On Thursday the supermodel Naomi Campbell testified before the special court of Sierra Leone after prosecution succeed in re-opening their case. The prosecution convinced the judges of the Special Court that the Ms Campbell evidence, along with Carol White (Ms Campbell’s former agent) and actress Mia Farrow “was unknown to the prosecution when it formally closed its case on 27 February 2009″ and relates to “a ‘central issue’ to the prosecution’s case: the accused’s possession of rough diamonds.” The prosecution accuses Charles Taylor of obtaining illegally mined diamonds in Sierra Leone from RUF rebels, smuggling them over the border in “mayonnaise jars” and arming the rebels in return. Mr Taylor has insisted in his trial that he never handled uncut diamonds, so Ms Campbell’s evidence could have given prosecutors the vital link between Mr. Taylor and the blood diamonds, Taylor’s economic control over the RUF, and helped to undermine the credibility of Mr Taylor’s entire testimony.
Did Ms Campbell admit to receiving diamonds from Mr Taylor?
Ms Campbell testified that “when I was sleeping, I had a knock on my door, I opened and two men gave me a pouch and said, ‘a gift for you’”. The supermodel told the court that the men did not introduce themselves and she did not know who they were. But accustomed to receiving gifts, she asked no questions, took the pouch and went back to bed.
It was only the next morning when Ms Campbell “told Ms. Farrow and Ms. White about the incident, and they said it must be Mr. Taylor” that Ms Campbell “thought it was”.
However, as Ms Campbell admitted this theorising was speculative, and in fact, prior to the dinner she had not know who Mr. Taylor was, “had never heard of Liberia”, and have “never heard the term blood diamonds”.
Did Ms Campbell affect the credibility of Mr. Taylor’s testimony?
Given Ms Campbell’s testimony did not effectively implicate Mr. Taylor the supermodel’s evidence should not have much bearing on Mr Taylor’s credibility. However, the supermodel’s evidence did question the credibility of prosecution witnesses Ms White and Ms Farrow, who are also due to testify this week.
Ms White and Ms Farrow are expected to say that Ms Campbell knew the diamonds were from Mr. Taylor. But under cross-examination Ms Campbell told the court that Ms Farrow and Ms White’s witness statements were wrong.
In White’s statement, she said that she was present when Ms Campbell received the diamonds, opening the door for the two men.
“I didn’t see Carole White, I saw the two men, she might have been around the corner but I did not see her,” Ms. Campbell said.
“This is a woman that has a powerful motive to lie about you,” Mr. Griffiths asked Ms. Campbell.
“I trusted her, but I no longer trust her and no longer work with her,” Ms. Campbell replied.
Reflections
So even though a few days have past since the inevitable media circus that accompanied the supermodel’s testimony, it is hard to reach a different conclusion from defence counsel Mr. Courtney Griffith who spoke only a few hours after the Ms Campbell’s testimony.
“Our view is that the prosecution scored a spectacular own goal by calling Naomi Campbell. They called a witness who denies having received diamonds from Charles Taylor. They will call two witnesses on Monday who contradict the witness they just called. It is a complete mess.”
In fact, it’s a conclusion that even appears shared by Ms Brenda Hollis, lead prosecution counsel. Why else would she tell the judges that “for all practical purposes, this witness is not a prosecution witness”?
