U.C. Berkeley War Crimes Studies Center Sierra Leone Trial Monitoring Program Weekly Report

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 9 U.C. Berkeley War Crimes Studies Center Sierra Leone Trial Monitoring Program Weekly Report Special Court Monitoring Program Update #22 Trial Chamber I - CDF Trial 18 February 2005 by Sara Kendall, Senior Researcher Witness Profiles Testimony of Witness TF2-035 regarding looting and killings in Tongo Testimony of Witness TF2-001 regarding killings in Bo Procedural aspects of closed session testimony Testimony of Insider Witness TF2-222 regarding the CDF War Council Testimony of Witness TF2-027 regarding killings in Tongo The chamber heard from five more witnesses in the CDF trial this week, three crime base witnesses and two insiders, bringing the total number of witnesses heard thus far in the prosecution s case to 47. Alleged targeting of suspected AFRC and RUF collaborators was an important theme at trial this week: two of the Tongo crime base witnesses testified about targeted killings of civilians from particular tribes, and a third gave evidence about unlawful killings of police officers during the February 1998 invasion of Bo. Since the court ruled that hearing his testimony in public might reveal his identity, one insider witness was the first to testify in closed session during the fourth CDF trial period. Another insider witness gave evidence regarding his position as secretary of the CDF war council, and he testified with the standard protective measures in place. Corroborating evidence given by war council insider TF2-008 during the third trial session, this witness indicated that the three accused had greater authority within the CDF command structure than the war council. The prosecution s case appears to be on track to rest within the next trial session. The prosecution has cut back considerably on the number of closed session applications it has brought, and the chamber as a whole appears to be working on ways of hearing testimony without going into closed session, including entering names and places into evidence through submitting written exhibits rather than orally. Although the first and second accused are still refusing to attend trial, third accused Allieu Kondewa made an appearance in the courtroom on both Monday and Tuesday of this past week. Witness profiles Witness TF Witness TF2-035 is the 43rd witness called by the prosecution. He is 45 years old and was born in Kabala in the Koinadugu District. He currently resides in Tongo Field. He is a farmer with two wives and five children, and he did not attend school. He testified in Krio. Witness TF Witness TF2-001 is 47 years old and was born in the Bo District. He is a police officer, and he works in the criminal investigations department. He has been a member of the

2 Page 2 of 9 police for 27 years and has worked as an investigator for 12 years. He is married with 11 children. He testified in Krio. Witness TF Insider witness TF2-005 was a member of the CDF leadership structure. The entirety of his testimony was delivered in closed session to ensure that his identity would not be disclosed, as he was well known due to the positions he held in his community. He testified in English. Witness TF Insider witness TF2-222 is 53 years old and was born in Segbwema in the Kailaun District. He functioned as the secretary of the CDF war council in late 1997 and early He works as a teacher and a farmer, and he is married with five children. He speaks Krio and English, and he testified in English. Witness TF Witness TF2-027 is the 47 th witness called by the prosecution. He is 53 years old and was born in Kandeyama village in the Bo District. He currently resides in Tongo Field. He is a miner and a farmer, and he has two wives and 13 children. He speaks Mende and Krio, and he testified in Krio. Testimony of Witness TF2-035 regarding lootings and killings in Tongo Testimony from Witness TF2-035 built upon previous evidence heard last week concerning alleged Kamajor attacks in Tongo Field. The witness s testimony focused on three main events: the looting of civilian property by Kamajors in Tongo, unlawful killings of approximately 150 people selected by tribal affiliation at a Kamajor checkpoint, and the witness s own injuries sustained when he was shot by a young boy under orders from a Kamajor commander. Although there are no charges of genocide brought in the Special Court, according to this witness tribal affiliations played a role in the selection of Kamajor victims [1]. The witness testified that Kamajors were present in Tongo Field following the overthrow of the Kabbah regime in May 1997, but the AFRC juntas entered Tongo approximately two months later and the Kamajors fled to the bush. They subsequently launched a counter-attack on the juntas during the dry season. The witness fled for Kenema with other civilians during the attack, but they were stopped at an AFRC checkpoint along the way. While the group of over one thousand civilians was waiting at the checkpoint, the AFRC soldiers fled as the Kamajors arrived. Commander Keikula Kamagboty instructed the civilians to go to Panguma, but as the group reached Telama they were stopped and their property was searched. Kamajors confiscated civilian property and instructed the group to stand up and form two lines according