The transcripts of the trial of Charles Taylor, former President of Liberia. More…

  • Yesterday I think when we broke off we were in private session because we were looking at some evidence that could potentially reveal the identity of other protected witnesses. And, Mr Koumjian, I suppose you want to continue in private session today.

  • Your Honour, I believe that some of what I have remaining I can do in open session, so I would like to go into open session and that will be about ten minutes and then I should be able to finish in about ten minutes of private session after that.

  • Fair enough. Please continue then in open session.

  • Mr Witness, Martin George was a vanguard, a Liberian, that you met at Camp Naama, Crab Hole, correct?

  • Can you tell us, what were his roles in the RUF? What positions did he hold?

  • Martin George, when I was released from prison at last and taken to Makeni, Martin George was always at the rear, but I understood later that he was a brigade commander.

  • Well, where was Martin George in the period before the Abidjan Peace Accord? In other words, from 1991 to '96, can you briefly tell us where he was?

  • Martin George was one of those who went to the Bo Waterside group in 1991.

  • Do you know what positions he had with the RUF, what role he played?

  • Well, on that side, no.

  • Where was Martin George during the junta time when the RUF came to Freetown and joined the AFRC before the intervention?

  • Well, I actually did not know where Martin George was, but upon our retreat, he was assigned around the Kono area, but he was in a different section. I don't know the main area where he was assigned, but it was within that area.

  • Do you know under which commander he served in Kono in 1998?

  • In 1998, we were all under Rambo's command. So all the areas that had deployment were supposed to have been reporting to Rambo at that time.

  • You're saying throughout the time that you arrived in Kono until the time you left Kono in '98, all RUF/AFRC personnel reported to Rambo?

  • No. You said immediately we arrived in Kono. I said it was Superman who was in charge when we arrived from Freetown into Kono.

  • Okay. And what role did Martin George play? Was he a commander? Was he a fighter? Did he have a specialised role?

  • Mmm, Martin George had always been a commander, anyway.

  • How did Martin - what role did he play, if you know, during the offensive in late '98, early '99 during the attacks on Kono, Makeni and Freetown?

  • When you talk about the Makeni attack, or Kono, Makeni and Freetown, I have always told you that I was not present, so I cannot tell you about the role that Martin George played there.

  • When did Martin George leave Sierra Leone, to your knowledge?

  • I believe that Martin George left Sierra Leone when there was peace, I believe.

  • Did he ever play any role in the security services in Liberia, to your knowledge?

  • No, not to my knowledge.

  • And what is he doing now in Liberia, to your knowledge?

  • Martin George, what I understood that he has been doing was that he has someone who was assisting him.

  • Your Honours, could the witness be advised to repeat that area.

  • Please pause, Mr Witness. The interpreter didn't get what you said and please repeat your answer a little slowly.

  • Yes. I am saying that when I saw Martin George in Monrovia, he was helping someone who had a shop who was selling soft drinks, beers and some other things, something like a kiosk. He was helping someone in a business area.

  • Mr Witness, did you ever serve under Dopoe Menkarzon?

  • How do you know him?

  • Dopoe Menkarzon, I told you that I first got to know Dopoe Menkarzon when the problem erupted between the RUF and the NPFL forces. That was during the period of the Top 20, Top 40 and Top Final. When he went to take out the Liberians from Sierra Leone, that was the time I got to know him.

  • So since that time, have you seen him since then, since the Top Final?

  • Yes, in recent times. There is an area in Monrovia, an American company where we are all trying to get employment, so I saw him there with some of the bosses who work in that company.

  • Well, do you know him well, or is he just someone that you know casually?

  • No. When you talk about knowing him well, that means maybe he and I have some things in common. No. Except maybe I say hi to him, then I pass by.

  • Thank you. Could we have the transcript of 26 March, page 38078. I want to ask you about something you said that day, sir.

  • What was that page number again?

  • If we go towards the bottom of the page. Thank you. On line 22 you were asked by Defence counsel:

    "Q. Mr Vincent, do you know somebody called Dopoe


    A. Yes, I know General Dopoe Menkarzon. I know him very

    well. Even before I left Monrovia, I met with him even

    before I came."

