Good morning, Mr Taylor.

Good morning.

You recall, Mr Taylor, at the end of the day on Tuesday we were talking about the treatment of human rights activists in Liberia during your presidency. Do you recall?

Yes, I do.

And we had talked about Koffi Woods?

Yes.

Now, Mr Taylor, at the end of the day I had put to you that human rights activists went into hiding during your presidency if they spoke out against you and you said you disagreed and you said that was nonsense. Do you recall that, Mr Taylor?

Yes, I do.

Mr Taylor, in 2001, the executive director of the Liberian Watch for Human Rights had to go into hiding. Isn't that correct?

I don't know if he went into hiding.

It was a Mr Adebayo, A-D-E-B-A-Y-O. Mr Taylor, he went into hiding after the Liberian Watch for Human Rights issued a statement describing the ATU as unconstitutional. Isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

Not that I know of. I have no idea.

And they called on you to dissolve the ATU. Isn't that correct, Mr Taylor?

I don't know. They probably did. I have no recollection of anybody calling on me called Adebayo - that's not even a Liberian name - to dissolve the ATU. I don't have any recollection of that.

Mr Taylor, after they had called on you to dissolve the ATU because it was unconstitutional, the Liberian police launched a search for Mr Adebayo. Isn't that correct?

I don't know. It could have very well been. I have no idea.

Indeed the Liberian police director Paul Mulbah was quoted as saying that Mr Adebayo will be apprehended to answer questions. Now, you were made aware of that, weren't you, Mr Taylor?

I was not.

And Mr Mulbah, the police director, went on to say that in addition to the call for the dissolution of the Anti-Terrorist Unit, Mr Adebayo was wanted to explain what he meant when Mr Adebayo blamed the rebel war in the north on you, on your failure to restructure the Liberian army. Now, you were made aware of these actions by the director of police, were you not, Mr Taylor?

I was not.

And indeed, Mr Taylor, the director of police was acting not just with your knowledge but at your direction when they took action to find Mr Adebayo. Isn't that correct?

I disagree.

Now, Mr Taylor, you may recall another person at an earlier time who also had to go into hiding and that was James Torh, T-O-R-H. Do you recall him?

No, I don't.

He belonged to another human rights group, Focus. Do you remember that group, Mr Taylor?

No, I don't.

And he had made critical comments of your regime and the way it was conducting the affairs of government. Do you recall that, Mr Taylor?

No, I don't.

And indeed, Mr Taylor, your government brought sedition charges against him. You do recall that, don't you?

It's possible, but I have no recollection. I am not the Minister of Justice. It very well could have been, but I'm not - it was not brought to my attention.

Now, sedition charges, those are very serious charges, are they not, Mr Taylor?

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't - I really don't know.

And such charges being made in connection with criticisms of the way your government was conducting its affairs, you would have been made aware of that, wouldn't you, Mr Taylor?

No, I didn't interfere into the courts. No.

Well, you actually did interfere with the courts, didn't you, and directed their outcomes often?

I did not. Never did.

If we could please look at tab 182 from annex 1. That would be in binder 3 under the number 82. If we could look at the top of that, please, and we see, "Rights advocates calls for disbanding ATU; goes into hiding, The Perspective, September 11, 2001". And you see, Mr Taylor, "A Liberian human rights advocate, Mr Adebayo, executive director of the Liberian Watch for Human Rights", and you see here it indicates that he called for disbanding of the notorious and infamous Anit-Terrorist Unit, referred to as ATU, and you see that BBC Focus on Africa --

Madam President?

Yes, Mr Anyah.

A brief review of the article at least to us on the Defence side of the bar suggests that it contains information that would go to the guilt of Mr Taylor. I am referring to several paragraphs detailing the ATU as a private militia for Mr Taylor, the ATU as engaging in terrorist or terrorisation of innocent civilian and the like.

We submit that this is evidence that falls within the ambit of Rule 93, evidence going to a consistent pattern of conduct supposedly taking place in Liberia that could be transferred to Sierra Leone, the allegation being that Mr Taylor acquiesced or condoned such conduct in Liberia, making it more likely the case that he did the same with respect to the rebel activities in Sierra Leone. So we object to this document being introduced at this late time and the Prosecution has the onus to satisfy your two-part test from November last. Thank you.

Ms Hollis, your response, please.

Madam President, your Honours have viewed probative of guilt very broadly; however, we suggest to you that this article and the use to which it is being put is not probative of guilt. Rather, it is impeaching this accused's testimony about the rule of law and the freedoms that existed in Liberia during his presidency and his testimony that he is here before your Honours today not because of his conduct and his choices, but because of a conspiracy against him that manifested itself in many ways.

This article clearly shows that, contrary to his testimony, Mr Taylor did not allow freedom of expression and freedom of speech during his presidency. He did not allow individuals to make comments which were critical of his presidency or of the units within his Executive branch and he took actions or his subordinates took actions to retaliate against those individuals who took such positions contrary to him. And so we suggest that this is not a document which requires the two-part test. Should your Honours determine that indeed it does, we suggest to you that you must look at the tenor of this document and the portions to which are being referred and that the tenor of this document goes to the argument I have just made, and that is the impeachment of Mr Taylor on these various grounds, and that it is in the interests of justice for your Honours to be aware of this information and also that it does not impact the rights of this accused for your Honours to be aware of this information. Thank you.

Ms Hollis, you have referred to portions of the document, but you haven't said which portions.

Well, I was unable to do that. I will tell you now what I was going to refer to if I may.

I think you should do it upfront to say, "I'm going to refer to this portion," if you are not going to use the entire document.

I will do that. The first paragraph from which I was reading I would refer to. Then the fourth paragraph. Then the second paragraph from the bottom of the page beginning, "But the fate of Adebayo". Those are the paragraphs to which I intended to refer Mr Taylor.

So to get you correctly, Ms Hollis, the first paragraph, the fourth paragraph and the second from the bottom paragraph?

Correct, Madam President.

We are of the view that paragraph 1 and paragraph 4 do not contain material that goes to proof of guilt of the accused. However, the last-but-one paragraph does contain material that could go to proof of guilt; therefore, our ruling is that the Prosecution may site and use paragraphs 1 and 4 of this document only.

Thank you, Madam President:

Mr Taylor, so if we go back to the top paragraph, the BBC Focus on Africa report on the 10th, 2001 stated that the rights group in its statement described the ATU as unconstitutional and called on President Charles Taylor to dissolve it. So, Mr Taylor, you see that this incident was also the subject of a BBC Focus on Africa report of 10 September. Now, you were aware of this Focus on Africa report, weren't you, Mr Taylor?

I was not aware of it.

And then if we look at the fourth paragraph down, it talks about a follow-up story by the BBC yesterday where the BBC said that the Liberian police authorities had launched a search for Mr Adebayo. Now, you were made aware of this --

I was not made aware of it.

-- report, weren't you, Mr Taylor?

No, I was not.

And that the search was indeed because of the statement his human rights organisation had issued and that Mr Adebayo had gone into hiding for fear in safety of his life. Now, Mr Taylor, you were made aware of this very serious incident, weren't you?

