Reports
Weekly Report on RUF Trial- Summary for week of June 2-June 6, 2008
By SLCMP
Jun 10, 2008 - 9:20:27 PM

The defense for the Third Accused, Augustine Gbao, resumed this week as Trial Chamber I returned from an extended break taken to allow for a plenary meeting of all the Special Court judges. Witness testimony during this week focused on Gbao’s status as the overall Internal Defense Unit (IDU) commander for the RUF, a position the defense characterized as outside the realm of military planning or fighting. The defense also worked to portray Gbao as fearful of the fighting, popular among civilians, and loyal to the ideology of the revolution, which was fought for the benefit of civilians.

The first witness, who testified for the majority of this week, had his identity concealed and spoke from behind a screen that shielded him from the public gallery. During the proceedings, it was revealed that the witness was a member of the Military Police (MP) during the war and had at one point served within the MP command structure. The defense used the witness to portray Gbao as the commander of a functioning disciplinary system that would not tolerate combatant misconduct. The witness testified that IDU agents were responsible for observing situations of misbehavior and compiling reports that would be sent to company commanders, who in turn would send reports to battalion commanders, and so on up the chain to the area commanders. The witness said these reports often included incidents of harassment, intimidation and the killing of innocents. However, the witness also stated that Gbao, even as overall IDU commander, only had the power to make recommendations or to request the MPs to take action, and he could not order punishments or remedies himself.

The witness also spoke at length about the RUF as an organization that was based on respect for civilians, a view that the defense has been trying to put forth throughout the trial. Gbao’s defense counsel, Mr. John Cammegh, asked questions related to community farming, eliciting responses about the voluntary nature of the labor done by civilians on individual and community farms as well as the airfield in Kailahun. The defense also briefly focused on the fact that in 1995, Gbao was an instructor at a training base for paramilitaries, teaching the “ideology of the revolution,” an ideology that included fighting on the citizens’ behalf.

A fair amount of time in direct examination was spent questioning the witness on the events leading up to the death of 65 Kamajors, or members of a specific set of Civilian Defense Forces (CDF) fighters, in 1998. The witness verified that at first a group of 45 suspected Kamajors had been arrested in Kailahun and investigated by a joint security board, of which Gbao was chairman. This investigation led to the conclusion that the accused were not Kamajors, so they were released and sent home upon Gbao’s recommendation. A second group of 65 suspected Kamajors was then arrested, and a new joint security board convened.   The board decided to place this second group on “parole,” meaning that they were free to move around during the day but had to report to be confined at night. According to the witness, an order came from Mosquito (Sam Bockarie) to have these 65 alleged Kamajors rearrested and killed. The witness said he learned about the order himself from a man named John Duawo, who was an MP commander based in Kailahun. Ten of the suspected 65 were then allegedly shot with Mosquito leaving instructions for the remaining 55 to be killed as well. According to the witness, the remaining 55 were then shot by Mosquito’s bodyguards. The witness further stated that Gbao had advised Mosquito not to kill these people, as they were still under investigation. He also said that if an order from Mosquito was not carried out, it would be the same as agreeing to be killed yourself. With this question, the defense may have been trying to establish evidence of duress, which is a partial defense in international criminal law.

Specific counts of the indictment against the Third Accused were touched on as well, particularly the charge relating to the use of child soldiers. The witness said that while he saw Gbao on a monthly basis throughout 1998, he had never seen him in the presence of child soldiers or SBUs (units of small boys over the age of 15), and he believed that Gbao was against the use of children in the war. He admitted that Gbao did have bodyguards, but the youngest one he had ever seen looked to be more than 20 years old.