to their tribal affiliations. The witness did not stand up, and when he was asked for his tribe, he lied and stated that he was Madingo. According to the witness, Limbas, Temnes and Lokos formed one line of approximately 150 men, and they were taken a short distance away. The Kamajor commander passed an order that they should be killed, and the witness alleged that a group of approximately 30 Kamajors hacked them to death with cutlasses. One man s stomach was slit and his entrails were placed in a bucket. The remaining civilians were escorted to the hospital in Panguma. Upon their arrival, overall commander BJK Sei wrote a letter that he subsequently read aloud to the crowd. The letter allegedly stated that the Kamajors would try to capture Tongo again, and they would kill everyone they found there. Sei gave the letter to the imam of Tongo Field and instructed him to deliver it to Tongo. This detail bears upon allegations that Kamajors identified suspected collaborators based upon the location of civilians: occupants of suspected RUF/AFRC strongholds were deemed collaborators and targeted as enemies of the CDF. The witness stated that he was recognized by another Kamajor commanding officer, who asked BJK Sei to allow the witness to leave Panguma in his company. The witness stated that he knew

3 Page 3 of 9 this officer, and they departed together for the village of Kuthuma. While later in Ngiehun in the company of this commander, the witness was approached by Commander Kamagboty and asked if he was the same man who had been captured in Tongo. The witness said that he was, and he responded that he was Limba when he was asked for his tribal affiliation. Commander Kamagboty turned the witness over to a young boy who he referred to as Small Hunter, and he gave the boy a bullet and ordered him to kill the witness. The boy took the witness a short distance away and shot him in his shoulder; although he was injured, the witness subsequently escaped into the bush. He managed to bind himself enough to stop the bleeding and return to Tongo. The witness claims that he still has a bullet lodged in his body, and at the close of his testimony the witness showed a number of scars on his shoulder to both the prosecution and the defense. Defense counsel attempted to establish discrepancies between the witness s written statements to investigators and his viva voce testimony. In particular, counsel drew from an investigator s statement to contest the witness s claim that he had lied about his tribal affiliation by reading from the statement that I was lucky as nobody asked me for my tribe. The witness denied that he said this, which precipitated an exchange between the bench and defense counsel regarding what course of action to take when a witness has denied making a claim which appears in a signed or thumb-printed statement. The bench concluded that it will not call the investigators in to court each time this situation arises, but it will allow statements to be admitted into evidence for the purpose of establishing a discrepancy. Identity disclosure and interventions during cross-examination Protective measures were inadvertently breached this past week when a prosecutor disclosed a witness s last name during direct examination. At one point during the course of his testimony, the witness spoke about himself in the third person using his last name. The prosecutor asked the witness to tell the court who the witness was referring to, and the witness responded myself. As a result of this, the witness s last name was established publicly. Defense counsel for the third accused interjected that there were protective measures for the witness, and the bench reminded the prosecutor to proceed with caution. The bench appears to be continuing to intervene more actively in cross-examination of victim witnesses. With this witness, counsel for first accused expressed disbelief that whilst in fear for your life, Mr. Witness, you had time to watch the killing of these 150 civilians. As has become a fairly regular tactic of cross-examination with some of the defense counsel, counsel for the first accused further alleged that the witness was not telling the truth to the tribunal; Judge Thompson intervened and stated that he ought not make blanket allegations about the entirety of the witness s testimony. Judge Boutet also expressed concern with the breadth of counsel s allegation, and he asked counsel if he was suggesting that the witness had not been injured. When counsel clarified that he believed the witness was lying about his injury, the witness responded I would like you to come and look at my body; that is proof. Counsel for the second accused was concerned with determining whether there was any information about the killings in Tongo Field that had appeared in the local press, or whether any of the residents of Tongo Field spoke about the killings, and in the course of his cross-examination he stated I am trying to understand why there have been no memorial services in town, why never anybody speaks about this. Judge Boutet apparently found this statement argumentative, and he noted that it is fine to ask questions, but I don t think you should be arguing with the witness. The witness appeared to take matters into his own hands when there was some confusion regarding how he could have been shot multiple times with one bullet; he addressed the chamber by stating that all of you understand what a cartridge gun is; you just want to disturb me. Testimony of Witness TF2-001 regarding killings in Bo