I was not made aware of it.

And you see in this report it goes on to indicate what your Liberian Police Director, Mr Mulbah, was quoted as saying, and that included that Mr Adebayo would be apprehended to answer questions, and also he would be apprehended because, in addition to his call for the dissolution for the Anti-Terrorist Unit, they wanted him to explain what he meant when he blamed the rebel war in the north of the country on your failure to restructure the Liberian army. Now, Mr Taylor, you were very aware of that serious allegation that was made, weren't you?

Counsel, with due respect, I was not aware. I was President of Liberia. I was not aware of every action the Ministry of Justice or police were taking. I was President. I was not aware of every little thing that happened in the Republic, no.

Mr Taylor, you are being blamed personally for the war in the north, according to this, because of your failure to restructure the Liberian army. So your subordinates would have made you aware of this --

That sounds like an opinion.

-- allegation. Isn't that right?

Not necessarily. That sounds like either your opinion or somebody's opinion. Why would somebody bring an opinion of somebody to me? No.

And indeed, Mr Taylor, it is because of both of these statements emanating from this group that you wanted Mr Adebayo to be arrested. Isn't that right?

That is not right.

Madam President, may I ask that you mark this for identification?

The document entitled, "The Perspective: Rights advocate calls for disbanding ATU, goes into hiding", dated September 2001 is marked MFI-404.

Thank you, Madam President:

Now, Mr Taylor, you also recall the fate of Aloysius Toe, don't you?

If I recall the fate of Aloysius Toe?

Yes.

No, I don't recall the fate of Aloysius Toe.

You knew him. He was one of Liberia's leading human rights activists, wasn't he?

Well, you have asked me two questions. If I knew him? I didn't know Aloysius Toe.

And you knew him to be one of Liberia's leading human rights activists. Isn't that correct?

No, I didn't know him to be that. I didn't know him.

Indeed, Mr Taylor, you recall that during the civil war Mr Toe led the movement for the defence of human rights, you recall that, don't you?

I don't recall.

That he was responsible for starting over one hundred human rights clubs; you recall him, do you not?

No, I don't.

And he also organised a network of volunteers in rural communities to monitor and report human rights abuses; you recall that, don't you, Mr Taylor?

No, I don't.

And also in 2001 he led non-violent protest against the murders of Liberian activists. This was a person you were well aware of. Isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

No, I am not aware. In 2001 I don't recall any protest in Monrovia on the streets - of any protests. By "protest" I mean demonstration. No, I don't recall any such thing.

And indeed, Mr Taylor, this Aloysius Toe, had been put in jail twice by your authorities. Isn't that right?

It's possible. I don't know it could have been a Justice Department action. I don't know of it.

And indeed, the first time he was put under arrest was after he had spoken out against atrocities committed by your son, isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

No, not that I know of.

And you were made well aware of those comments about atrocities committed by your son, weren't you, Mr Taylor?

Well, I don't understand the question.

You were made well aware of Mr Toe's comments about your son's atrocities, weren't you?

No.

And he was released after that first imprisonment, but he went into hiding; you remember that, don't you?

I don't remember that, if he was released. It looks like a court matter. I am not aware of it.

Indeed, Mr Taylor, after he went into hiding, soldiers actually raided his house and kidnapped his wife. You remember that, don't you, Mr Taylor?

No, I don't.

Now, that was very serious conduct. You would have been made aware of that, wouldn't you, Mr Taylor?

Well, two questions: Was that serious conduct? Yes, if it happened. Was I aware? No.

And once his wife was taken hostage at gunpoint, then he turned himself in to protect his family. You remember that, don't you?

No, I don't.

And indeed, he remained in jail until you left the presidency; isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

I am not aware of anyone called Aloysius Toe being in jail. It very well could have happened, but I was not told of it.

Madam President, if I could ask that we look at tab 136 from annex 1. That would also be in binder 2 under 36.

What is the name of the article?

It is "Peace builder profiles: Aloysius Toe, Foundation for Human Rights Democracy". It's a one-page document and it should be binder 2 of annex 1 under tab 36. It is 136 of our tabs, but since the tab numbering only goes up to 100, we started again.

It's in tab 37 in the judges' folders.

And so your Honours are aware, I am looking at the top part that identifies the title "Foundation For Human Rights and Democracy, Profile by Cate Malek, December, 2005", and then at the bottom, the bottom three paragraphs on that page. Those are the portions to which I wish to refer Mr Taylor.

Yes, Mr Anyah.

Madam President, we have an objection to a part of the three paragraphs referred to by learned counsel opposite. We have no objection to the last paragraph that begins, "Despite the dangers he has faced"; we have no objection to the third paragraph counting from the bottom that begins, "During the civil war Toe led the movement for the Defence of human rights"; but with respect to the second-to-last paragraph, there is reference there to Mr Toe having spoken out against atrocities committed by Mr Taylor's son.

We object to the inclusion of that particular phrase. There was a witness called here who testified at length and made allegations about actions taken by Mr Taylor's son, including tie-baying him - as he described the phrase and the procedure - and we think this evidence here implicates a consistent pattern of conduct and invariably implicates Mr Taylor's guilt.

Ms Hollis, what is your response?

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this language to which the Defence refers is in the context of why this man was put in jail. It does not specify what atrocities, against whom, or in what time period, and we suggest that it is too remote, even in this broad definition of probative of guilt, to fit that definition and does not require the two-prong test.

To the extent that your Honours believe that that particular language falls within probative of guilt, then what we suggest is that it is in the interest of justice to allow that language to be used, and it does not violate the accused's rights because of the context in which the language is used; and alternatively, we suggest that if your Honours believe that indeed we do not meet that test, that you simply - we simply disregard the language explaining why he was arrested the first time. But we believe it's important, again in the context of impeachment, to understand the basis for this arrest. We believe that it is remote and not probative of guilt. But the final option your Honours would have would be to disregard that particular language. But we would ask that you allow us to --

What do you mean, "disregard the language"?

That we would simply indicate that there was a first time he was arrested and you would disregard the language as to why. We don't ask you to do that, but we believe that is an option that would be available to you.

We ask that you consider all three paragraphs as they are written and, as we indicated, we do not believe that this is probative of guilt. It is too remote. If your Honours do determine that it is probative of guilt in a very broad sense, then we suggest that it is in fact in the interest of justice for your Honours to have this information and it does not violate Mr Taylor's fair trial rights.

Mr Anyah, you objected to the first of the three paragraphs alone? Or the second, the first and second?

No, just to a phrase in the second to last paragraph and this is in the context of evidence given by TF1-590 and that second to last paragraph indicates that Mr Toe was arrested after speaking out against atrocities committed by President Taylor's son.

In other words, you have no objection to the last paragraph and the third from the bottom paragraph?

That's correct, Madam President.

First of all, there is no doubt in our minds that these three paragraphs are introducing fresh evidence that was not part of the Prosecution case in chief. Having said that though, we are of the view, by a majority, that the last paragraph and the second - the third from the bottom paragraphs do not contain material that goes to the guilt of the accused and therefore can be used in cross-examination.

