Charles Taylor's lead counsel in his war crimes trial in The Hague has stormed out of court after angry exchanges with the judges, later accusing them of having made up their minds about his client's guilt before the hearing began.
London barrister Courtenay Griffiths, who represents Taylor, walked out of proceedings after judges refused to accept a written summary of the ex-Liberian president's defence at the end of his trial.
Griffiths defied judges' orders to stay in court, saying his actions were a protest at the court's conduct since the Guardian published a story based on WikiLeaks cables in December, which he believed revealed a witch-hunt against Taylor.
"I have been led to believe that some of the judges might have made their minds up a long time ago, even before proceedings begun," Griffiths told the Guardian.
"I cannot allow myself to be used to give credibility for a totally unfair set of circumstances. This is not a question of personal anger, it is a point of principle. This is not how a criminal trial – particularly one of this gravity – should be run."
The row stems from an article published in the Guardian in December which revealed the US government's determination to see Taylor convicted.
Cables from the US embassy in the Hague stated that the US government wanted "to see Taylor is put away for a long time", and would consider putting him on trial in the US if he were acquitted in the current proceedings.
In December Taylor's defence team filed a motion stating that the cables revealed political interference in the court.
"The cables clearly indicate the US government's desire to ensure that Mr Taylor not return to Liberia and proof that there is and have been contacts between the [court] and the US government outside the official lines of communication," the motion states. "This … raises serious doubts about the independence and… impartiality of the Special Court's prosecution of Taylor."
Griffiths says that the court's failure to deliver a ruling on the motion resulted in a delay to the defence filing its final brief, which was submitted 20 days late.
On Monday, the three-judge panel decided to reject the brief, with the only African judge dissenting.
This morning, Griffiths walked out, arguing that the court's decision to reject his brief was unfair. "Against the interests of justice, the court is not going to look at our closing brief, even thought they have got it," said Griffiths.
"I'm not going to sit in court listening to arguments from the other side pretending that two of three judges are listening when they are not even going to look at submissions in front. What's the point of me wasting my breath in court?"
Asked what would happen now, Griffiths said he would appeal against the decision immediately, but would not be returning to court. "I'm certainly not going to court tomorrow," Griffiths said.
"If the current temper is anything to go by, they will hold me in contempt. I'll have to do my best to resist it."
The debacle is the latest in a series of dramatic events at the trial of Taylor, the first former African head of state to be tried by an international court.
Last year the model Naomi Campbell was summoned to give evidence at the court, amid allegations that she had received a "blood diamond" from the former Liberian leader, which prosecutors said proved Taylor's connection to the conflict in neighbouring Sierra Leone.
Taylor, who has pleaded not guilty to 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity including murder, torture and using child soldiers, has cast himself as a statesman who tried to pacify west Africa.
The former president boycotted the opening of his trial in June 2007 and fired his initial defence team, saying he had not had enough time to prepare his defence. He is understood to have agreed to Griffiths's decision to walk out of the proceedings. However prosecutors criticised the move.
"The accused is not attending a social event. He may not RSVP at the last minute," said Brenda Hollis, prosecuting. "He is the accused at a criminal proceeding."