4 Page 4 of 9 Testimony moved from the November 1997 invasion in Tongo to events which allegedly transpired in Bo in February of Last week the court heard testimony regarding alleged attacks on civilians in Bo when Witness TF2-006 gave evidence about the amputation of his fingers by a group of Kamajors. Witness TF2-001 focused on the specific targeting of police officers during the Bo attack. Additional testimony from this witness concerned alleged looting, mistreatment of civilians, and unlawful killings. The witness was a police officer in Bo, and he worked in the Criminal Investigations Division. When he reported for duty on 15 February 1998, he heard that the juntas had apparently withdrawn from Bo town and their whereabouts were unknown. He was instructed to go to the brigade headquarters to investigate, and upon arriving there he noted that all of the junta soldiers had disappeared. When he returned to the police station he was informed that the Kamajors were en route to Bo, and he was instructed to take down the names of Kamajors as they entered the town. The witness estimated that approximately 2,000 Kamajors came from the Kenema direction and were registered at the eastern police station where the witness was posted; the police headquarters registered an additional 15,000 Kamajors. Upon arriving in Bo, the Kamajors asked the police to turn over their ammunition. After one police officer was beaten by the Kamajors when he could not supply them with ammunition, the witness left for his house. The witness stated that when he returned to his house he discovered two groups of Kamajors stealing his property. When he told them to stop, they struck him with a gun and threatened to kill him. The witness later saw a group of Kamajors shoot and kill his friend Freeman, who was also in the Bo police. The witness fled to the bush after the killing, and he returned to town the following day to search for his family. That day from his veranda he witnessed the Kamajors hack a police sub-inspector to death approximately two hundred yards away from him, and he fled his house when he heard that the Kamajors knew a police officer was living there. He narrowly escaped several encounters with Kamajors and fled to the bush, where they searched for him for some time before eventually retreating. The witness joined a crowd of people heading in the direction of Kenema, but he was stopped at a checkpoint entering Fobu village. A man at the checkpoint accused him of being a soldier, and he was taken to the back of a house, where he was told to remove his clothing and lie on the ground with four other individuals. The witness and the other two men and women were accused of being soldiers, and the Kamajors joked that they should teach them how to parade. During this parade the group of Kamajors allegedly walked over the stomachs of the five people while they were lying on the ground, and when one woman sat up in pain, she was shot at close range and taken away behind the house. The witness testified that he later saw one of the Kamajors carrying what appeared to be the woman s heart in the palm of his hand. The witness was released some hours later after another group of Kamajor led by his brother approached. His brother verified that the witness was not a soldier, and he told him to go to Ngelahun to avoid further harassment, where the witness remained for two months. He returned to Bo town in April, and shortly thereafter he was ordered by the chief of police to participate in a police parade. The parade was attended by a number of Kamajor leaders, including all three accused. The witness stated that after the chief of police reported the number of remaining officers in Bo to Chief Hinga Norman, Norman stated that he had been deceived: he had heard that all of the policemen in Bo had been killed and their barracks had been burned, and yet there were still 150 of them parading. The witness stated that the police officers dispersed in anger when they heard that Norman had wanted them to be killed. Under counts one and two of the indictment, the prosecution charges the accused with responsibility for the unlawful killings of Sierra Leone police officers on or about 15 February 1998, at or near Kenema. [2]The evidence given by this witness began with events which transpired on 15 February 1998, and while the indictment does not specifically mention the targeting of police officers in Bo town, it is likely that this witness s testimony is meant to support

