The government of Liberia has given its official reaction to news reportedly coming out of The Hague, that former Liberian President Charles Taylor has been subjected to some rigid security measures while attending his trial.
Information Minister, Lawrence Bropleh, who spoke on the issue of the alleged maltreatment of the former President, iterated the government's position that it considered Mr. Taylor to be innocent and as such, he should be treated in keeping with international acceptable standards as a detainee of the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
Minister Bropleh who had just arrived from the country from the Dominican Republic, located in South America, told journalists yesterday at the Ministry of Information that the government's stance is that Mr. Taylor should be treated within the confines of international acceptable standards stressing that from the way the government sees it, whatever measures would be applied by the court are internationally accepted.
Addressing himself to the issue as to whether the government is concerned or worried over the issue that Mr. Taylor is allegedly being badly treated, Minister Bropleh simply said, "Government is not worried."
He added that Mr. Taylor being a former President of the country has been charged for grave crimes but he reasoned that the former President is innocent until he is found guilty.
He said the government supports the idea that Mr. Taylor gets a free and fair trial something, which he noted the government could hold the court to its feet to do.
Minister Bropleh made it clear that until then, the government cannot raise any issue as of now with the court.
Meanwhile, Minister Bropleh has spoken on the on-going truth and reconciliation hearings taking place in Monrovia.
He said it was the desire of the President and the government in general to unite the Liberian people but acknowledged that this cannot be done overnight.
Minister Bropleh said that the process of truth telling will not always lead us to true reconciliation but that it is a very important first step in the process.
He expressed the hope that those appearing before the commission would be honest in their testimonies so as to help the process.
On the issue of the President's appearance before the commission, Minister Bropleh said the President is willing and prepared to appear at the wish of the country and will give her testimonies whether in public or in camera, as the commission may deem necessary.
Comments 1 to 5 of 51 Post a comment
WAKE UP SPECIAL COURT The question in place is simply what approves a man guilty or not? Is it a libral dictatorship of ones will or an international conspiracy? I do plead to speed up the the case of Chalse Taylor people I presume will not like to hear the old story like that of Foday Sankoh or any of the leaders who played a role in the civil war in Sierra Leone. Let justice be hasten up and if the man is convicted let him face the reality of life or let him be relised. Dont waste water on the ducks back. If there is no reason of keeping Taylor let him go free instead of punishing him to death. GIVE THE CAKE OF ONE TO HIM OR COOL IT WITH SOME ICE WATER. May this be applied to Taylor. May justice be justice. SPEED UP SPECIAL COURT WE DONT WANT THE SAME OLD STORY. dont dehumanised Taylor before he is found guilty wait for the proper time. Paul Turay.
Once again the Ellen johnson's goverment is not respecting itself. This goverment sold taylor in exchange for the election.We know that George weah won the 2005 election. But because ellen was the candidate of the west, there where no stronge action or words compare to zimbabwe,and kenya.I feel so iretated when i hear the lib goverment making comments in taylor issue. Ellen should be the first to know that Sierra leone was one of the country who distroy liberia. We know that, 1985 coup was supported by their president. read this carefully:
Monrovia, August 22, 2008: A participant of the November 12, 1985 abortive invasion, Joe Wyllie told commissioners of Liberias Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) how the Government of Sierra Leone supported the insurgents to cross into Liberia.
Mr. Wyllie said then Sierra Leonean President Siaka Stevens was reportedly angry with Head of State Samuel K. Doe because Doe had a love affair with one of his young wives.
As a means to apparently get even with Doe, Wyllie said, President Stevens supported insurgents led by former commanding general Thomas Quiwonkpah to cross the Sierra Leonean frontier to topple the regime.
I think they developed some differences because of some social problems. President Siaka Stevens had a young girl by the name of Bendu or Bintu who came to visit Monrovia and I heard Doe had an affair with her,
Then opposition politician Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf would have become minister of finance if the 1985 abortive invasion had succeeded, Joe Wyllie, one of those who participated in the failed coup said.
Mr. Joe Wylie Mr. Wyllie said Madame Johnson-Sirleaf, now President was included on a list of Liberians who would have been named by the invasion leader, then Peoples Redemption Council (PRC) commanding general, the late Thomas G. Quiwonkpah to the cabinet following the success of the invasion.
Mr. Wyllie said Mrs. Johnson-Sirleaf and other prominent Liberians were instrumental in financing the failed invasion planned to oust then Master Sergeant Samuel Kanyon Doe following the holding of the 1985 general elections to abort his inauguration.
Wyllie named late commerce minister James Holder, slain civil engineer Robert Phillips, Liberia Petroleum Refinery Corporation (LPRC) managing director Harry Greaves as prominent Liberians who collaborated with Madame Johnson-Sirleaf to ensure that the invasion was implemented.