Finally, Gbao’s defense counsel used the witness to portray Gbao as someone who was not well-respected  by RUF combatants and who had no command over anyone other than the individual IDU agents. Even as joint security chairman, Gbao allegedly did not have the power to affect the overall recommendations made at the conclusion of joint security board investigations, outside of his own vote. Further, while security officers in general were viewed as men of the book rather than as fighters, the witness said that Gbao in particular was considered a civilian by his colleagues. The witness said that from 1991 to 2001 he had never seen Gbao at the front line; in fact, Gbao was commonly referred to disparagingly as “Damn Bloody Civilian” due to the fact that he would run from conflict like a “wild cat”.   Speaking to the issue of command responsibility, the witness also characterized Gbao as not being a member of the “high command,” a term he said included deputy leaders, area commanders and high commanders such as the leaders themselves. While the high commanders had the right to instruct MPs and unit commanders, Gbao could only make requests of MPs to take action. Gbao himself reported to the overall MP commander, who would in turn report to the RUF leaders. Further, Gbao could not issue orders to anyone in the other security units, including the MP, G5 and IO. Thus, Gbao did not qualify as a “high commander” within the witness’s terminology. The witness further mentioned at least two incidents he knew of when Gbao had been punished by high commanders for failing to accomplish their orders.

A good part of this week was marked by tension between the judges and the defense counsel for Augustine Gbao, Mr. John Cammegh. At one point, a heated exchange took place between Cammegh and Presiding Judge Benjamin Mutanga Itoe after Itoe reprimanded Cammegh for excessive narration in his questioning of the witness. Itoe remarked that Cammegh had been especially difficult to work with compared to the other defense counsel and that his attitude in court was not appreciated, a comment that Cammegh classified as “derogatory” and asked to be struck from the record. Itoe went on to say that he is in charge of maintaining discipline in the court and refused to adjourn court to allow Cammegh to compose himself, speaking of the demands required of an international lawyer.   Mr. Cammegh continued, but was visibly shaken, and spoke emotionally of the four years of his life that he had devoted to the Special Court. Tensions rose again during Cammegh’s redirect of the witness, when he was again chastised, this time for asking questions that Itoe and the other judges felt were not narrow enough in scope nor closely related to issues that had been raised on cross-examination.

Issa Sesay’s Defence Questions Witness

Defense co-counsel for the First Accused, Issa Hassan Sesay, also briefly questioned the first witness this week, focusing on the command structure of the RUF and who was in charge of the various units for the period from 1998-1999. Sesay’s defense counsel sought to show that Sesay was not in charge of any of the major units at that time. Sesay’s defense team also touched on the overall ideology of the revolution, eliciting from the witness affirmation that a good relationship existed among civilians and the RUF in Pendembu.  The witness went so far as to portray the RUF as benefiting civilians by restoring their land to them when it retook the ground in Pendembu, as many civilians had previously retreated to the bush due to the presence of the NPRC. The witness said it was at this time that a community farm was established to support both civilians and fighters. Further, the witness claimed that when the junior RUF commanders pushed the Gio-Liberians out of the area, there were no longer problems related to the harassment of civilians.

During cross-examination, the Prosecution focused mostly on undermining the credibility of the witness by questioning his loyalty to Gbao, insinuating that the witness may be biased in his accounts. The witness admitted that he had served in the RUF for the entire time from 1991 to the end of the war; however, he said he did so out of both a fear of being killed and a devotion to the ideology of the revolution, which he thought was in place to redeem Sierra Leone. The witness also said that he did find it troublesome to see Gbao behind bars when he was trying to fight to save Sierra Leone. Trying to indicate that Gbao did in fact have command responsibility over combatants, the Prosecution also pushed the witness to say that it was Gbao’s duty to ensure that punishments were carried out by the IDU. However, the witness refused to characterize Gbao’s position as such, insisting that he only had the duty to oversee the administrative aspects of security operations and to ensure that these offices functioned well. The witness did concede that Gbao had the duty to ensure that offenders were arrested for minor matters, if he was informed. The witness also objected to the Prosecution’s characterization of Gbao as head of all the overall commanders of the other security units, such as the G5 and IO. The Prosecution then turned to asking about the RUF code of conduct and the difficulty of controlling those who would not follow it. While the witness agreed that there was raping, looting and the killing of innocents, he said that such acts were being punished by the RUF, and that they were mostly being committed by the Liberians. When pushed further, however, the witness agreed that even after the Liberians left, there were still fighters who were not fighting in the “interests of the revolution”. Still, he qualified these ongoing crimes as “minor,” including harassment, intimidation and excessive looting; serious crimes like killing were no longer rampant in his opinion. With the Prosecution turning back to the idea that Gbao had a responsibility to ensure that crimes committed by RUF rebels were punished, the witness admitted that he could not recall a time when anyone was punished for the use of child soldiers. Finally, the Prosecution also briefly touched on the issue of forced labor, but the witness refused to agree with the statement that civilians were forced to work on farms or on the airfield, saying that they did so of their own free will.