5 Page 5 of 9 allegations regarding broader targeting of suspected collaborators, including members of the Sierra Leonean police. Procedural aspects of closed session testimony The 45th witness of the prosecution, a CDF insider, was heard entirely in closed session. By order of the court, monitors are restricted to reporting solely on the procedural aspects of closed session testimony without addressing the substance. Two noteworthy procedural developments include i) the defense s attempt to challenge the application for closed session on the grounds that the security situation had changed in Sierra Leone, and ii) the status of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report as aid for cross-examination. The fact that the Presiding Judge advised the public gallery to stay out for the rest of the day when the prosecution announced its application could be read as if a decision in support of that application had already been made; however, the Presiding Judge added that he did not think it would be appropriate to ask the gallery to leave and return if the bench could not guarantee that the court would be resuming in open session. Procedure for closed session applications is still unsettled, and the court is still attempting to strike a balance between public involvement and judicial expediency. Although Judge Boutet had stated at the status conference that applications for closed sessions should be made in open session to whatever extent possible, the court moved into closed session to consider the prosecution s application. Counsel for the first accused opposed the application, stating that the situation in Sierra Leone has changed since the Court granted the prosecution s motion regarding protective measures in June [3]. In particular, counsel argued that there was improved security in Sierra Leone in addition to a functioning police force, and there was no evidence thus far that a court witness s physical safety has been threatened. Building on this argument, counsel for the second accused noted that a prominent insider had chosen to testify publicly the previous week in open court [4]. He added that his team relies heavily on its defense investigator, whose exclusion from closed session could potentially compromise their defense. Finally, counsel argued that none of the three conditions of Rule 79 (A) governing closed sessions had been met in this case [5]. Counsel for the third accused reiterated this argument about Rule 79 (A), which was discussed in greater detail in the prosecution s response. Regarding the charge by counsel for the first accused that no witnesses have yet suffered any harm, the prosecution responded that the court ought not wait for a witness s security to be breached before it reacts. This statement appeared to be in line with a November ruling rejecting efforts by the defense to modify protective measures, in which the bench noted that it may well be that witnesses have been free from retaliation due to the mechanism of protective measures. [6]The prosecution also engaged in a close reading of Rule 79(A), noting that the disjunctive or requires only one of the three conditions to be met, and the instant case fell under the second condition of protecting the privacy of persons, as in cases of sexual offences or cases involving minors. The prosecution argued further that cases of sexual offences and minors served merely as examples of instances where privacy should be protected, and the category should be construed broadly to include the case at issue. The chamber returned briefly to open session to announce the reasons for its ruling in public, as is required under Rule 79(B). No members of the public were present for the ruling. The bench ruled unanimously in favor of the prosecution, stating that the witness was well-known due to positions he held in his community, and if his evidence was heard publicly it could compromise his own safety and the safety of his family. Presiding Judge Itoe added that the investigator for the second defense team would be precluded from attending closed session until the pending motion filed by defense teams on this matter had been decided [7].

6 Page 6 of 9 During closed session the court further addressed the issue of introducing findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as an aid for cross-examination. This issue was fairly contentious given the complex relationship between the Court and the TRC, and both the bench and the prosecution noted that it is not the role of the court or of the witness to assess the findings of the TRC [8]. However, defense counsel for the second accused was ultimately permitted to read a portion of the report into the court record and asked whether the witness agreed with it. Testimony of Witness TF2-222 regarding the CDF War Council The 46th witness of the prosecution was a 53 year old farmer and teacher from the Kailahun district. His testimony centered in particular on the establishment of the CDF war council and his brief role as its secretary. As with previous witnesses from the war council, this witness stressed that the accused were not answerable to the war council, and his testimony particularly highlighted first accused Sam Hinga Norman s authority in making command decisions. The witness testified that he was in church in Daru on 25 May 1997, the day of the AFRC takeover. The congregation heard gunshots in the town, and when the witness went to check his house he found that his kitchen had been destroyed, and his house was surrounded by SLA soldiers who accused him of mocking them in a satirical play he had written about the conflict in Sierra Leone. Approximately one month later he went with his wife to Jojoima, also in the Kailahun district. Some RUF soldiers approached him while he was there and informed him that Sam Mosquito Bockarie wanted to see him. The witness had taught Bockarie in school, and Bockarie was allegedly interested in recruiting the witness to join his government. The witness told the RUF soldiers