James Holder, Robert Phillips, Harry Greaves and Madame Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf herself were working 24 hours to put everything in place for the invasion, Wyllie, then deputy minister of defense in the Gyude Bryant led power sharing National Transitional Government of Liberia (NTGL) said.
Wyllie said the lives of those on the list would have been endangered if Gen. Quiwonkpah was in possession of the list during the coup. He said he was in possession of the cabinet list while Quiwonkpah was in possession of the military list.
PUBLIC SERVICE He said following the aborting of the invasion by loyalist government troops he tore the list and threw it in the Du River before going underground to escape the country.
Under the theme: Understanding the Conflict Through its Principal Events and Actors, the ongoing hearings will address the root causes of the conflict, including its military and political dimensions.
Liberians need to know that sierra leone brought this on their self.
A prudent maxim of communicative interactions is to affirm content only withing the scope of evidentiality that reasonably supports the averred or asserted content. That means or should mean in 'layman's' terms: speak appropriately!
Applying both formulations, I inqire: Sir, you affirm categorically, sans argument, relatively attested historical facts, or even informed speculation that there was "a civil war in Sierra Leone" [in my lexicon, the demo-fascist soupist occupied territory of Sierra Leone].
Please do your readers an intellectual, ethico-communicative favor, which, truth be told, is really a mandate of intellectual responsibility and intellectual rigor: PRODUCE YOUR INTERPRETATION of historically attested facts AND THEORETICAL postulates that would induce a reasonable reader to affrim to the same degree of categoricality, the same degree of unequalified assertability that your assertion that there---staying neutral now---"was a civil war in Sierra Leone."
Unless you believe, wrongheadedly, in my opinion, that your assertion is 'obvious', you are obligated to provide your readers your interpretation of the evidence on which your assertion piggybacks.
In this context, as I see it, may I remind you that it is well known in the history of "statement making" or reflective discourse that the 'obvious' is, in numerably overwhelming cases, the OPAQUE itself?
If it isnt the case of the pot calling the kettle black; Jallohlaw asking someone else to speak appropriately when the ubiquitous Jalloh himself sometimes gets lost comprehending his own writing. For all the laymen out there, this is what Jallohlaw is trying to say above: if you are going to speak, speak based on facts. Thats it, cut and dried. What can be inferred, however, from his writing above is that he thinks that there was no civil war in Sierra Leone, but an invasion by Charles Taylors forces because that country allowed Ecomogs peace keepers to use its soil to attack Liberia. For some reason, Mr. Jallohlaw believes that using long and run-on sentences and words and using phrases from other languages that somehow he is operating on a higher intellectual plane than the rest of us; which, of course, is definitely not the case. Mr. Jallohlaw is not better anyone and no one is better than him. But laymen everywhere rest assured, from now on Im going to be Mr. Jallohlaws shadow. Anywhere he pops his intellectual head on this internet I will be waiting with a sledge hammer ready to smash it. So go ahead, laypeople and have your lay discussions and leave Jallohlaw with me.
Typical 'African' big, big, talk, Herr Stalker; typical obsfuscatory verbiage, vintage modus 'African"; typical personalization of rock solid ideational problematics: alas, a typical bumbler, sadly.
Ecce Homo:
Consistently and doggedly dodging the issues crisp and clear, the self-characterized Stalker of "jallohlaw," waxes in the sewer of pandering: laymen bunkum, intellectual bunkum, and other rhetorical tropes describable, and only describable, as childish babble.
Your chest beating shall be ignored herein as the cris de couer of a cornered opponent; accordingly, I shall revert to the question posed, the question that encapsulates the substance of this exchange: PRESENT AN UNEQUIVOCAL PROPOSITION IN THE SUBJECT POSTING WHERE I OPINED ON CHARLES TAYLOR'S CULPABILITY!
Instead of doing that, instead of satisfying that easy and perspicuous directive, you recklessly and self-destructively morph from a responsbible opponent into a self-proclaimed allafrica. com stalker. Silly.
Every 'layman' following this 'thread' will note that I did attach momentous consequences---intellectual and moral---to your anticipated failure to "present the evidence."
I NOW ASSERT, following the logic of consistency, THOSE CONSEQUENCES, for you have abnegated your responsiblity as a seasoned and rational opponent.
I await your next cris de couer, which I shall crush with a tsumnami of well-deserved CORRECTIVE measures in verba expressly efficient for eviscerating intellectual juvenile tantrums.
And, unfortunately, self-proclaimed Stalker of allafrica.com, you won't find the lexeme "verbum" in Webster; you'll have to consult a Latin Lexicon. And when you do that, and your genetic habitus suggests you won't, I'll add Greek, Arabic and German lexemes to my lexicon.
Verstehen Sie?
Bring it on, dude!
See All Comments