Taylor’s direct examination: “These smiles are not funny smiles to say Mr. Taylor is not taking it seriously.”

In July 2009 former Liberian President Charles Taylor began testifying in his own defense at the Special Court for Sierra Leone.  Below is an overview of what happened during his direct-examination.  This analysis relies heavily on a very good and opinionated U.C. Berkeley War Crimes Studies Center report, along with The Trial of Charles Taylor blog weekly summaries.

Taylor’s direct examination lasted 13 weeks.  Based on people I’ve spoken with, this is an extraordinarily long time for a defendant to offer uninterrupted testimony.

With few exceptions, the trial chamber judges let the defense do whatever it wanted to.  (This laissez-faire attitude is consistent with Tim Kelsall’s assessment of the behavior of the Civil Defense Force (CDF) trial judges, and previous Berkeley reports on the judges’ behavior at the Taylor trial.)  The judges did not try to cut down the length of Taylor’s testimony, nor did they attempt to limit the scope of Taylor’s testimony.  By the end of his testimony, Taylor had told his version of his life story. The judges were, “very lenient in allowing Taylor to stray off-topic during long and tangential answers to direct questions,” according to the Berkeley report.

At the start of Taylor’s testimony the prosecution raised a variety of objections, but the judges consistently overruled them.  The prosecution quickly learned to keep its mouth shut, and stayed mostly quiet for the rest of Taylor’s testimony.  The prosecution’s most frequent objections related to the defense mischaracterizing the nature of prosecution witness testimony.  The Berkeley report calls the repeated overruling of objections part of the judges’  ”standard passive approach to courtroom management.”

So what were the defense’s main arguments and strategies?

• Taylor said his interactions with the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) had two purposes:  1) To enlist their support in protecting the Liberia/Sierra Leone border from a United Liberation Movement of Liberia (ULIMO) incursion, and 2) to engage in diplomatic negotiations as part of his efforts to bring peace to the region.
• Taylor’s lawyer attempted to politicize Taylor’s indictment, saying the US wanted to get back at a man they didn’t like.
• The prosecution had argued that peace in Sierra Leone was not in Taylor’s interest, as he profited from his dealings with the RUF.  Taylor countered this by saying that peace in Sierra Leone would have brought development aid to Liberia, thus peace was in his interest.  The Berkeley report says this claim will be hard for the prosecution to refute, as the judges allowed the defense to present official documents showing Taylor’s role in peace negotiations.  It will be hard to find official documents that show otherwise.
• Taylor frequently blamed the international community for trying to thwart his peacemaking efforts.
• Taylor did not deny many arms purchases, but argued they were used to defend the country from Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD).
• The Berkeley report points out an important inconsistency in Taylor’s testimony.  At one point he said he did not have sufficient ammunition for his National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) troops in 1991/1992.  Later he said he had sufficient ammunition, and could have gotten more had he wanted it.  For the implications of this inconsistency, check out the report (4.f.ii).

Taylor was remarkably enthusiastic for the duration of his direct examination.  He lost his temper only occasionally when asked to discuss prosecution witness testimony that he found erroneous.   The Berkeley report offers this gem:

Taylor addressed the Court several times out of fear that his appearance would bias the Court in their judgment.  For example, Taylor told the Court that although he may often be smiling, “[t]hese smiles are not funny smiles to say Mr. Taylor is not taking it seriously.”

Though perhaps not that important, the Berkeley report noted something I found fascinating:

Taylor could easily provide the Court with information regarding events that occurred many years ago, such as the specific day, month, or year in which the event took place.

This stands in utter contrast to Tim Kelsall’s description of Sierra Leoneanand Liberian witness testimony at the CDF trials.  Kelsall describes how temporal markers were excruciatingly difficult to get from witnesses, partly because of a culture of secrecy, and partly because of different conceptions of time.  This highlights how Western the Liberian political elite have been.