However, the second from the bottom paragraph does contain material that could go to proof of the guilt of the accused, in particular in proving a consistent pattern of conduct and therefore, by a majority, we disallow the use of that paragraph. The Prosecution may, however, if you wish, refer to the other two paragraphs that I have permitted you to refer to.

Thank you, Madam President:

Mr Taylor, we see here that indeed Mr Toe - we see here indeed that Mr Toe was a person who had long been involved in human rights activities in Liberia and indeed he had been responsible for starting over 100 human rights clubs. You were well aware of this person who had been so active in the field of human rights, weren't you?

Which question do you want me to answer?

You were well aware of this person who had been so active in human rights, weren't you, Mr Taylor?

I was not aware of Aloysius Toe being active. I see this thing dated 2005 after I leave office, probably written by whoever. I was not aware of any individual called Aloysius Toe that was involved in these, no.

Indeed, Mr Taylor, you would have been aware of this individual because, as you told the Court, you were very interested in protecting and promoting human rights in Liberia, so you would have been aware of this man who was so involved in that activity, wouldn't you?

No. Well, there are several questions again. You keep asking these two or three questions. But I disagree with you. Human rights clubs, I don't know what they mean. Somebody meeting in a house or a bar. I was not aware of Aloysius Toe's activities. He very well could have been but I was not aware.

And were you not aware because in fact you gave no regard to human rights activities in your country?

I disagree with your proposition.

And, Mr Taylor, if we look at the last paragraph on this page:

"Despite the dangers he has faced, Toe has remained focused on his goals. He told Reebok, 'I dream of one day being able to sleep in peace in my own home in my own country and I dream that one day we will be regarded as dignified people, as a country with direction, as a country with national spirit.'"

Mr Taylor, during the time you were President of Liberia, the population of Liberia was not regarded by you as a dignified people, was it?

Counsel, that is outrageous. I love my people more than you could ever care about them. That's outrageous. I disagree with you.

Mr Taylor, certainly human rights activists were not considered by you to be dignified people, were they?

I disagree with you.

They were considered by you to be an impediment to your ability to carry out your governance in any way you wished. Isn't that right?

I disagree with you.

And that's why you took action against them when they spoke out against your practices. Isn't that right?

I disagree with you.

And also, Mr Taylor, when you were President of Liberia, you did not regard Liberia as a country with national spirit, did you?

I disagree with you.

Indeed, Mr Taylor, when you were President of Liberia, you regarded Liberia as a country whose only spirit would be the spirit that was consistent with your wishes. Isn't that right?

I disagree with you.

Madam President, could I ask that this be marked for identification.

The document in front of us by the Foundation For Human Rights Democracy entitled "Aloysius Toe (Profile)", dated December 2005, is marked MFI-405.

Thank you:

Mr Taylor, you have told the Court about the execution of a number of your commanders during your time as leader of the NPFL. Do you recall that testimony, Mr Taylor?

Yes, I do.

And you have also told the Court that those executions were approved by you, correct?

That is correct.

And among those that you talked about having been executed were persons you said were members of Black Kadaffa. Do you remember that, Mr Taylor?

Yes.

Yegbeh Degbon was one?

Yes.

Anthony Mekunagbe was another?

No, he was not executed. I never said he was executed.

That's correct, Mr Taylor. In fact, you said that he was arrested and died in prison, correct?

That is correct.

And also you had mentioned Oliver Varney that you said was executed for being a member of Black Kadaffa, yes, Mr Taylor?

No.

Why was Oliver Varney executed, Mr Taylor?

He was involved in a plot to overthrow the government. I did not say he was - they were all a part of the group, but not because he was a member of Black Kadaffa, but because he was part of a group that planned to overthrow the leadership of the NPFL. That was the reason for the execution.

Mr Taylor, when you say they were planning to overthrow the leadership of the NPFL, they were planning to overthrow you. That's who they were planning to overthrow. Yes, Mr Taylor?

Well, I disagree. I said the leadership of the NPFL.

Now, you have talked about Sam Larto and he was in fact executed, yes?

That is correct.

And do you recall telling the judges that he was executed for two principal reasons: For the killing of some civilians in the southeastern part of Liberia?

That is correct.

And for the killing of another civilian and for stealing a television. Do you recall telling the judges that?

No. I didn't tell them as you put it. I said that the second individual that was killed by Sam Larto, that individual was accused of stealing a television, not Larto.

And then he killed that individual who was accused of stealing the television?

That is correct.

But, Mr Taylor, in fact, that is not why you had Sam Larto executed, was it?

That's - those are the reasons that Sam Larto was tried and executed.

In fact, Mr Taylor, you actually had Sam Larto executed because you also were concerned that he had connived against you. Isn't that right?

Yes. Sam Larto was a part of the group from Libya, but the main reason for his execution and trial were those two issues. He was not a part of the group that was tried for Black Kadaffa.

If we could please look at 23 September 2009, page 29476.

Your Honour, this is private session material. Perhaps I could print the page.

I would ask, Madam President, that we go very briefly into private session so I may refer to this. I don't believe that this particular information I am referring to would disclose the identity of anyone, but it is private session.

Is there some midway procedure that we could adopt, for instance by printing off a copy for the witness and not broadcasting the transcript for everybody else except for the courtroom people?

Your Honour, that is certainly possible.

Then if you would please copy off 29476 and 29477.

Ms Hollis, I am depending on you to conserve the confidentiality of the contents.

Yes:

And, Mr Taylor, I am going to ask you to direct your attention - if you look at this page, you see that toward the bottom you are discussing Sam Larto. And then if you would direct your attention to lines 25 to 29 on page 29476 and lines 1 to 3 on 29477.

Yes, I see that.

And Mr Taylor, also the first three lines on page 29477. Mr Taylor, I suggest to you that this explanation is that indeed Sam Larto was executed because he was part of Black Kadaffa?

No. I have said to you Sam Larto from the base were involved in a group, but his trial and what he was charged with was strictly for the murder of those individuals. He was not tried for being involved with Black Gaddafi, according to what was presented to the Tribunal.

And Mr Taylor, I suggest that is inconsistent with your explanation on the pages that I have just pointed out to you?

Well, we have disagreement. My understanding of this is consistent with what I have said. He was under investigation. He was - he murdered these civilians, and I say he was under investigation for some Black Kadaffa activities. But I am saying his trial that we charged him with as a government was for the murder of those people. That's consistent with what I have said.

And if those pages could please be retrieved from the accused.

Mr Taylor, throughout your time as leader of the NPFL and President of Liberia, you had executed those people that you felt were a threat to your power. Isn't that correct?

That is not correct.

And also you had executed people who failed to carry out orders or mandates you had given them; isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

Well, let's look back now. You asked me two questions. Let's let the record be clear. You said during my retirement as leader of the NPFL and President of line. Let the record be clear: There were no executions by my government as President of Liberia. As NPFL leader, there were executions. There were no executions authorised by me as President of the Republic of Liberia.

Now, Mr Taylor, in April 1990 the AFL defeated your NPFL forces around Ganta; you remember that, Mr Taylor?

I arrived in Liberia - I don't know what you mean by "defeated".

