The 3-dimensional peace formula of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) – truth telling, forgiveness seeking, and forgiveness granting – is anchored in extensive in-country interaction and Diaspora outreach.

The Commission, in keeping with this formula, recently communicated with the Special Court of Sierra Leone and the counsels of the former president of Liberia and war crimes indictee, Charles Taylor, on the possibility of giving him the opportunity to testify to his role in the Liberian civil inferno.

That should be a key Diaspora Outreach score and a rare opportunity for Taylor to testify to history. But, to the shock of observers, Taylor’s counsels are fuming over the call. “But why?” is the question many are asking.

The Analyst Staff Writer has been looking at the interview Taylor’s chief counsel granted BBC’s Mariama Khai Fornah recently in The Hague.

Charles Taylor’s lead defence counsel, Jamaican-born Courtney Griffiths, has described as “absolute disgrace” the plan of the TRC to give Taylor the opportunity to testify to his role in the Liberian civil war.

In the view of the counsel, the call is not only belated, but it also calls into question the sincerity of the TRC and the government of Liberia in seeking justice as far as Taylor’s trial by a foreign court is concerned.

He said because the TRC’s recent communication seeking permission to speak to Taylor in order for them to interview him and provide testimony before the TRC is anchored in that questioned sincerity, it is disgraceful and outrageous.

“I actually think this letter is an absolute disgrace, because given the fact that the Liberian government handed Mr. Taylor over to a foreign court in a foreign country, and for them now to be going cap in hand to beg that court to speak to their own citizen I find [it] totally outrageous,” said chief counsel Courtney Griffiths.

According to him, the request was a disgrace because had they wanted testimony from Mr. Taylor the Liberian government would not have handed him over three years ago to a foreign country.

He said the TRC, which was commissioned in January 2006 and did not commence operation until nearly six months later, should have known that Taylor has relevant information for the Liberian TR process and acted to keep him in Liberia so that they can question him at liberty.

It is not clear whether Counsel Griffiths deliberately chose to overlook the arguments and concessions that led to Taylor’s red-carpet exile to Calabar in Eastern Nigeria in 2003 whence he was extradited to Sierra Leone, but he insisted that the Liberian people, and the administration that came to power three years later, should have rescued and kept him for the kind of testimony the TRC is seeking today.

“Well I think it’s disgraceful because were they truly interested in Mr. Taylor’s views, they could have kept him in Liberia and questioned him there, but they didn’t.

They handed him over post-haste to the Special Court for Sierra Leone, established by treaty between the Sierra Leonean government and the United Nations a body in which the Liberian government has no say whatsoever. And now they turn round almost three years later, ‘Oh former president, we’d like to speak to you.’ Perhaps they ought to have thought about that three years ago when they handed him over,” he said.

Even though he conceded that the Liberian government has no hand or authority over the proceedings of the hybrid court, he contended that it should have acted in Taylor’s favour.

He, though, neglected to say how that should have been possible at the time when Liberia was being delivered through “Caesarean section” from its own civil upheaval created by Charles Taylor, the villain now posing as a scapegoat of international intrigue. 

“Is he saying that the rats should have asked the captor of Mr. Cat to leave him alone so that they (the rats) will question him on a later date?” wondered on observer regarding Mr. Griffiths’ contention.

Again, the  man who is seeking the possibility of having Mr. Taylor once again walk the streets of Monrovia – a free man – did not mind the distortion of the facts of Taylor’s extradition to Sierra Leone by the Nigerian government and the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) with the ceremonial nod of the Liberian government.

“And why is it that he’s been languishing in prison for almost three years without a visit from any member of the Liberian government or a Liberian ambassador or representative. And then all of a sudden out of the blue they want to speak to him. I think that’s a disgrace,” he said, justifying why he believes the TRC’s call is not a blessing for Taylor to speak into history but the addition of insult to injury.

Chief counsel Griffiths said it was up to the prosecuting court and Mr. Taylor himself to say what they make of the TRC’s request, noting that Taylor would not appear were it left to his judgement.

“There is no way I will allow anyone to speak to my client prior to my client giving evidence in these proceedings,” he Griffiths said.

Counsel Griffiths, also describing the TRC’s call for Taylor to testify “outrageous”, said the only option opened to the TRC, and those supporting its initiative, is for the Commission to quietly meet with Taylor in his cell holding in The Hague and telecast his testimony to the Liberia people on giant screens in Monrovia.

“So that when Mr. Taylor gives evidence as he will do, all of Liberia can sit down and watch it in comfort. That’s what they ought to do if they truly want to hear his views. They handed him over to this Court, so let them wait until he’s given evidence before this Court to judge what he has to say about that critical period in their history,” he said.

On arguments that the Liberian economy may be unable to foot the bill of such transaction, Griffiths said the government could contact the British and the Americans who were behind the establishment and sustenance of the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

“It’s those foreign countries who are busy funding the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and it’s supposed to be done in order to promote the rule of law in West Africa, because of course West Africans don’t understand what the law is.

They have to be taught it by these foreigners. So consequently, as part of the ‘enlightening process’ let the Americans and the British put their hands in their pockets and help out the Liberian people so they can see justice being done,” he said, in the view of one observer, “deliberately making fun of and politicizing the Liberian peace process”.

According to Counsel Griffiths, Taylor rejected the TRC request outright after reading the communication and holding a brief discussion with his legal counsels, emphasizing that that answer was now the position of the defence counsel.

Where this final position leaves the possible telecast suggestion is not known, but Counsel Griffiths proceeded to note that it was irrelevant to the counsels whether Taylor met the TRC and testify or not.

“It will have no effect whatsoever, because at the end of the day what is happening in terms of the TRC in Liberia at one level is a total irrelevance, because remember, Mr. Taylor is not on trial for anything he did in Liberia. He’s on trial for what he’s supposed to have done in Sierra Leone.

Had the Liberian government any interest in what he had to say about that critical period in their history, they should have kept him on his own soil where he was born so he could speak out to his own people in that forum,” he said.

It may be recalled that recently the TRC sent a 9-paragraph letter to the Registrar of the Special Court for Sierra Leone requesting access to interview Mr. Charles Taylor and to have him testify about his role in the country's brutal 14-year conflict.

Speaking on the Commission’s plan at the time, TRC Chairman Jerome Verdier said it was important for the commissioners to make ‘as much effort as possible’ to ensure Taylor tells his side of the story.

But Chairman Verdier was not fussy at the time about Taylor testifying, making it appear as the opportunity it is.

“It is former President Taylor's prerogative to decide. The choice will be his - whether to speak to the commission and have his version of history documented and recorded for the people of Liberia to hear and read,” Verdier said at the time, adding, “All options are open as far as how Taylor would testify.”

In his view, Taylor did not have to return to Liberia. He could instead testify before the commissioners inside his detention facility in the Netherlands.