Another Defence Witness Testified

The second witness of the week, who began to testify on Friday after an extended period of closed sessions, gave more detail about the RUF command structure, particularly within the various security units. This witness was also protected, but it was revealed during testimony that he was part of the IO (intelligence officer) command structure. The IO worked to gather intelligence to make sure that the laws of the revolution were followed, much like the IDU agents, submitting weekly reports up through a chain of IO commanders, with copies given to regular commanders at each stage. The witness testified about the type of punishments within the RUF, ranging from having to roll on the ground or do “press ups” for minor offenses (harassment of civilians, insulting a senior-ranking officer) to being sentenced to the death penalty for major offenses (arms trafficking, raping, killing). At this point, the witness spoke of the People’s Court, the supreme court of the RUF, whose chairperson was appointed by the high commander. The witness said that this Court was quite different from the Joint Security Board Investigations (JSBI), which were carried out jointly by the MPs, G5 and IDU, and headed by Gbao at the time in question.

In regards to Gbao himself, the witness said that despite Gbao’s position, Gbao did not have the power to order a JSBI himself, as that was done by an order from the high commander. Furthermore, the commanders of the other security units had no duty to report to Gbao; Gbao would simply receive the work from all of the security units to make sure they were doing their jobs. The witness claimed that even as joint security chairman, Gbao did not have the power to act on the recommendations of joint security boards himself, nor could he alter or amend them. Like the first witness, this new witness testified about Gbao’s day-to-day observance of the RUF ideology, saying that Gbao never killed, raped, used child soldiers or forced civilians into labor. In fact, the witness stated that Gbao was great friends with the civilians in the rear, where he could usually be found. He also claimed that Gbao on “so many” occasions had said, in the presence of combatants, that such actions were against both RUF ideology and the Geneva Conventions. This allegedly made Gbao an unpopular figure, especially among renegade combatants. The witness also said that Gbao was against “jungle justice,” or justice that would involve catching and dealing with a perpetrator on the same day. On at least one occasion, Gbao had been hit by Bockarie for not conducting speedy or hasty investigations.

Finally, the witness spoke about the transformation the RUF went through in early 1999, as it realized it could not win the war militarily and decided to transform into a political party. The witness said that during this time, Gbao had been sent to Makeni to take care of particularly disorderly soldiers who were under the command of Superman (aka Dennis Mingo) and to preach the idea of disarmament. According to the witness, order was restored upon Gbao’s arrival, even though Gbao had no power to give orders to Superman, who was ranked above him.

Instead of leaving questions of loyalty to the Prosecution, Gbao’s defense counsel, Cammegh, asked the witness himself about his reaction to hearing of Gbao’s indictment. The witness replied that he reacted quite negatively, as he did not believe Gbao was the type of person who should be indicted by the Special Court, especially as he was a loyal family man who did not commit any crimes.

Court then adjourned early for the week after the judges’ learned of the unexpected death of the Deputy Detention Officer, Alec Moore and decided to grant an afternoon recess in order to give the Accused time to mourn properly.