They defeated them in battle, Mr Taylor, that's what I mean?

Well, I would somewhat disagree with your proposition as put.

And you blamed the defeat on your subordinates who were in command in that area, isn't that right?

No. Guerilla warfare - Ganta fell to us. No. That's not the way we conducted our war. No, I disagree with you.

And as a result of that defeat, you summarily executed the commanders in that area by firing squad, isn't that correct, Mr Taylor?

You know, I will answer you to stop the argument. You said commanders. You haven't said who was executed, who was killed. But I don't - we never put anyone, to the best of my knowledge, in the NPFL on trial because he lost a position in battle - I disagree with you - or was pushed out of an area. I disagree with you totally.

Mr Taylor who was Cooper Teah, T-E-A-H?

Cooper Teah? In fact, Cooper Teah was not one of my commanders.

Who was Cooper Teah, Mr Taylor?

The Cooper Teah that I know was one of the exiled individuals or - in la Cote d'Ivoire. I knew him very well. I knew Cooper Teah very well. But we failed to get him to go to Libya for training. He was already a trained soldier. That's the one that I know.

Mr Taylor, he actually came into your controlled territories in Liberia with about 64 Special Forces. Isn't that right?

No, that is incorrect. 64 Special Forces? Do any of those - no. Which Special Forces? The only Special Forces I know are the ones that I carried to Libya and brought back.

And Mr Taylor, you actually had Cooper Teah executed after he came into your territory, didn't you?

No, that is not correct. You said my commanders were executed. So was he a commander of mine?

This is a different incident, Mr Taylor.

Oh, okay. Well, no, no, no, I did not have Cooper Teah executed.

And the Special Forces that he brought into the territory with him, you had those people imprisoned. Isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

No, there were no Special Forces. There were some exiled - I know you are referring to the Woweiyu story. There were some individuals that were arrested that had come in after the war started, and they were arrested and later on released, to the best of my knowledge. But they were not my commanders or didn't fight for me. By "me" I mean the NPFL.

Mr Taylor, you said counsel is referring to what story?

I said I know she's referring to the Woweiyu story. But that's totally incorrect.

Mr Taylor, who was Gabriel Kpolleh, K-P-O-L-L-E-H?

Gabriel Kpolleh was a political leader in Liberia, in fact originated from Bong County - William Gabriel Kpolleh is the actual name - that was a very well known political leader in Liberia.

Indeed, Mr Taylor, you had him killed as well, did you not?

That is not correct. That's another Woweiyu story.

And your commander Paul Vaye was involved in those killings. Isn't that right?

That is not correct.

And these killings, Cooper Teah, Gabriel Kpolleh, they were authorised by you. Isn't that right?

That is not correct.

And in addition to these two individual during this time period, and we are looking at really the summer of 1990, you had some 80 NPFL executed. Isn't that right?

That is not correct.

And you had them executed because you were concerned that they were a threat to your power within the NPFL. Isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

That is totally incorrect. All propaganda. Totally incorrect.

That's propaganda by Mr Woweiyu, Mr Taylor?

After we broke up in - after Tom Woweiyu formed a rebel group and attacked the NPFL and broke away in 1994, Tom Woweiyu made a lot of very wild accusations that later on he apologised for, I forgave him and brought him into my government. But there was just confusion between friends in 1994 when he broke away and formed a rebel group. I'm aware of the nonsense that he wrote. He subsequently apologised, and I brought him into my government. He became a senator from the NPP.

When he broke away he was able to be truthful about your conduct. Isn't that correct, Mr Taylor?

That is not correct. If not, he would not have in so many ways retracted what he said.

Mr Taylor, you were also responsible for the killing of Jackson F Doe, weren't you?

That is not correct. That's Tom Woweiyu again. That is not correct. Jackson Doe was a very well respected man.

This occurred in the summer of 1990. Isn't that correct?

That is not correct.

And, actually, Jackson F Doe had been convinced to come over into your controlled territory. Isn't that right?

I am not sure if he was convinced. That's not to my knowledge, that he was convinced to come into my controlled area.

And you in fact escorted him to Harbel. Isn't that right?

That is not correct.

And he was received at Harbel. Isn't that right?

That is not correct.

And indeed, Mr Taylor, you told Tom Woweiyu that you had Jackson Doe with you?

That is not correct. That is part of Tom's lies again. These are things that Tom has subsequently retracted, so these are - that's a lie. That's not true.

Now, at the time that Jackson Doe came to Harbel, Mr Woweiyu was in Sierra Leone as part of peace negotiations. Isn't that right?

I don't recall the time. I know he went to Sierra Leone. He very well - I don't - I can't bring the two together. Tom did go to Sierra Leone. I am not sure if this is the time that he went, so I can't be too sure of that.

Mr Taylor, when you told Mr Woweiyu that Jackson Doe was with you, you instructed Mr Woweiyu to inform Amos Sawyer, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf and the other politicians that Jackson Doe was safe. Isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

I never, quote unquote, told Mr Woweiyu no such thing. Neither did I, on the second question, instruct him to tell anybody anything.

So these are lies by Mr Woweiyu, Mr Taylor?

Well, Tom has - he retracted those and then joined my government later, so --

And Mr Taylor, when Mr Woweiyu subsequently returned to Harbel you wouldn't tell him where Jackson Doe was, would you?

I have just covered that. There was no such situation. I told you what the whole situation was, and so that's not - I disagree.

And that's because, Mr Taylor, you had had him killed by your subordinates. Isn't that right?

That is not correct.

So, Mr Woweiyu's account of this is incorrect?

He has straightened that. It's totally incorrect, and Woweiyu has dealt with that subsequently.

Mr Taylor, another person that you had killed was Moses Duopu?

That is not correct.

And that is - tell me if I spell his name correctly, Mr Taylor, D-U-O-P-U. Is that correct?

Yeah, that sound pretty good.

Now, you first served with Moses Duopu in the ULAA in the United States, yes?

Well, when you say "you first served with", you know, we served together. In fact, if anything he served with me because I held the most senior position as chairman.

And subsequently you, Moses Duopu and the person Harry Nyuan that you have talked about, you were all in Abidjan together. Isn't that right?

Yes, Moses was in Abidjan with Harry Nyuan and myself, yes.

And while in Abidjan the three of you actually broke your followers down into three groups. Isn't that right?

That is not correct.

One group that was led by you, one that was led by Mr Nyuan and one led by Moses Duopu. Isn't that correct?

That is not correct.

And indeed, Mr Taylor, even after these groups had broken down in this way, you solicited recruits by telling them that you were closely affiliated with Harry Nyuan. Isn't that right?

That is not right.

Because Harry Nyuan had a very strong following. Isn't that right?

Well, Harry Nyuan did have a strong following in the Nimba group, that is correct.

And you used that strong following as a basis for your own recruitment. Isn't that right?

No, that was not the case. I was closer to Moses Duopu because he was something like a brother-in-law to me. We were married to two sisters. We were very close. Closer to Moses than Harry. So I disagree with you.

In fact, that's correct. You weren't close to Harry but you led people to believe that you were working very closely with him. Isn't that right?

That is not right, no.

