their client.

The American lawyers noted that Taylor was flown to the Netherlands at the behest of and into the custody of the UN and with the transfer complete and preparations for the trial moving forward, the defense team has not been able to respond to some of the concerns that could jeopardize their case.

For instance, they said, the UN Special Court, including the judges, the prosecutors and the registry, has been unrestrained in presenting its version of the facts to the world but that Taylor's defense team has remained perfectly silent.

"David Crane, the former chief prosecutor at the Special Court, has become a media favorite during the coverage of this case. His statements, all conveying the presumption of Taylor's guilt, have gone unanswered," the lawyers said.

They accused the Special Court of giving its former chief prosecutor, Mr. David Crane, the opportunity to interpret the transfer and the attention it has garnered, including the Special Court's photos and home movies.

The photos and movies, they claimed, allowed the people of West Africa to see Charles Taylor - who was so feared - humbled before the law as indication that justice was being done.

"If this is what 'justice' means, why bother with a trial and a defense at all?" they wondered.

Crane, who is credited with writing the original indictment against Taylor, is also on record linking some people not yet indicted, to Taylor, speculating about the existence of transnational networks of conspirators, including the Libyan dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi, and glibly blending allegations contained in the indictment with accusations of conduct that are well beyond the jurisdictional reach of the Special Court, the lawyers were reported as saying.

"According to Crane, however, the quest is not for the truth of the matter, but for the truth of the victims. If this bias is so deeply embedded, defense attorneys must challenge it as a threat to the fairness of the Special Court," the lawyers claimed. They said it was worth noting that conditions for moving Taylor's trial to The Hague were declared met when Britain agreed to provide post-conviction accommodation, completely leaving out the possibility that Taylor will not be found guilty.

"The media reports did the same, but there has been no public response by Taylor's defense, and no objections filed. Do Taylor's defense attorneys find such activity acceptable and just?" they wondered.

The McNabb Associates lawyers recalled that on the day Taylor was transferred to The Hague, the Special Court, which they said must attempt to render a fair, efficient, judicious process in this case, posted more than a dozen digital photos, plus some video footage, of a handcuffed, heavily guarded Taylor on its Web site. In the view of the two lawyers, the posting of such photos and video footage by the court, though highly prejudicial, was not responded to by the filing of an objection by Taylor's defense lawyers.

Taylor's defense attorneys, they said, did not bother to even point out to the press that the court's "shameless" global publication of the photos indicated that the court has forfeited its statutory presumption of innocence in The Hague.

Acting under Chapter VII, the Council adopted a United Kingdom-drafted Resolution 1688 allowing a chamber of the Freetown-based Special Court for Sierra Leone to sit outside its jurisdiction, and requested UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to assist, as a matter of priority, in the conclusion of all necessary legal and practical arrangements for Taylor's transfer to the Special Court in the Netherlands, and the provision of the necessary courtroom facilities for the conduct of the trial.

The International Criminal Court agreed to allow the use of its premises for both detention and trial based on fears that his presence in Sierra Leone would jeopardize security in the region.

The UN Council's resolution recognizes that the proceedings in the case against Charles Taylor would contribute to achieving truth and reconciliation in Liberia and in wider West Africa, and that it also requests the Special Court, with the help of the Secretary-General and relevant States, to make the trial proceedings accessible to people of the sub region, including through video link.

But the global criminal defense team say lawyers for former Liberian dictator Charles have failed to point out the court's "shameless" global publication of the photos which indicates that the court has dispensed with the statutory presumption of innocence until proved guilty.

Taylor's lawyers, headed by the British barrister, Karim Ahymad Khan, would not be reached for comment, but the Acting Prosecutor of the Special Court, Christopher Staker, told a team of international journalists recently in Freetown that the defense council was adequately responding to charges against Taylor.

He said the court was playing its role to protect the interest of the sub-region as well as the interest of the accused and that were no cause for fear.

Former President Taylor is among 13 suspects who were indicted for various crimes including rape, assaults, abduction, torture and dismemberment of victims, sexual violence, and drugging and conscripting child soldiers, among other charges.

Shortly after his transfer to The Hague, a group of lawyers who did not identify themselves, to the surprise of observers, said in a release in Monrovia that they were taken aback that Taylor was flown to The Hague without notice hours before he was due to face a pretrial hearing scheduled for Wednesday, June 21, 2006.

They feared then that the action of the Special Court to allow Taylor to be flown to The Hague even while a pretrial conference was pending denied him any last minute contact with his lawyers or his family.

"We view this once more as inimical of attempts by some to deny justice and a fair trial to Mr. Taylor," said the press release of the group calling itself Association for the Legal Defense of Charles Taylor Inc. which was signed by Mr. John T. Richardson as executive director.

The group's release noted that for the Government of Great Britain and not the Court to secretly charter an airplane to ferry Mr. Taylor was quite suspicious and raises questions regarding their intent to host Mr. Taylor 'if he is found guilty'. Since this initial reaction and statements of concern about Taylor's fair trial in The Hague, neither the association nor any other defense group has reacted to media reports that Taylor was "facing death." Media reports, amongst other things, have claimed over the last few weeks that Taylor's daily meal ration has reduced from three times a day to once a day and that the 58-year-old former president was subjected to a daily dose of 16 hours of solitary confinement.

Besides, the reports said, international telephone charge for Mr. Taylor was increased in recent months from the normal US$3.00 to US$7.00 per minute.

The same reports claimed that Taylor's health was deteriorating rapidly even though they could not say what caused the deterioration and to what extent it was affecting his ability to withstand prison conditions.