Interview with Stephen Rapp of the Special Court

RAPP: Well, we found bank transactions in accounts that were in his personal name and were being used for his personal purposes. There’s been a little bit of misinformation about this. We did find two accounts in the US in which there were $5 billion of activity - $5 billion US in activity - but a lot of it was money moving back and forth between the two accounts in order to maximise daily interest payments. But at least $375 million we’ve identified as moving out of those accounts into other banks in the US and elsewhere around the world, and we’re continuing a tracing exercise following those funds to the present to see how much is left. But we don’t know at this stage how much is left. Given the circumstances we believe there are going to be some assets left here that could be available to be frozen by the UN and then eventually available, if Taylor is convicted, for reparations for Sierra Leonean victims but of course to the extent assets can be traced to Liberia and to public funds in Liberia. Clearly there will be a right for Liberia to recover as well.
If we can show money being used to buy arms going to Sierra Leone, money going to the Ukraine or something, that could help our case. That’s why we’ve been looking at this for a long time. Additionally we have the right, if we obtain a conviction for the crime of pillage, to obtain a forfeiture order equal to the amount of property pillaged from Sierra Leonean victims. And we’re presenting evidence about diamond pillage, there’s a particular shipment that we’re [indistinct] a number of evidence about was taken from Johnny Paul Koroma that was about 1,900 diamonds that we think have been valued at several million dollars. If we can prove in the end of the day that Taylor pillaged diamonds from Sierra Leone we can get a forfeiture order against him.

WILLIAMS: How are you going to prove that? How are you going to determine money from Liberia, money from Sierra Leone that formed part of Taylor’s wealth? It sounds difficult, you know.

RAPP: Well, it involves the tracing exercise, and at the end of the day what I’m hoping on, and when I meet with Liberian and with Sierra Leone authorities I discuss ways that we could share the gains, so to speak. At the end of the day it may be difficult to tell whether money in an account came from Sierra Leone diamonds or whether it came from Liberian timber. There may be a case to make in both situations, and the money’s been moved around and some has been spent, and all of that. So I think in the end of the day there will be a need to work out a formula for distribution between the two countries. But the critical thing at this point is to locate the funds, because if we locate the funds we can get them frozen by the UN under the Security Council resolution.

WILLIAMS: So all what Taylor accumulated before, during and after the war is classified illegal and should be confiscated?

RAPP: Well, Global Witness has done studies in this area about money taken from various sectors of the Liberian economy during Taylor’s administration. They estimated it at least $100 million a year during his six years as president. The strongest evidence was the timber products study, the concession study that was done by the Liberian government in partnership with a number of foreign aid agencies that resulted in the end in the cancellation of all timber concessions in Liberia at that time. And that study I think came to the conclusion that at least 84 percent of the money gained from the timber industry during Taylor’s administration ended up in Taylor’s pocket, where it should have ended up in the treasury. And so that’s something that’s there, but there’s certainly evidence of other diversions of ship flag of convenience money and [indistinct] other places where Taylor might have gotten to the treasury. But that’s going to have to yet be proven. That’s not directly relevant to us in Sierra Leone except to the extent that it can be shown that that’s the source of this money...and certainly we have to recognise the Liberians have a claim to stolen assets, and you can’t use stolen assets, stolen from the people of Liberia, to compensate people in Sierra Leone. So that’s why at the end of the day I think there’ll have to be a formula or an arrangement or a negotiation.

WILLIAMS: Mr. Rapp, let’s make an assumption here. Assuming the Court does not find Mr. Taylor guilty, and now the assets of the accused are frozen, $375 million located, is it not like we are putting the cart before the horse?

RAPP: Well we have to find the assets first in order to justify what we’re doing in the Court, and so if at the end of the day we get a judgment for several million dollars which should go back to the people of Sierra Leone, it won’t do us much good unless we’ve frozen the resources. The United Nations, under Security Council resolutions, has the right - indeed the Sanctions Committee is mandated with an order to freeze Taylor’s assets, or to freeze the assets that are in the hands of third parties that came from Taylor. So that needs to be done in any case. And even if Taylor is acquitted, people in Liberia and others could have claims to get that money back based upon grounds other than war crimes. It’s not just on war crimes that you can recover money. You could recover money because it’s theft. You could recover it under a lawsuit saying that Taylor’s men had committed a particular injury to you and it would be a whole different standard. Just because we would not succeed, others could succeed in the future. But it makes sense for everyone to work together to maximise the amount of assets that are located and frozen. Once that’s done I think then we’ll move forward to share it.

WILLIAMS: And the Defence team agrees with you?

RAPP: Well, no! The Defence team obviously contests whether Taylor took money. To a large extent that’s not directly relevant in the case. What’s relevant in the case is whether he pillaged assets from Sierra Leone. They of course have pled ‘not guilty’ on that. We will have to prove that. The question of how much assets he has today, that will only become relevant to the Court once we have a conviction, if we get one, for that particular offence. Then the Court will have to determine whether an order should be entered that would allow us some of that money to be taken by the Court, sent to Sierra Leone, or it could be distributed to victims.