Sierra
Leone Court
Questions on
Blacked Out
Purported
Dissent and on
Restitution
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
October 9 --
After the UN
Security
Council heard
a briefing
Tuesday about
the Special
Court for
Sierra Leone,
Inner City
Press
asked the
Court's
President,
Registrar and
Prosecutor why
no
forfeiture of
Charles
Taylor's
assets had
even been
sought, and
how
the purported
dissent of
Alternate
Judge El Hadji
Malick Sow was
being handled.
Video
here, from
Minute 57:38.
Back
on April 26,
2012 after the
Taylor
judgment was
read out by
Presiding
Judge Richard
Lussick,
Alternate
Judge Malick
Sow began to
declaim
what he called
a dissent,
stating in
part that
there has been
"no...
deliberations."
But
the microphone
was turned
off, the
spectators'
view then
blocked.
Inner
City Press
asked the
panel on
Tuesday if
some formal
inquiry would
be
made into what
he had
alleged.
The
Court's
President,
Justice
Shireen Avis
Fisher, told
Inner City
Press
that since she
is "sitting on
the case, so
there is no
way I can
speak to them"
- the issues
raised by
Alternate
Judge Malick
Sow
or why no
forfeiture was
sought.
The
Court's
Registrar
Binta Mansaray
told Inner
City Press, "I
can
speak in a
limited
fashion. As
far as Taylor
funds are
concerned,
efforts have
been made to
track those
funds. In
terms of the
dissent
by the
alternate
judge, I won't
comment,
because that
is going to be
a part of the
defense
appeal. But I
would like to
put on record,
there is a
right to
dissent, if
they have the
right of
dissent or
concurring."
Inner
City Press
thanked the
Registrar, but
followed up
about
Alternate
Judge Malick
Sow's
statement that
the judges on
the case had
not
engaged in
any, or any
substantial,
deliberations.
The
Court's
prosecutor
Brenda Hollis
began to
answer.
Secretary
General
Ban Ki-moon's
spokesman
Martin Nesirky
said, "I think
it's been
made clear, it
is a
continuing
case, I think
you understand
that
given your own
legal
training."
When
Prosecutor
Hollis
answered Inner
City Press'
restitution
question,
she said "on
forfeiture, it
was my office
that looked
carefully
at it, in our
court and in
the other
international
ad hoc courts,
you
have to tie
the asset or
property back
to what was
taken, or the
proceeds, we
were unable to
make that
evidentiary
link... There
is a
UN panel of
experts on
asset freeze
since 2000,
they have been
unable with
all the powers
the UN has to
trace those
assets. There
are some
reparations
scheme you
don't have to
make that
link. With
us, you had to
make that
link."
Regarding
the
transcript or
transcripts of
what Alternate
Judge Malick
Sow
said,
Prosecutor
Hollis argued,
"you have the
word no then
the
symbol for a
missing word,
and we don't
know what it
is."
But
is that any
way to run a
court, or the
reading of a
judgment like
that
of Charles
Taylor? When
might
Alternate
Judge Malick
Sow take
questions on
this? Watch
this site.
, 
