Madam President, I object to this second document in its entirety, including the first two paragraphs. The first paragraph on its face is just an introductory paragraph, but the second paragraph certainly is problematic. The title of the document alone, as counsel has alluded to, is titled: "Liberia: TRC's economic criminals." We see in the second paragraph allegations of economic crimes including tax evasion, bribery, telecommunications fraud. We see names provided and an indication that those names are two of Mr Taylor's financial advisers. Your Honours have issued a decision from last November, 30 November 2009, that deals with fresh evidence after the closure of the Prosecution's case and its use or admissibility in court. A standard is enunciated in that document regarding fresh evidence that might be probative of the guilt of the accused. They have to show that it's in the interests of justice. They also have to show that they do not in any way vitiate or undercut the fair trial rights of Mr Taylor. The decision is CMS 865. The relevant paragraphs to which I'm alluding to are, in particular, paragraph 27.
Now, the Prosecution brings this document which in its entirety when you consider some of the allegations, this document goes directly to the guilt of Mr Taylor. And even if you exclude the paragraphs they do not wish to use and you look at the second paragraph, given cross-examination of Mr Taylor undertaken, in part by counsel opposite here present, dealing with alleged financial irregularities and the like, to use this witness, who comes here to identify her telephone number and its relationship to this case as the medium or vehicle through which this type of information should be brought before your Honours, we say is improper. And the Prosecution has not shown, with respect to the second paragraph, that the standard enunciated in your decision is met.
And even with respect to the first paragraph, you will note that it says that the individuals listed and institutions were guilty of economic crimes, that being a conclusion of the TRC. So already the first paragraph is suggesting that the names that appear below - and there is a colon indicating that excerpts follow from the TRC's finding - the first paragraph, even though introductory in nature, is suggesting that the names that follow are implicated in economic crimes, and then there is the association with Mr Taylor and his financial advisers allegedly that are named here.
So the Prosecution has to satisfy your decision of 30 November. That is the basis of my objection to the second document and the two paragraphs in question.
I see that the time is up, but I make the objection nonetheless.
And with respect to the first document, a question arises about the fairness of putting this document before this witness. The witness does not work for Lonestar. The witness has testified in detail what recollection she has about the time Lonestar started its operations, and her answer is crystal clear on the record that she's not 100 per cent certain. So what is the purpose of putting this document if not to confound and confuse the witness? Indeed, I object to both documents.