This week was rather short on action for Trial Chamber I as the court adjourned to allow for the Gbao defense team to get its witnesses, overall strategy and related logistics in order. Court initially resumed on Monday, June 9, to continue the Prosecution’s cross-examination of last week’s witness for defense the Third Accused. However, only one other witness testified this week before the defense asked for more time and then decided to not call a possible witness, leaving court out of session from Tuesday afternoon until Monday.

One of the Prosecution’s strategies during cross-examination of the final witness from last week was to undermine his credibility by pointing out contradictions in his testimony. When questioned by the Prosecutor, the witness denied that IO (intelligence office) field agents had been in radio communications with him during his command. However, the Prosecution then read aloud the same witness’s testimony from last week, during which the witness said that he had been in contact with field agents almost every day, through radio. The witness chose to clarify this statement by saying that this was not true for Kono in 1998 until the RUF had gained full control, and that he received weekly written reports from field agents, which were not sent through radio. The Prosecution also tried to weaken the witness’s credibility by asking about his loyalty to both Gbao and the RUF in general. However, Presiding Judge Itoe cut off this line of questioning, saying that it had been adequately covered in direct examination and was on the record. Still, the witness agreed with the Prosecution’s statement that Gbao was a friend whom he would like to see freed. The witness went on to categorically deny the Prosecution’s assertions that Gbao had kept forced wives and used child soldiers. He even went so far as to claim that he knew of no RUF combatant other than Superman and Bockarie who used child soldiers. The witness also objected to the Prosecution’s suggestion that Gbao was slow in investigating complaints because he didn’t want to do work, stating that Gbao was slow only because he wanted to do his work the right way.

During this cross-examination, the defense counsel for Gbao, Mr. John Cammegh, objected to the style in which the Prosecution was asking questions, saying that the Prosecution was being unprofessional by making assertions with no evidential foundation. In particular, he objected to a question about Gbao keeping forced wives, saying that there was no evidence in the record for this claim. However, Judge Boutet, with the concurrence of the other judges, replied that there a lot of leeway is given on cross-examination and that such questions are a perfectly fair in regards to testing the witness’ credibility. Cammegh then raised the same objection Tuesday morning in relation to the cross-examination of a new witness, and the court decided to take time to discuss the grounds of his objection, temporarily excusing the witness from the courtroom. Judges Boutet and Itoe both indicated they felt that great latitude needed to be given on cross-examination and that it had already been decided such a style of question was permitted. For his part, Judge Thompson said that his understanding of the law was that a question on cross-examination was permissible as long as it did not amount to harassment, embarrassment or intimidation of the witness. Thompson went on to say that the law also does not allow assertions of fraud or criminal misconduct to be made without substantial evidential basis, but in his opinion, the Prosecution had not yet come close to this. After continued discussion, Cammegh said he felt relieved that the judges were aware of the reasons for his objection and that he was content to withdraw it, bringing the issue to a close with a rather rare degree of pleasantness.

Gbao’s defense then called another protected witness to the stand, DAG-101, asking her to write down her name, age, position during the war and current occupation on a piece of paper that was then entered into evidence. Cammegh also asked the witness to list, in the “other” category, the name of the person to whom she was married during the war, and that man’s position. At this point, the document, along with that other person’s name, was entered into evidence under seal as a confidential document.

Beginning his direct examination, Cammegh questioned the witness about events and circumstances during the pre-indictment period (1991-1996) for some time, trying to establish her whereabouts. The witness stated that she had been in college working toward her Teacher’s Certificate in Bunumbu when the war came in May 1991; she then moved with civilians and colleagues to a nearby village for safety. However, she and her colleagues were then informed that the rebels, who she said had come from Liberia, had not come to do them harm, and that the people could be freed from the bushes. She and other civilians then went into Bunumbu town and met with the commander who was in charge of the area, CO Kennedy, who gave them food and lodging. Kennedy allegedly told them that the fighters had come to free the civilians from a government that had not been honest and had mired the country in difficulties, not do them harm. The witness said it was during this time in Bunumbu that she first encountered Gbao. There had been some problems with fighters, whom she again claimed were Liberians, raping civilians in 1991, but when she met Gbao, he told her and other civilians that if they were ever disturbed, they should go to him.

The witness then said that she and others fled to Pendembu when the government soldiers began launching longer-range missiles at Bunumbu. It was there that she met with her elder brother, who encouraged her to join the G2 office of the RUF. The witness followed this advice, which led to her job typing passes, statements and investigative reports until 1993. For a brief time, she was sent away for self-defense training as well.  Finally, the witness went to Giema, assuming a position within the WAC, or Women in Armed Conflict, command structure. Cammegh quizzed the witness at length about the role and functions of the WACs, who were divided into general WACs and IDU-WACs. No other security unit besides the IDU had WACs.   Further, the IDU-WAC commander would report to Francis Mussa, who was the district IDU commander for Kailahun District. IDU-WAC agents in the field were no different than male agents and were responsible for writing reports of crimes done at the hands of RUF combatants. Some IDU-WACs would also live at the front lines with their partners or husbands.