Mr Taylor, Moses Duopu was later part of the NPFL yes?

No, no. Moses was part, once you say later, Moses was part of the first NPFL with General Quiwonkpa but he was not a part of the second NPFL.

Mr Taylor, at some point Moses Duopu actually declared himself to be the Secretary-General of your NPFL. Isn't that right?

No, that's not right.

And indeed, Mr Taylor, Moses Duopu made it be known that the NPFL was actually run by an executive council, not by you individually. Isn't that right?

I have no recollection of Moses making any such statement. We separated a long time before I finally put the organisation together. So I have no recollection of Moses making any such statement. It would have been foolish because all of our actions were covert anyway so why would he make public pronouncements about an organisation we were trying to keep secret. So I disagree with that.

Your organisation wasn't secret after you had entered Liberia, was it, Mr Taylor?

After I entered Liberia it was not secret. But remember it had been in place for more than two years during our training in Libya.

Mr Duopu, also made it known that he wanted to be a candidate for President from within the NPFL. Isn't that right?

Made it known to whom? To me?

He announced it.

I never saw that announcement.

And you saw Moses Duopu as a threat to your leadership in Liberia. Isn't that right?

No, Moses and I were very, very close. I said we married two sisters. We were very close. I never saw him as a threat.

And you had him killed in June 1990. Isn't that right?

That is not correct.

Now, Mr Taylor, it's also true, is it not, that throughout your time as the leader of the NPFL you had various individuals in addition to the Black Kadaffa group killed because you saw them as threats to your power?

That's not correct. Maybe for the judges, Moses Duopu is from Nimba County. He is a Gio. 90 per cent of the Special Forces were Gio. Most of the fighters were Gio. What influence would I have to be killing senior Gio people and I am a total stranger to them? That's all a bunch of nonsense. Moses was Gio, Harry Nyuan Gio. All the names that you have called to these judges are Gio people, leaders from Nimba County that I would ask their people to go and kill them? No.

Mr Taylor, in June 1990 Moses Duopu was killed in your controlled territory in Liberia, wasn't he?

It very well could have been, but not with my instructions.

Mr Taylor, you were aware of this killing. This was a very important killing, wasn't it?

That's two things. Was I aware? No. What do you mean - I don't know what you mean by a very important killing.

He was a very important person, Moses Duopu?

Moses Duopu was a very important person, yes.

And this killing was made known to you, wasn't it?

After the fact, we were - it was reported to me about the middle of 1990 that Moses Duopu was trying to enter our territory through the bushes and was killed and that was the report that reached me and I was very saddened by it.

In fact, Mr Taylor, that report that reached you was simply to tell you that your orders had been carried out. Isn't that right?

That is not correct. I disagree with you.

During the time you were the leader of the NPFL, your commanders were very aware of the executions that were carried out against people thought to have connived against you. Isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

I don't understand the question. What's your question again?

Many people during the time you were the leader of the NPFL were killed because they were thought to have connived against you. Isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

That is not correct.

For example, the people involved in Black Kadaffa were killed because they were thought to have connived against you?

Well, not to connive against me. These were all Special Forces and they knew they had taken an oath. These people connived against the organisation, not against me per se.

And these executions were very well known within the membership of the NPFL. Isn't that right?

When you say the executions, the trial and execution if it was generally known?

Yes.

Yes.

And indeed some of your subordinate commanders were responsible for carrying out the executions. Isn't that right?

Well, I don't understand the question, but, I mean, when you say your subordinate commanders were responsible for the execution I will just say this much: Once they were tried and convicted and the execution was approved, I was not present to know who fired. But the authorisation to carry out the execution was approved by me. But I don't know the individual that stood on the firing squad, if that's your question.

Mr Taylor, your subordinates were well aware of the consequence of being suspected of conniving against you, weren't they?

No, well, that question I would say - conniving against me would be another thing. If you went against the organisation and planned to cause massive killing and to remove the leadership, of course there were rules, there were orders published and these are military people. We are not talking about civilian people. They were well aware of the rules.

Also, Mr Taylor, you had people executed for failing to obey your orders during your leadership of the NPFL. Isn't that right?

No, no, no. There was no one that I know of that was executed for, if I recollect the military term, failure to follow instruction or what you would call insubordinations. Totally that would be incorrect.

Mr Taylor, your subordinates knew that they could face execution if they failed to obey your orders. Isn't that right?

No. No individual soldier or officer in the National Patriotic Front was ever, ever even court-martialled, less to say executed, for failing to carry out my instructions. Not to my knowledge, no.

Mr Taylor, even among your civilian associates, they were very aware that it was dangerous to act contrary to your wishes. Isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

No, I disagree.

Perhaps even deadly to act contrary to your wishes. Isn't that correct?

That is not correct.

Mr Taylor, after you were President, executions of persons you perceived to be threats to your power continued. Isn't that right?

That is not correct.

For example, Mr Taylor, after you were elected President, Samuel Dokie and his family were killed. Isn't that right?

Well, let's get the question now so I don't answer you wrongly. What's your question?

After you were President, Mr Taylor, Samuel Dokie and his family were killed. Isn't that right?

After I became President, Samuel Dokie and his family were killed.

And they were killed in a very brutal fashion?

Definitely in a brutal fashion, yes.

And they were killed after having been arrested at one of your checkpoints near Gbarnga. Isn't that correct?

That's - my recollection is that that is correct.

Indeed, Mr Taylor, before this arrest, Samuel Dokie had told you he was going to leave the country. Isn't that right?

That's not correct.

And indeed, Mr Taylor, Samuel Dokie knew about your business dealings during the NPFL times. Isn't that correct?

Nonsense. No. I had no business dealing.

He knew about your alliances during the NPFL times, isn't that correct, including with the RUF?

That is not correct.

And he knew about your conduct both towards civilians and your subordinates during your time as leader of the NPFL. Isn't that correct?

That is not correct. In fact, Samuel Dokie was an adviser to my government. His wife worked for my humanitarian agencies. That is not correct.

Mr Taylor, you were concerned that once he was away from your control he would tell others about all of these matters. Isn't that right?

That is not correct.

Mr Taylor, you were also concerned that he would rally others around him to oppose your leadership. Isn't that true?

That is not true. You know it's important maybe for the judges: Samuel Dokie, Tom Woweiyu left at the same time. So there was nothing that Dokie wanted to say he could not have said. Samuel Dokie, Tom Woweiyu and Lavalie Supuwood broke away in 1994. Samuel Dokie and Tom Woweiyu and Lavalie came back. Dokie was an adviser in my government. So that's all twisted logic what you are trying to reveal here to these judges.

Now, Mr Taylor, the head of your Special Security Service admitted that he ordered the arrest of the Dokies. Isn't that right?

Yes. I was out of the country. Yes, that is correct. He subsequently said he did. I was in South Africa when Dokie was terribly killed. I was out of the country.

And the director of your SSS at the time was Benjamin Yeaten, correct?

That is correct.

And the Dokies were held in custody of your SS after they were arrested. Isn't that right?

No, not - I don't. That's not the information that I received. The information I received is quite contrary, so that is not correct to the best of my knowledge.