that he would come the following day, but he escaped and fled to Liberia in late September of 1997, where he met General Mohamed Wan of ECOMOG. Approximately one month later he met first accused Sam Hinga Norman while staying at Ricks Institute outside of Monrovia. The witness stated that Norman was there in an effort to bring together Sierra Leoneans who wanted to gang up and get rid of the carnage in the country ; the witness expressed interest in helping him, and in November they traveled together by helicopter to Base Zero. In the end of November he was initiated into the Kamajor society by third accused Allieu Kondewa; he elaborated that he wanted to fight and he could not attend meetings at the base if he was not initiated. Command structure and the CDF War Council Significantly, the witness stated that the organization at that time did not seem to have an effective command and control: everybody was a commander. Even the initiators served as commanders. He elaborated that he was surprised to find that despite Moinina Fofana s title, the Director of War was more concerned with logistical issues than with troop deployment. Corroborating testimony from Bobor Tucker last week about Kondewa s involvement in directing attacks, the witness stated that Kondewa deployed troops to Koribondo and other locations. He further stated that people who could command ten or fifteen men would deploy them where they wanted to. In response to this disarray, the witness stated that he and a number of others proposed the idea of a war council to Chief Hinga Norman. According to the witness, the proposal for the war council submitted to Norman described it as a committee that would ensure that there was proper command and control rather than random operations. The war council was composed of chairman William Quee, vice chairman Alhaji Daramy Rogers, Norman as the consultant and resource person, George Jambawai and Vandy Soka representing the east, M.S. Dumbuya representing the north, Tejan Sankoh and Charles Corker representing the south, and the witness himself as the secretary, with the assistance of Hashim Kallon. Norman himself directly appointed three additional people, who had occupied their posts before the war council was established: Moinina Fofana as the Director of War, Allieu Kondewa as the High Priest, and Francis Lumeh as the Director of Logistics.

7 Page 7 of 9 The witness remained in Talia until March of 1998, and the war council was dissolved in April. Under cross-examination he stated that he had acted as secretary for about three weeks. His role included taking minutes of the meetings and sending the completed minutes to Norman. According to the witness, he recommended that the CDF structure should include an initiators wing, a fighting wing, and an administrative wing, but such proposals were rejected by Norman. The council did not have the effect envisioned by its members: the witness claimed that no real authority was vested in the war council. The witness stated that he thought Norman was not interested in having an effective structure put in place, and he noted that proposals made by the council to Norman were thwarted or sidelined. Operation Black December The witness was present for a planning meeting around the 10 th of December in 1997 concerning the launch of Operation Black December, where Kamajors blocked major roads in the southern and eastern provinces. Norman announced that people who had not moved away from RUF strongholds would have to be prepared to suffer. If they were found in RUF strongholds, people would be treated as juntas or collaborators. Corroborating evidence from Bobor Tucker and others, the witness noted that Vanjawai was taken to Base Zero by the Death Squad, and he stated during cross-examination that he had later learned that Vanjawai underwent a trial, though he did not know the details. During cross-examination the witness also clarified that the planning meeting for Operation Black December was the only meeting he attended: members from the war council were generally excluded from meetings where instructions and strategy briefings were given to commanders. Tongo operation: intent to kill captured enemy combatants The witness further testified regarding remarks allegedly made by Norman regarding the strategy of the CDF. According to the witness, Norman stated that the outcome of the Kamajor attack on Tongo would determine who would win the war., and he additionally remarked that there was no place to keep captured enemies or collaborators. The witness paraphrased Norman s address roughly as follows: the international community is condemning human rights abuses, and the fighters should take care of human left abuses. Norman elaborated that any captured junta should have his left hand chopped off instead of wasting a bullet, which he explained would send a signal to any group that would want to seize power through the barrel of a gun. Norman further instructed that no houses of the juntas should be spared, and Fofana allegedly stated that any commander failing to perform accordingly should kill himself. Kondewa allegedly remarked that a rebel is a rebel, and the CDF was not interested in any rebel surrender. The witness testified that the vice chairman of the war council called a second meeting to evaluate the orders given by the three accused. In