The witness also spoke about her knowledge of Gbao as overall IDU commander from 1996 onward. During this period, she was based in Fandu, Kailahun District, but also spent time in Freetown during the AFRC occupation and again in 1999. She reiterated what had been said by other defense witnesses about Gbao’s limited authority as overall security commander of Joint Security Boards, even going so far as to say that he was “insignificant” within the RUF command structure. Discussing Gbao’s general reputation, the witness claimed that he never carried a gun, never engaged on the front line, had a cordial relationship with civilians and did not use child combatants. She also mentioned an example of a time in 1996 when Gbao had intervened and released all the women whom renegade RUF combatants had forcibly claimed as their wives; she would later say during cross-examination that Gbao had intervened in this way many times. At one point, even the judges could not contain their amusement as she, without being asked, announced that all of Gbao’s bodyguards were above the age of 21, an assertion that came to play a large role during cross-examination.

Counsel for the First Accused, Wayne Jordash, then took the opportunity to examine the witness, asking her about previously entered exhibit 273, a manual purported to contain the RUF ideology. While the witness said she had never seen that book before, she did agree that she had seen some of the topics listed within the manual before. Jordash asked her to flip to a page entitled “Pillars of Revolution,” which listed the various functions of the units, including the G5, IDU/G2, IO, G4, Motor pool Logistics, Signal SSB, MP, Army, Agricultural, WACs and the S4. The witness verified that these were all functioning units within the RUF and that their listed functions were accurate. She also agreed that there was no unit within the ideology book that described a small boy unit, going on to say that small boys who were seen on the battlefield were just trying to tag along with their big brothers and the others, doing small things like carrying arms. The witness also expanded on Jordash’s statement that most children in Kailahun in 1998 were at home or in school, saying that there were various defensive front lines in Kailahun at that time, but there was not much fighting, so the children were not involved in combat. While some children were allowed by junior RUF combatants to carry guns, the witness explained that this was only because lower combatants wanted to feel important by having “bodyguards”. However, when the witness claimed that junior RUF combatants would not have child “bodyguards” in the presence of commanders, Judge Itoe intervened, asking why they would care if the children were doing nothing but carrying guns, as the witness had alleged. With the witness unable to answer Itoe’s question to his satisfaction, Jordash offered up some possible (rather weak) explanations and moved on.

The Prosecution’s cross-examination of DAG-101 attempted to get the witness to admit that Gbao was responsible for ensuring that civilians were protected, which necessarily included punishing renegade combatants. However, the witness stuck to her qualification of Gbao as an “insignificant” figure within the RUF. While the Prosecution was skeptical that there would be a need for an overall security commander if his only job was to simply transmit reports, Itoe ordered the Prosecutor to drop this line of questioning, saying it had been sufficiently answered. Turning to the issue of child soldiers, the witness admitted that if the ideology forbade their use, one would expect it to be stated within the ideology book, which it was not.

It was at this point that the Prosecution began to attack the witness’ credibility, asking her why she so readily volunteered the age of Gbao’s bodyguards when she was not asked. Referring to the document the witness filled out at the beginning of her testimony, the Prosecution asked her if the person she had listed in the “other” category was currently working for the Gbao defense team. After much confusion and hesitation on the part of the witness, Mr. Cammegh chose to stand up and admit that the person in question had indeed been a member of his team since April 2006, something that he said had been disclosed from the start. The witness then denied the Prosecution’s allegations that she had been advised by that person to testify and that he had discussed other witnesses and their testimony with her. She did say that she wanted Gbao to go free, not because he was her commander but because he was never involved in wrong doings and had defended the rights of humans.

On re-examination, Cammegh tried to downplay the relationship between the witness and the person she had named in the “other” category, having the witness state that they had lived in different towns since April 2006. It was also revealed that the man in question had been imprisoned from 2000-2006 but had never been found guilty by a court.

Although both the defense teams   and the Prosecution struggled with witness DAG-101, getting frustrated with having to repeat questions or ask her to answer questions clearly, Judge Itoe praised her at various times for her clarity in speaking and her command of the English language. The witness seemed intent on getting things right, asking numerous times for both sides to clarify their questions and refusing to speak about events that she was not present to see with her own eyes. However, on cross-examination, she was hesitant to respond to difficult questions, stalling and seeming not to understand exactly what was being asked, or possibly choosing not to understand. Still, Itoe again praised her upon the close of her testimony, telling her that she held something great for the future of the women and people of Sierra Leone.

Another skirmish between defense counsel Cammegh and the judges had occurred on Monday afternoon as Cammegh tried to talk about a motion he had submitted.   He was refused time by the judges, who said they had already been put on notice. Cammegh objected that the judges didn’t even know what he wanted to ask, which was for an adjournment following witness DAG-101’s testimony. As tempers began to flare, Cammegh stated that he wanted the record to show that he was very disturbed by the way he was being addressed in court. However, with a great deal more magnanimity, the issue of an adjournment was subsequently discussed on Tuesday morning after the release of witness DAG-101.  After discussing his overall schedule of witnesses and the logistical difficulties he was facing, Cammegh was granted an adjournment until Friday morning. Upon Cammegh’s request, the court also granted a stay on the presentation of all evidence related to UNAMSIL until the motion he had previously submitted was ruled upon, which meant that more possible witnesses for the defense would have to be put on hold until that time. The Gbao defense later decided not to call one of its back-up witnesses, leaving no other witnesses to call before Monday morning, so court remained adjourned for the remainder of the week.

Mr. Kennedy Ogeto, defense counsel for Morris Kallon also requested the court to consider a motion related to the exclusion of testimony that the court had not yet dealt with, asking the court to keep in mind that both the Prosecution and defense were beginning preparation for their final briefs. Judge Itoe said the judges would do their best, joking that so many motions had been submitted in this trial that it was almost impossible to keep up.