Mr Taylor, do you know why the Dokies were arrested?

I have no idea, because Sam was not under investigation. Subsequently we got to know it was more like a Nimba confusion and there were - I think there were individuals that were either tried for that or there were warrants for the arrest of individuals involved, but he was not under investigation so I have no reason why an adviser in the government would be arrested. I was out of the country.

Well, Mr Taylor, what do you mean by "a Nimba confusion"? What are you talking about?

Well, there were always little tribal clashes between and amongst Nimbadians and when we investigated we were told that this was an internal Nimba problem. Because he was never ordered investigated or he could not and should not have been stopped.

Mr Taylor, you say you don't know why he was arrested, but it is correct, is it not, that you ordered the Justice Ministry to have on your desk within 24 hours a full account of the situation surrounding the event of the killing of the Dokies?

Yes. When I returned from South Africa, I was very outraged by this whole thing because I understand from the report that reached me that Dokie was burnt along with his family in a car. Now here you are saying that he was arrested and kept. I learnt that he was burnt practically on - a think a few yards or about a mile away from where he was arrested. And I was so outraged, and I ordered the justice minister to get me a report immediately on what this was all about when I returned to Liberia.

And this full account, what did it tell you as to why these people were arrested in the first place?

To the best of my knowledge, remembering the report, there was not even anything definitive. It just seemed to be that it was an internal problem. But no one, including the report that came, was definitive as to why they had to kill this man.

So you wanted a full report, but you accepted a report that was not definitive?

Counsel, I don't know what you want me to say. I ordered my justice minister; he brought me a report. I am saying to the Court that even in my own understanding, the report was not as definitive as I would have wanted it. But that's what I got.

Now, Mr Taylor, was Benjamin Yeaten ever arrested for the killing of the Dokies?

No, Benjamin Yeaten was not arrested. Those that were involved, I think, were arrested. Benjamin Yeaten, I said that he had asked for Dokie to be arrested and brought to Monrovia, according to the report. And those that went to carry out, went beyond the orders, and I think those are the people that were sought.

Well, Mr Taylor, if he was arrested because of some Nimba affair, that would have been an illegal arrest, wouldn't it?

I am not going to get into - into speculations here about --

Well, Mr Taylor, you've speculated throughout your testimony.

If that's what you think, then the Court should not accept speculation, counsel. I don't want to get into an argument about that.

Mr Taylor, you would have ensured that at a minimum, Benjamin Yeaten had action taken against him for an arrest that wasn't based on the law, wouldn't you?

No, I don't even think any President, even the United States, would dictate to the Minister of Justice what to do. That's the function under our laws. If it happens in your country, it's different in my mine.

Indeed, Mr Taylor, you didn't have his arrest because he was carrying our your wishes in the killing of the Dokies, isn't that right?

I would disagree.

And the people that were put on trial were low level SSS personnel, isn't that right?

Counsel, I don't know how to categorise what you are saying. The laws of Liberia took whatever - whoever the Justice Department decided to arrest, whether they are low level, high level, that was not my preoccupation. My interest would be in the interests of justice and what the Justice Department did. I did not interfere in the process at all.

And indeed, Mr Taylor, those who were eventually arrested were actually acquitted, weren't they?

I think there was an acquittal. I am not too certain. I don't know the - you could very well be right.

And five people were actually initially arrested, but only two people were tried; that's right, isn't it, Mr Taylor?

I don't recollect the details of - you could very well be right. I don't recollect the details.

And those two people were found not guilty, isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

I have told you I don't recollect the details of the case. Who got tried, their names, what happened to them, I don't recollect the details. I know there was a court procedure, but I don't know. It very well could have been that some were convicted, but I don't know.

Mr Taylor, this very serious incident that you wanted a full accounting on your desk in 24 hours, you didn't follow what happened after these people were arrested for the murder of Sam Dokie and his family?

No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that they went to court. You are telling me that there were five. I don't recall - I think there were two that went on trial. As to whether they were convicted, or one was convicted and went to jail, I don't know, or the other three, as to whether they went to jail, I don't recall that detail.

So you didn't remain that interested in the killing of Sam Dokie and his family?

Well, counsel, I think that's - I would disagree with your proposition as you put it.

Mr Taylor, basically your orders had been carried out. They had been killed, and then there was a semblance of accountability; isn't that how it worked, Mr Taylor?

Based on your knowledge of how things work. That's not my knowledge. I disagree with you.

Mr Taylor, during your presidency you also had Isaac Vaye executed, isn't that right?

No, Issac Vaye was not executed by my orders. Vaye was an official.

And you also had John Yormie executed, isn't that right?

That is not correct.

And Benjamin Yeaten was in charge of carrying out your instructions for these killings, isn't that right?

That is not correct.

Indeed, Mr Taylor, these two men were arrested on 4 June and taken to your residence before they were killed, isn't that right?

Well, they were arrested and they did come to my residence and meet the Cabinet and other people. I did ask to see them, yes.

And then they were taken away from your residence and they were murdered; isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

Well, I don't agree as you put it: "They were taken away and they were murdered", I don't agree with how you put it. No, I disagree.

And they were murdered on the orders of Benjamin Yeaten, isn't that right?

Benjamin Yeaten subsequently said that these men were killed by his own admission. Yes, he did say that.

And Mr Taylor, he was never charged with these killings, was he?

No, not to my knowledge. Benjamin - in fact, I left the country just - the level of confusion in the country before we could really get into that, I left the country.

Mr Taylor I don't understand your answer when you said, "Benjamin Yeaten subsequently said that these men were killed by his own admission. Yes, he said that." How can people be killed by an admission?

No, the question, excuse me, your Honour, was did Benjamin say that? And I said, yes, he did say that and that was --

No. The question was, "And they were murdered on the orders of Benjamin Yeaten, isn't that right?" And your answer is: "Benjamin Yeaten subsequently said that these men were killed by his own admission. Yes, he did say that." Now, how is that an answer to the question?

Well, maybe if the sentence is just running: He was killed; and the second part of that, by his own admission. I do not know how they put the --

The question was, and still is: "And they were murdered on the orders of Benjamin Yeaten, isn't that right?" Now, I would like an answer to that question.

Yes, that's what - yes.

And Mr Taylor, before you left the country you took no action to ensure that he was charged for these murders, did you?

Well, that was not my responsibility. I think it was under investigation as I left the country.

And, Mr Taylor, indeed these men were killed on the orders of Benjamin Yeaten. He was in fact acting on your orders, isn't that right?

That is not correct. I think he would have said it, that "I killed these people because the President ordered me to." But that's not what he said.

The widows of these two men were not informed of the murders until about the 14 July, isn't that right?

I don't know the exact date. That's probably right.

Didn't you act to ensure that the widows knew the fate of their husbands?

I don't know what the President is supposed to do. I don't know how to answer that question.

Well, Mr Taylor, these two men were brought to your home; then they were taken away; they were killed. You wanted to ensure that their widows got timely notice of what had happened to them, didn't you?

That would have been of interest to me, yes. But they were killed some time after that. In fact, I didn't even know that the men had been killed until sometime later before Benjamin admitted to it, so --

Ms Hollis, when you say 14 July, that is in relation to what?