particular, Rogers allegedly pointed out that if the CDF took the same line of operations as the juntas, it would foster a vicious cycle. Under cross-examination the witness stated some of the rules of the Kamajors, including the command to avoid looting and the command not to kill civilians. He further stated that the rebels mixed with the civilian population, which made it difficult to distinguish between a rebel and a civilian, and he agreed with counsel that the RUF and AFRC were engaging in a very savage war. He further established that could take up to five days to transmit information about events in Tongo to Talia. Defense counsel appeared to be attempting to establish that the command was operating with little information about extended Kamajor activities in outlying areas. Testimony of Witness TF2-027 regarding killings in Tongo The testimony of TF2-027 built on previous testimony of two witnesses from last week along with Witness TF2-035 heard this week regarding atrocities allegedly committed in Tongo Field during

8 Page 8 of 9 Kamajor attacks. The witness stated that the Sierra Leone police were in charge of security in Tongo until August of 1997, at which point the AFRC took over. They organized mining activities there and forced the civilians to participate. In November or December of 1997 the Kamajors attacked Tongo, but their attack was unsuccessful and they subsequently withdrew. The witness also stated that he had heard about additional Kamajor activity related to the group called Black December over the BBC radio. As with witnesses TF2-015 and TF2-022 from last week, this witness stated that the AFRC instructed all of the civilians to go to the NDMC headquarters during Kamajor attacks. Many of the civilians went, but the witness himself stated that he did not go. The witness explained that he watched a line of Kamajors pass and continue on to the headquarters, after which he heard shots fired from that direction. He later went to investigate with a large group of people, and he stated that he saw approximately 30 to 40 corpses near the entrance to the headquarters. Kamajor commander BJK Sei, who had figured in the testimony of Witness TF2-035 earlier this week, arrived shortly thereafter with another group of Kamajors, including his deputy Siaka Lahai. The following day Sei ordered to have the corpses buried by civilians from the town. The witness saw several more corpses in Tongo town, including the bodies of two people that he claimed he had known. Crime base testimony pertaining to Tongo thus far has focused on the alleged mass killing of suspected collaborators at the NDMC headquarters. It is anticipated that the prosecution will call more witnesses from this crime base in the following weeks. 1.) In December of 2004, Witness TF2-057 described how Limbas, Lokos, and Temnes were targeted by the Kamajors, but the bench asked the prosecutor to move on from that area of questioning because no genocide charges were brought. During the testimony of Witness TF2-067, the witness also included details about his tribal affiliation and its role in the alleged events he testified to. When defense counsel objected to the questioning, stating that there were no charges of genocide in the indictment, the objection was overruled by the bench, but the prosecution was told to proceed with caution. See Special Court Monitoring Program Update No ) 5 February 2004 Indictment, paragraph 25(c). 3.) Decision on Prosecution Motion for Modification of Protective Measures, 8 June The defense had attempted to modify protective measures in a motion filed in late September, and in a ruling issued on 18 November 2004, the court stated that the defense would need to present evidence capable of demonstrating on a preponderance of probabilities that the witness is no longer in need of such protection. 4.) See Report 20 regarding testimony of Witness TF2-190, Bobor Tucker, commander of the Death Squad, who testified on 10 February ) 79(A) states that The Trial Chamber may order that the press and the public be excluded from all or part of the proceedings for reasons of: i. national security; or ii. protecting the privacy of persons, as in cases of sexual offences or cases involving minors; or iii. protecting the interest of justice from prejudicial publicity. 6.) Ruling on Motion for Modification of Protective Measures for Witnesses, 18 November ) Since this time, on 28 February 2005 the bench ruled that one investigator from the Defense Team may be present in closed session hearings. 8.) On 29 October 2003, the Court ruled that Sam Hinga Norman would not be permitted to testify before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

9 Page 9 of 9

10 This publication was originally produced pursuant to a project supported by the War Crimes Studies Center (WCSC), which was founded at the University of California, Berkeley in In 2014, the WCSC re-located to Stanford University and adopted a new name: the WSD Handa Center for Human Rights and International Justice. The Handa Center succeeds and carries on all the work of the WCSC, including all trial monitoring programs, as well as partnerships such as the Asian International Justice Initiative (AIJI). A complete archive of trial monitoring reports is available online at: For more information about Handa Center programs, please visit: