Why Is Howard-Taylor Fighting the Tape? | News

Former Vice President Jewel Howard Taylor’s lawyers came to the Monrovia City Court demanding access to the evidence the State says links her to an alleged international cocaine trafficking conspiracy. But when prosecutors moved to play one of the most explosive pieces of that evidence — audio recordings they claim capture Taylor discussing money, political power and protection for an alleged drug cartel — the defense fought to stop the tape from being heard.

The dramatic evidentiary battle unfolded Thursday before Magistrate Ben Barco during the preliminary examination of Taylor, as the State called its first witness, Raphael A. Wilson, acting Commissioner of the Crime Services Department of the Liberia National Police.

The proceeding is not a trial to determine Taylor’s guilt or innocence, but a preliminary examination to determine whether the State has established probable cause sufficient to send the case forward. Magistrate Barco made that distinction explicit, ruling that the Magisterial Court’s jurisdiction over offenses triable before the Circuit Court is limited and that “the purpose of Preliminary Examination is to determine Probable Cause and not to determine guilt of the defendant.” At this stage, prosecutors are presenting witnesses and evidence to establish that threshold, while the defense is entitled to challenge and cross-examine the State’s witnesses. If probable cause is established, Taylor would be held to answer before the Circuit Court, where the charges would ultimately be tried; if it is not, the law cited during the proceeding provides that she should be discharged.

Wilson, who said he supervised the investigative team, delivered sweeping allegations about Taylor’s purported relationship with individuals investigators describe as members of an international cocaine cartel. 

His testimony included allegations about meetings in Liberia and Dubai, money allegedly received by Taylor and, most significantly, WhatsApp messages and audio recordings investigators say were extracted from a cellphone voluntarily surrendered by Sheikh Bashiru Kante, one of the alleged co-conspirators.

The recordings have not yet been played in court.

That distinction is critical because some of the most sensational allegations to emerge from Thursday’s hearing are, so far, Wilson’s description of what investigators say the recordings contain — not words independently heard from the recordings by the court or the public.

Wilson testified that after Kante was confronted by investigators over his alleged involvement in the drug trafficking operation, he offered to cooperate and subsequently surrendered his cellphone.

“I will prove and will surrender my cell phone to the investigation and when you check therein, you know,” Wilson quoted Kante as telling investigators.

Wilson said analysis of the phone uncovered text messages between Kante and Taylor as well as audio recordings.

“In that audio, you will also hear saying that when the support is given to them by Nicolas who is the head of the Drugs Cartel and they shall have won the election, the guys will be given a free way to operate their cocaine business,” Wilson testified.

He further alleged that another recording contains Taylor requesting US$60,000 through Kante from Nicolas Ivancic, whom investigators describe as the leader of the alleged cartel.

Wilson testified that after Kante allegedly informed Taylor that Ivancic and his associates had suffered a “big blow” following a cocaine seizure in Liberia, the amount under discussion was reduced. He further testified that US$15,000 was eventually sent, with Kante allegedly retaining US$5,000.

According to Wilson, Taylor subsequently made a voice recording acknowledging the money for transmission back to Ivancic.

The witness also made an extraordinary allegation concerning former President George Weah.

Wilson told the court that one of the recordings allegedly contains Taylor saying that after taking power, “they will assassinate President Weah and Grand Kru people will take their body.”

None of those alleged statements has yet been independently heard in open court.

Defense Challenges Electronic Evidence

Taylor’s lawyers began challenging the electronic evidence before prosecutors ever sought to play the audio.

When the prosecution introduced transcripts of alleged text messages between Taylor and Kante, the defense objected on several grounds, telling the court: “Unconstitutional evasion of privacy consistent with Article 16, exclusionary rules consistent with article 21(h) of the Constitution of Liberia, failure of authentication, and hearsay evidence.”

Magistrate Barco rejected the objection, citing precedent which the court said established that evidence received during covert operations could be admissible. He ordered the four-page document marked as prosecution exhibit P/2. The defense noted its exception to the ruling.

But the confrontation over the actual recordings came near the end of Thursday’s proceeding.

Prosecutors asked Wilson whether he would be able to identify the audio extractions if he heard them.

The defense objected: “Not the best evidence, hearsay.”

The court overruled that objection.

Wilson responded that he had already testified about voluntary conversations between Taylor and Kante and again referred to the alleged statement concerning Weah.

“If you were to play those audio I will confirm,” Wilson told the court.

The prosecution then made its move:

“By kind permission of court, prosecution requests court to allow its audio evidence to be played.”

This time, Taylor’s lawyers mounted a broader challenge:

“Objection: Not the best evidence, hearsay, unconstitutional, proper foundation for the chain of custody.”

Magistrate Barco did not immediately rule.

After allowing two minutes of argument from each side, beginning with the defense, the court adjourned the proceeding until Monday.

“Because this Court is to make a decision backed by law, this proceeding is hereby adjourned to resume on Monday next at the hour of 10:00am,” Barco ruled.

The ruling, scheduled for Monday, September 7, could determine whether one of the State’s most consequential pieces of alleged evidence against the former Vice President will actually be heard in the courtroom.

From Demanding Evidence to Fighting Its Admission

The dispute is made more striking by what happened earlier in the same proceeding.

Taylor’s defense complained that since her arrest and detention, it had sought access to evidence the State intended to use to establish probable cause.

The defense specifically referenced witnesses, cellphone records, banking transactions and other materials and asked Magistrate Barco to order prosecutors to provide “all of the species of evidence” they intended to rely upon during the preliminary examination.

Prosecutors resisted the request, arguing that Liberia’s Criminal Procedure Law does not require the State to surrender all its evidence to the defense at the preliminary examination stage.

Barco agreed.

The magistrate ruled that the purpose of the proceeding is not to determine Taylor’s guilt or innocence, but whether the State has established probable cause sufficient to send the matter forward for trial before the Circuit Court.

The defense excepted the discovery portion of the ruling.

Hours later, however, the courtroom dispute had shifted dramatically: prosecutors were seeking permission to play alleged audio evidence, while the defense was challenging its admission.

The objection does not establish that the recordings are genuine, nor does the defense’s attempt to exclude them constitute evidence of Taylor’s guilt. Questions surrounding authentication, constitutionality and chain of custody are legitimate evidentiary issues, particularly where electronic recordings could become central to a criminal prosecution.

But the prosecution has now placed extraordinary allegations on the record.

Wilson has told the court what investigators say Taylor said. Prosecutors have told the court they possess the recordings. And they have formally asked Magistrate Barco for permission to play them.

The question confronting the Monrovia City Court Monday is therefore no longer merely what investigators say is on the tape.

It is whether the State can satisfy the court that the recordings are legally admissible — and, if Magistrate Barco says yes, whether what the courtroom actually hears supports the explosive account the prosecution’s first witness has placed on the record.