The widows being told of the killing of these two men.

The killing happened when? Have we got that on the record?

Mr Taylor, the killing happened, did it not, on 4 June, Mr Taylor?

No, not to my - I do not know when the men got killed. They got killed somewhere between June 4 and the date you called, July 5. I don't know when these men were killed.

Now, these two men were killed because you were displeased with their conduct, isn't that right?

That is not correct, no.

And this, of course, occurred after you had learned that there was an indictment against you which had been made public; yes, Mr Taylor?

That's total nonsense.

So, Mr Taylor, throughout your leadership, both the NPFL and the presidency of Liberia, you had no qualms about ordering the execution of people you felt were a threat to your power, isn't that right?

That is not correct.

Or people who had information that you were concerned they might give to the wrong people, isn't that right?

That is not correct.

Also you had no qualms about ordering the execution of people who failed to carry out your instructions?

That is not correct.

And, Mr Taylor, the treatment of your subordinates, your treatment of human rights workers, all of these things were factors that led the international community to fail to provide assistance directly to you, isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

That is not correct.

Because indeed, Mr Taylor, during your presidency, despite what you have told these judges, the only rule of law that prevailed in Liberia was the rule of law you chose to implement; isn't that right?

That is not correct.

And the only freedom of expression and freedom of speech that existed in Liberia was speech which was favourable to you, isn't that right?

That is not correct.

And you took steps to deal with those who voiced opinions that were contrary to yours, isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

That is not correct. I took every action to encourage free speech. Newspapers - the number of newspapers increased significantly during my presidency. I fully disagree with you.

Mr Taylor, we have seen during direct examination quite a few photographs of your home, White Flower. We have seen a video of your home, White Flower. Indeed, we have seen a diagram that was drawn by your Defence counsel showing the compound within which your residence was located. Yes, Mr Taylor?

Yes.

And, Mr Taylor, when we saw these photographs and we saw the video, as we were facing the front of your residence we saw a lot of photographs and video coverage of your fence on the right side of your property; do you recall, Mr Taylor?

From which direction?

Facing towards your house --

The right side.

-- looking at the front of your house, looking down?

Yes.

And the right side of your fence, Mr Taylor, was the side that you said there were some trees and then there was a road; yes?

Yes.

And, Mr Taylor, on the left side - we looked at your property from the front. On the left side, your fence along the left side, it was on the outside of that fence that the SSS building was located, yes?

That is correct.

And, Mr Taylor, in all of these photographs and the video that we saw, we didn't see a lot of coverage of that left fence line, did we?

That's relative. I don't what you - what, we didn't see a lot? I don't know what you mean by that.

For example, Mr Taylor, we didn't see the door in the left fence. The door that is located around the area where the SSS building was, we didn't see that door, did we?

No, I don't remember seeing that door.

But there is a door, isn't there, that went through that fence in the area where your SSS building was?

There is an access door, yes.

And of course there would be, because the SSS would need to have immediate access to you in an event of emergency, yes, Mr Taylor?

Well, I would say yes to that. But that's not why that door was there, if that's your question. I would say yes, but that's not - the door had access. My kitchen is located as soon as you enter that door.

Indeed, Mr Taylor, that door did give access from the SSS building into your compound. Isn't that right?

No, the way you put it I would disagree. When you say that door gave access from the SSS building, no. I would disagree with you from the SSS building. No.

What distinction are you making, Mr Taylor?

When you say from the building, that means that it could have led directly from the building inside. That is a door that was located yards away from the building.

So it was yards away from the SSS building?

That is correct.

And that door was located there throughout the time you lived in White Flower. Isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

It was constructed there, yes.

And was that part of your renovations and your construction at White Flower when you moved in there?

When I moved into that property, yes.

Mr Taylor, do you recall on 17 September you were asked a question about a Maca crossing, M-A-C-A crossing, and you indicated you had heard of Maca but you weren't sure if there was a crossing point there. Do you remember that, Mr Taylor?

That is correct.

And you said that Maca was in Grand Cape Mount County. Yes, Mr Taylor?

There were several Macas, yes. There is a Maca in Grand Cape Mount County.

And indeed, Mr Taylor, Maca, M-A-C-C-A, M-A-K-A, that's another name for a town called Mecca. Isn't that right, Mr Taylor, M-E-C-C-A?

Now wait a minute, counsel. You have talked about M-E-C-A, M-E-C-C-A and M-A-K-A. Now which - I'm confused, I don't know what you are asking me.

It is a little confusing, isn't it, Mr Taylor. The town of Mecca that appears on a lot of Liberian maps, M-E-C-C-A, you remember that town, Mr Taylor? It's a town that's located between Tubmanburg and Bong Mines?

I know of several Meccas, at least three Meccas.

And Mecca is sometimes spelled as M-A-K-A. Isn't that right, Mr Taylor, as an alternate spelling?

To be fair to you it could be but that's not how I have known it to be spelled.

And indeed also as M-E-K-A, Mr Taylor?

Counsel, the best I can help is it's possible that if it's spelled M-E-K-A people will understand it. But my knowledge of Mecca is M-E-C-C-A.

Now, Mr Taylor, do you recall we have talked about the letter from Susan Rice to General Robert Yerks. That was the September 1999 letter. Remember we talked about that Tuesday, I believe?

Yes.

And that was used and marked by your Defence counsel during your direct examination, you remember, Mr Taylor, that was MFI-105?

I remember the letter but I don't remember the MFI number. But I remember the letter.

And in that letter you recall there is a discussion of the IMF's concerns about your country and one of those concerns had to do with what they said were monopolies for rice and monopolies for petroleum. Do you remember that, Mr Taylor?

I do remember that, yes.

And they were concerned about the monopolies, yes?

That is correct.

And, Mr Taylor, indeed during the time that you were President, there was a monopoly in Liberia for petroleum and petroleum products, yes, Mr Taylor?

No.

And indeed, Mr Taylor, you made profit off this monopoly. Isn't that right?

That is not correct.

And indeed, Mr Taylor, you had reached an agreement with a certain company Basma about the import into your country of petroleum, yes, Mr Taylor?

Well, I don't know. The problem in Susan Rice's letter, there was disagreement about the issue of monopoly. Right now as Liberia sits there, the Liberian petroleum corporation enacted under the laws of Liberia as the only entity responsible for the importation of hydrocarbons in Liberia. The conflict came at the time with I think it was Mobil wanting to import outside of the law which stopped it. It was viewed by certain entities as a monopoly but it was not. That was the law. And within the LPRC as many people could order based on their acceptance of their proffer. And so we disagreed and the State Department got to understand it was not a monopoly.

And, Mr Taylor, it's correct, is it not, that during your presidency you, Belle Dunbar and Ghassan Basma and Jamal Basma entered into a contractual agreement relating to the import of fuel into the country?

That's not correct, counsel. You know when you ask a question like that it means that you've got some evidence to that. Belle Dunbar, the name you called for the judges, was the managing director of LPRC. It's an autonomous agency of government with a board of directors. The President had nothing to do directly with the operation of that entity, no. I would disagree.

Were you familiar with --

The acronym LPRC stands for?

I'm sorry, your Honour. It's Liberian Petroleum Refining Corporation. It's a public corporation.

And, Mr Taylor, this agreement gave the Basma family an exclusive five-year supply agreement for fuel into Liberia. Isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

I don't know, counsel. The LPRC is a public corporation with a board of directors. The President did not get involved. My only interest was that hydrocarbons remained on the Liberian market. That's a public corporation, separate.

Mr Taylor, as a result of this agreement Liberians paid some of the highest prices for fuel of any country in the area. Isn't that right?

That is totally incorrect. Totally. In fact we had one of the lowest. It's even higher now. No, that's incorrect.

Mr Taylor, what happened as a result of this agreement is that basically these imports were double taxed. Isn't that right?

That is not correct. If that was so then it's happening now. Right now the government under Ellen is doing the same thing. No.

And indeed, Mr Taylor, there was the official tax which is levied on the import of fuel, yes? There is an official tax which was levied on fuel, yes?

I don't know when you say - I don't really know, but there is a tax on the products in the country. Whether it is taxed while coming in, I don't know the mechanism of how it worked. But government did get taxes from sales on the ground. I don't know the exact amount, but the government did get taxes from the importation - I mean from the sale of petroleum products.

Mr Taylor, in addition to this official tax there was actually a Taylor tax, wasn't there; your tax?

No, I'm sorry, counsel, I disagree with you.

And in fact this tax was collected from Kadiatu Diarra directly from the Basma operation. Isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

That is not correct. You spoke to Kadiatu, I am sure if she had told you that you would have brought it to this Court. That's not correct.

Mr Taylor, indeed these Taylor taxes amounted to between $300,000 US and $600,000 to you each month. Isn't that right?

Well, there was no Taylor tax, so I disagree with you.

And that amount was paid in cash to you through Kadiatu Diarra. Isn't that correct?

There was no Taylor tax, so I disagree with you.

And indeed, Mr Taylor, at your direction, Kadiatu distributed these funds to the ATU, the SSS and other subordinate units of yours. Isn't that right?

I disagree with you. There was no Taylor tax.

If we could please look at MFI-365, that is S/2003/937. It should be number 29 in annex 3. MFI-365. If we could first go to the front page of the document we see "United Nations Security Council, S/2003/937, 28 October 2003". Then if you could please go to page 19 of the document, paragraph 61 under "Fuel importation" and here, Mr Taylor, in this report it indicates:

"The main reason why Liberians had paid an exorbitant $3 per gallon for fuel is an agreement between Charles Taylor, Belle Dunbar and a private entity controlled by Ghassan Basma and Jamal Basma which guaranteed Taylor a number of financial benefits."

And then it indicates that LPRC nominally sets the price of fuel and collected some gains designated as taxes. So, Mr Taylor, it is true that you had this agreement with you, Belle Dunbar and the entity controlled by Ghassan Basma and Jamal Basma during your presidency. That is correct, isn't it, Mr Taylor?

That is totally, totally irresponsible of the panel of experts and normally if the panel of exerts had an agreement they would have attached it here as an annex. This is total, total nonsense for experts. This is some of the problems that we had with them. Total nonsense. This is just hearsay or maybe gossip around. If there is an agreement, of course it would be attached.

And then if we could look at paragraph 62, please:

"Each month, Kadiatu Diarra collected additional taxes that amounted to between $300,000 and $600,000 in cash directly from the Basma operation."

Mr Taylor, this was US dollars, was it not?

I don't know what they are talking about. So I say this is irresponsible, that's why my government - most of the governments always criticise some of these so-called experts. You get into a place and you get - this is totally, totally irresponsible. I don't know what dollars they are talking about.

"On direction from Taylor she distributed those funds to ATU, SSS and other paramilitary services as salaries." That's correct, isn't it, Mr Taylor?

What is correct?

That on direction from you, she distributed those funds to ATU, SSS and other paramilitary services as salaries?

Well, to help the Court, I could just say no, but, to help the Court, Kadiatu did pay ATU, SSS, not from this tax but if I say no and later on a question could come and say, "Well, you say Kadiatu never paid the SSS." She did pay the SSS and she did pay the ATU but from different funds. The fact of this matter is one part of it is that, yes, she was involved in payments of these units. But on the other hand, it is not from this tax. It is from this bank account at LBDI that we talked about before these judges. It is from that account - those accounts that Kadiatu paid these agencies. And you know about it because you interviewed Kadiatu and she told you about it.

Mr Taylor, if we look at number 63:

"The Basma family had secured the exclusive five-year supply agreement in September 1998 against a $10 million loan payment in goods, such as cars and earth-moving equipment, to Taylor."

So, Mr Taylor, they secured this exclusive agreement against a $10 million loan payment in goods to you, isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

That is not correct.

Now, Mr Taylor, it was also a legitimate concern of IMF in regards to the rice monopoly that existed in Liberia during your presidency, isn't that correct?

As to whether it was a legitimate concern?

Yes.

I don't know as to whether it should have been a legitimate concern.

There was a rice monopoly during your presidency, wasn't there, Mr Taylor?

There was not a rice monopoly. My understanding of the word "monopoly" as I did economics is a little different. There was a rice - there was an oligopoly. There was not a monopoly.

What's that, Mr Taylor? How do you define an oligopoly?

Well, a monopoly is when you have one importer of rice. We had three. So for me, that was not a monopoly.

And, Mr Taylor, indeed, there was a monopoly that was vested in a company called Bridgeway Corporation, isn't that right?

Well, there were two questions now you are asking. And I think maybe if you broke it down, it would help the judges, because I don't want to mislead anybody.

Well --

Was there a company called Bridgeway importing rice? Yes.

And this company had a monopoly on rice importation, isn't that right, Mr Taylor?

I would disagree. No, because there were two other companies that imported rice. So I would say no.

And Bridgeway Corporation, who was that owned by, Mr Taylor?

It was owned by George Haddad, the Haddad business family.

And he was a Lebanese businessman, was he?

Yes.

Was he a Liberian citizen?

No.

And indeed, Mr Taylor, Bridgeway Corporation had the vast majority of the market share of rice that came into the country, isn't that right?

I would say yes. I would agree with that. Market share, I would agree with that.

Mr Taylor, under this agreement that allowed Bridgeway to have this vast majority of market share --

What agreement?

-- you personally benefitted, didn't you?

What agreement? Under which - you say "this agreement". Which agreement?

Your agreement to allow them to have a virtual monopoly, Mr Taylor?

Well, that's where we have disagreement. As to market share, market share has to do with another thing. When I studied economics, a market share meant the ability of an individual or a company to entrust the population to a level where they liked their products. So market shares are not given; they are earned, from when I did economics. So he had the largest market share. There was no agreement, just as the others brought in, and any Liberian that wand to import rice to apply for a licence to import it. A loft them did. Some of them brought in once or twice. But there was no monopoly and there was no agreement.

And indeed, Mr Taylor, you profited from this arrangement with Bridgeway, isn't that right?

When you say "profited", in what way?