    Sir, why did you meet with General Dopoe Menkarzon before you came The Hague, since you just told us you had very - only said hello to him?

  • Yes. When I said know him very well, just as I stated just now, there is a company that I've applied to and I'm seeking employment there, and he is one of the bosses there, so I met him.

  • When you say, "I met him even before I came," are you talking about meeting him before you came to The Hague?

  • Yes. I'm saying that because I had to take permission, though I have not got the job yet, but I want the job, and he is with one of the bosses. So I had wanted him to know that I'm going out of Monrovia.

  • Did you tell him - discuss with him that you were coming to testify in this case?

  • No, not at all.

  • Mr Witness, are you staying with Sam Kolleh?

  • Staying with Sam Kolleh? Sam Kolleh lives in another area and I live in another area. We are not living together, no.

  • Could we go on the - I believe it's the same date. Yes, same date. 26 March, page 38176. The same page in fact. If we look at the top lines, you said, "I did not even see Sam Kolleh during that operation. And I know I trained together" --

  • Is this page 38078 or 76?

  • 38176. Sorry. Thank you, counsel:

  • You said:

    "I did not even see Sam Kolleh during that operation and I know I trained together with Sam Kolleh and even in Monrovia we are living together."

    What did you mean when you said we are living together in Monrovia?

  • Yeah, living together in Monrovia means that we are living in Monrovia. He lives in Monrovia and I live in Monrovia. But that does not make anyone understand that we are living together in the same place. When I say living together, he lives in Monrovia and I live in Monrovia.

  • Can you think of other individuals that you served with in the RUF that are living in Liberia to your knowledge?

  • Yes. I usually meet with them one after the other, like Vanicious Varney, he lives in Firestone, he is not living in Monrovia. Sam Kolleh is in Monrovia. Martin George is in Monrovia. Joseph Brown is in Gbarnga, you know.

  • Mr Witness, just the first name Varney, can you tell us again the - the first individual you named was something Varney. Can you say the first name again?

  • Vanicious Varney. Commonly known as Kailondo.

  • That was his nickname in the RUF, Kailondo?

  • And, sir, is that spelled V-A-N-I-C-I-O-U-S?

  • Yes. Vanicious, yes.

  • Your Honour, I believe the rest I would need to do in private session.

  • The reason being what?

  • Returning to the subject that we were on when we broke yesterday and for the same reasons of protection of witnesses who have received protective measures from the Court.

  • Right. We are going to go into a brief private session for the protection of the identities of other witnesses that enjoy protective measures in this trial and whose identities may be jeopardised by the evidence now to be elicited. The members of the public will be able to see into the well of the Court, but you'll not be able to hear what is being said.

    Madam Court Officer, please arrange a private session.

  • [At this point in the proceedings, a portion of the transcript, pages 38480 to 38497, was extracted and sealed under separate cover, as the proceeding was heard in private session.]

  • [Open session]

  • Your Honour, we're in open session.

  • I haven't heard a question at all yet so, Mr Koumjian, what are you objecting about?

  • Mr Anyah indicated he wishes to ask questions about rumours of payments to specific witnesses which was not part of the cross-examination. This is something the witness has just mentioned in his redirect.

  • He hasn't asked any question yet. I would propose that you wait and you raise your objection to particular questions, if any. Mr Anyah, please proceed.

  • Thank you, Madam President:

  • Mr Vincent, you just said - and although you said this in private session, with leave of the Chamber it may be repeated in public session because I think it is apparent it doesn't implicate any protected witnesses.

  • Your Honour, then I do object because I'm late, but it's pure speculation of the witness and it's beyond - what the witness said was beyond the scope of cross-examination.

  • Mr Koumjian, I have asked you to wait for a question to be asked for you to object to a specific question, not to object before, unless you have telepathic powers, which I don't have.

    Mr Anyah, please, continue with your question.

  • At page 31, my line 12 of the LiveNote, Mr Vincent, you said:

    "It was speculated that Nya was given a certain amount and Isaac Mongor was given certain amount. So that is the way some of these rumours got to us."

    Who speculated that Nya was given certain amount?

  • Objection. It's pure speculation. He is asking the witness, first of all, "Who speculated about a rumour?" That's irrelevant. Secondly, it's beyond the scope of cross-examination. I won't get a chance to re-examination on this issue. That wasn't covered in cross-examination.

  • May I respond, Madam President.

  • Whether or not it was covered by counsel, the issue was raised by questions from the Bench. We are at liberty, with leave of your Honours, to pursue questions that were raised by one of the learned justices. So that's one basis for pursuing this line of question.

  • My ruling is going to be this way: Mr Koumjian, when the Bench raises questions, of course you will get an opportunity to ask further questions that arise from the questions that the Bench asked, just like the Defence have now this opportunity to raise questions that arise out of the questions the Bench asked. So I'm going to allow you that question. And, yes, I think it's a proper question to ask.

  • Now, Mr Vincent, the question I posed was: Do you know which persons were speculating that Nya had received a certain amount?

  • Yes. One of the person who actually gave me this information was this brother Paul Veal, because he was one of the last people who left Sierra Leone to go back to Liberia. I did not actually want to call his name, but I think it has now come to a point where there is need for me to call his name.

  • You said Paul Veal was one of the last persons or people who left Sierra Leone to go back to Liberia and he was the source of this information. What exactly did Paul Veal tell you about Nya receiving money?

  • Paul Veal said, when Nya got back to Sierra Leone, he and his wife - I mean, he had a girlfriend. He said, when they got there, out of that money they were able to get married, and Isaac Mongor too did the same.

  • Let me ask a question. Just listen to the question.

  • Paul Veal gave you this information. Did he say who gave Nya the money Nya used to get married?

  • Well, he did not state who gave Nya the money. But when Nya went, the kind of mood they saw them in, he said he thought that that kind of amount was given to him. So whether it was Nya who directly told him about this information, or what, he did not tell me that. But he said they were now ashamed to cross to come over to Liberia and that was why they were still in Sierra Leone.

  • Ashamed of what? What did Paul Veal say Nya was ashamed of that prevented him or make him hesitate to return to Liberia from Sierra Leone?

  • Objection. It's leading.

  • Mr Anyah, you can rephrase that in a less leading manner, please.

  • What, if anything, did Paul Veal say Nya was afraid of?

  • [Microphone not activated] ashamed of. I apologise.

  • Well, ashamed in the sense that no RUF member like us would have expected Nya to go against us, you know, by going to give out statements that were not in our favour. So that was why he made the statement that they were ashamed to come back. And since then, I have not seen Nya in Liberia and I have not seen Isaac Mongor in Liberia and they are Liberians.

  • When you say or refer to Nya giving a statement, what sort of statement are you referring to?

  • Well, I don't know what you mean, but that was the only information I got from Paul Veal. So I cannot go further to say the kind of statement you are talking about or know. What he said to me is what I am revealing to you today.

  • Yes, we appreciate that. When you started your answers to this line of questioning at page 34, at my line 16 of the LiveNote, you said, "Paul Veal said when Nya got back to Sierra Leone." And then you went on to tell us how Nya got married. Where, to your knowledge, did Nya go to that he returned back to Sierra Leone from?

  • Well, according to him, Nya went to testify on behalf of the Prosecution. That was what he said to me.

  • In which case and against which accused?

  • In this case against the former Liberian President.

  • What about Isaac Mongor? Was it from Paul Veal you heard this - well, from whom did you hear about Isaac Mongor?

  • I'm telling you --

  • Your Honour, again, this is beyond the scope --

  • -- of the cross-examination. As I understand counsel's explanation is that it arises out of Justice Doherty's question. That was question was, "Who was saying" - let me see if I can find it. Yes. The question was, "Now, when you say who was against what was going on, what do you mean by who was against what was going on?" And these questions do not arise out of Justice Doherty's question.

  • Mr Anyah, what is your response?

  • May I have a moment to review all that was asked by Justice Doherty? Well, Madam President, in response to Justice Doherty's question which implicated the issue of the $10,000 and the rumours, the witness did say at page 27, line 13 - well, I don't know if I can say this in public session, but something to the effect about misleading information that had been given about the involvement of the Liberian leadership into the Sierra Leone crisis. Misleading information that had been given, that's to paraphrase what the witness said. And if you deduce from that that the issue had been canvassed, who was given this misleading information, in the response the issue of rumours was broached in the question. I propose that it is fair for us to pursue who exactly has given such information to this Court.

  • [Trial Chamber conferred]

  • We are going to allow the question. And, of course, Mr Koumjian, I just want to have you rest assured that you are going to get an opportunity to raise any issues arising out of either Justice Doherty's or my questions to this witness. So we'll allow the question.

  • Thank you, Madam President:

  • Mr Vincent, I was asking you about Isaac Mongor before the objection. From whom did you hear about Isaac Mongor receiving money?

  • I have told you the person who gave me the information about everything and that was Paul Veal. And that was the same Paul Veal that did for Nya and the same Paul Veal did for Isaac Mongor, so nobody else.

  • Thank you, Mr Vincent. Although we've covered some questions about Nya, I wish to cover some of the same questions in respect of Isaac Mongor. Do you follow me?

  • Yes, I'm getting you.

  • What, if anything, did Paul Veal say about Isaac Mongor receiving money?

  • Well, it was just the same story. He said he too went and he got married.

  • He too went to where?

  • He went back to Sierra Leone and got married.

  • Who gave him money?

  • According to them, I don't know how you would want me to say this thing. He said, according to them, they came to testify on the side of the Prosecution. So the understanding I got here was that the Prosecution gave these people money. That was what I understood.

  • When you say "these people", does that include Isaac Mongor?

  • Isaac Mongor and Nya.

  • Do you know how much, if any, was given to Isaac Mongor?

  • Objection. There's absolutely no basis for counsel to ask that. He hasn't indicated he has any knowledge of that.

  • The witness can answer. We will hear what the witness has to say.

  • Thank you, Madam President:

  • Mr Vincent, do you know how much, if any, was given to Isaac Mongor?

  • Well, I am saying that the rumour that was circulating was that each of those people were given $10,000 US, and this information was given to me by Paul Veal. So I don't know what you mean. I keep on saying these things over and over, so I don't actually know what you want me to say now.

  • Well, I'm merely asking if Paul Veal said anything about the amount of money that was given to Isaac Mongor. You can say he did, or he did not, or you do not know. Which is it?

  • I think the witness has answered. Please move on. He has given us his answer as best he could. He said Paul Veal told him and Paul Veal told him the amount that was rumoured.

  • Thank you, Madam President. May the witness be shown what has been marked as MFI-4, please. May he look at it and if you could display a copy on the overhead projector so the public can follow, please. I'm told there is no additional copy to be displayed for the public, unless perhaps the Prosecution has a spare copy.

  • What happened to yesterday's copies? I thought we had copies yesterday of this document. Madam Court Officer, please.

  • Thank you, Madam President:

  • Mr Vincent, before you saw this document in Court yesterday, 31 March 2010, had you seen it before?

  • This document? I just said that I saw the document after that investigation, at that time.

  • That was not my question. When was the first time you saw this document? Which year, which month?

  • Actually the witness had answered the question.

  • The question was posed differently before and the answer given was, in my view, not clear.

  • Mr Anyah, you asked the witness, "Before you saw this document yesterday, 31 March, had you seen it before?"

  • Yes.

  • And the answer answered, "Yes, I saw that document after that investigation at that time."

  • Mr Vincent, give us the date and the month when you first saw this document, please?

  • It was on November 14, 1999, and since then it was only yesterday that I saw it here again.

  • Who wrote this document?

  • This document was written by the investigator in this particular case.

  • Yes, I will ask you about that phrase "investigator". Can you tell us whether that person worked for a police agency? Was that a police officer?

  • Well, in the RUF we had the group called intelligence officers so this document was written by one of the intelligence officers.

  • Do you know the name of that intelligence officer?

  • No, I have forgotten his name now because it has been a long time now and I don't think his name has been mentioned on this document.

  • When you say in the RUF you had a group called intelligence officers, was there a particular unit under which that group fell within the RUF?

  • Well, that group, yes, I will say they were not part of the fighting unit, but it's just like when we had a headquarter where you have the combined civilians and soldiers of the RUF and we will have the intelligence group. People were there to represent the civilians and there were people to represent the soldiers also. So that unit was call the IO, the intelligence unit. IO, yes.

  • Mr Anyah, could I seek clarification about what the witness said. The witness says this document was written by an investigator. He says it was a person from the - he worked - then you asked him, "Did this person work for a police agency. Was he a police officer?" The witness answered, "Well, in the RUF we had a group called intelligence officers, so this don't was written by one of the intelligence officers." Do I understand, Mr Witness, that this document was written by one of the intelligence officers in the RUF?

  • Yes.

  • Was this document in any way prepared by someone in the Sierra Leonean police force?

  • No, not to my knowledge.

  • Was the subject matter of this document exclusively an RUF business?

  • Was it to your knowledge a criminal offence that was being investigated by this intelligence officer?

  • Yes, a criminal offence in the sense that I was implicated in a case wherein they said I had joined with Sam Bockarie to overthrow the administration of Sankoh in the RUF.

  • Are you referring to a criminal offence under Sierra Leonean law or under RUF code of behaviour?

  • That was under the RUF code of behaviour.

  • Yesterday when learned counsel was asking you questions about this document, the document was referred to as such - this is at page 38360 from yesterday's transcript. Just listen to how the question was posed to you yesterday about this document. At line 21 of yesterday's transcript in open session Mr Koumjian said:

    "... this was written by an investigator who was investigating you for the offence that you were eventually put in jail for. Isn't that correct?"

    That's how you were asked the question. Now the offence that is referred to in this question and the investigator that is referred to or was referred to in that question yesterday, are they both related to the RUF?

  • Yes.

  • Is it the case, Mr Vincent, that the RUF, as of 1999, had in place a disciplinary mechanism for people who disobeyed its code of conduct?

  • Yes, from there I knew it because had it not been like that I was not going to be disciplined like this. And that was too much for me and I would have even lost my life.

  • Is it the case that persons who disobeyed the RUF high command, as of the time this document was prepared, suffered consequences or punishment for disobeying the high command?

  • Would that be applicable to the entire period when you were a member of the RUF from 1991 until you left in late 2000? Was it the case that anyone who disobeyed the RUF command exposed themselves to disciplinary action?

  • Yes.

  • To your knowledge, did the RUF have within its command structure intelligence officers during the entire period when you were with the RUF, 1991 through late 2000?

  • Please repeat the question. I did not get you clear.

  • Yes. The sort of intelligence officer you are referring to who took down this particular statement of yours, is it the case that the RUF had such officers working for it during the period of time you were a member of the RUF?

  • Yes.

  • Is it the case that from 1990 - from 1991 until you left in late 2000 the RUF had an IO unit, intelligence officer unit?

  • No. The unit was not there from the training base, but can I elaborate?

  • Yes, please do, Mr Vincent.

  • Yes. It was when we had entered and after we had started getting some civilian population and the RUF authorities wanted the civilians to know about some of the things that RUF soldiers were doing and disciplinary actions that would be taken against them, that was the reason why this particular unit comprised of few civilians and few soldiers who formed the IO unit.

  • It was the case that there were civilians who were members of this unit? Is that what you are telling us?

  • And when was the first IO unit, to your knowledge, established by the RUF? What year?

  • I told you that it was when we started getting civilian population, so approximately I can say it started sometime around 1991 up to the time I left.

  • Thank you, Mr Vincent. Who is CPO Saffia?

  • Just a moment, Mr Anyah. I take it you are going to leave the area of the document now, is that correct, and move on to something else?

  • I am still on the document.

  • All right. I've got a question on this document when you are finished.

  • Who is CPO Saffia who is referred to in this document?

  • CPO Saffia, I did not actually know this particular person but it was Sam Bockarie who called us to have a memorial service for this particular person, because, I don't know, maybe he was related to that person but that person had passed away. So it was a memorial service that was going to be held and you know in our traditions we say "sacrifice". When someone dies they have sacrifice, you know.

  • Yes. So this document, at least some of the information contained in it, concerns CPO Saffia and his memorial service. Is that the case?

  • Why was it that this intelligence officer came to interview you and write down what you had to say in connection with the events of 14 and 15 November, 1999, in Kailahun Town?

  • This document was not something that was related to Balahun Town. The main reason for which I was arrested was that I was a collaborator with Sam Bockarie aiming to overthrow the RUF authority. That was why I was investigated. And all of these things were instances given whether I was called - the reasons for which I was called, what obtained there, those were the things that I gave. So all of these were - could have been mentioned.

  • Yesterday when you testified you referred to being in jail in 1999 in Makeni?

  • No, not Makeni. I was jailed in Kono and after I was released, I was later taken to Makeni.

  • When were you placed in jail in Kono? What year?

  • The same 1999.

  • And for what reason were you placed in jail?

  • They said I wanted to overthrow Mr Sankoh.

  • For how long were you in jail?

  • I was in jail for almost a month, or less than that. Almost a month, or a month.

  • Who sent you to jail? That is, who made the decision that you had to go to jail?

  • Well, the order was sent for Sam Bockarie to be arrested, he and his collaborators. So it was Issa who came to carry out this arrest, he and Morrison Kallon, and that was how I was arrested and they said it was orders from Mr Sankoh.

  • When the witness says, "I was jailed in Kono and later taken to Makeni," does that mean he - even in Makeni he was jailed? Was he just merely transferred from one jail to another? Or what does that mean?

  • Mr Vincent, you said previously, "I was jailed in Kono and after I was released. I was later taken to Makeni." What were you taken to Makeni for?

  • Well, according to what I understood there was that the district where I stayed and the crimes where they said I committed the crimes, I should no longer stay there, so they said they should change me from that area completely. So that was how I was leased and they did not allow me to go back to Kailahun District, so they took me to Makeni.

  • Was it the case that when you moved to Makeni you were being transferred or relocated and not being sent to jail again in Makeni?

  • No, I did not go to jail in Makeni. But what they did here was that when I got to Makeni, they turned me over to the MP commander. I mean, let's say it was something like I was under surveillance, something like that. They were now closely watching my movements, something like that. That was how I looked like in Makeni when I got there. But the MP commander did receive me, but I was no longer put in jail.

  • Mr Vincent, we came upon this document yesterday when the Prosecution sought to have you explain your understanding of the word "sacrifice". In relation to the use of that word in this document, "sacrifice", what did you mean when you used that word in this document when you were speaking to this intelligence officer?

  • Sacrifice? I think you saw the phrase I used there. I said sacrifice for the late brother, so it was something that we describe as a memorial service, let's say, to have a service for someone who have departed, someone who have died. But in our native terms, in up-country there, we call it sacrifice.

  • Is what you are describing in your understanding different from killing a human being as a sacrifice?

  • No. This is quite different from killing a human being.

  • Is what you are describing in your understanding similar to a memorial service or wake keeping for someone who has died?

  • Was it the case that RUF members who died were given memorial services?

  • It's a series of leading and suggestive questions.

  • Yes, Mr Anyah, you can rephrase that in a more acceptable manner. That is leading.

  • Mr Vincent, were memorial services undertaken within the RUF for members who died?

  • Yes, it happened many times. So many times.

  • And does this document concern, in part, the memorial service for CPO Saffia?

  • Thank you, Mr Vincent.

    I don't know if that answers your question, Justice Lussick, in respect of this document.

  • Thank you, Mr Anyah. I've got one or two questions of the witness. I might as well ask these now rather than bring them up later.

  • Mr Witness, Mr Anyah asked you - and I'm referring to the transcript on my LiveNote at page 41, line 2 - Mr Anyah asked you, "Give us the date and the month when you first saw this document, please." And your answer was, "It was on November 14, 1999, and since then this was only yesterday that I saw it here again." Now, my question is: How are you so sure that the first time you saw this document was November 14, 1999.

  • Yes. I gave that answer because that was the date that this statement was completed and it was on that date that I confirmed with my own signature that the statement was taken from me. That was the last date that I saw this document until yesterday.

  • Well, the copy I've got on the signature page shows that you signed the document on 28 December 1999. How do you explain that?

  • Perhaps the witness could be shown that last page. Please, Mr Witness, look at the last page. That's the one that the judge is referring to. You will see a date there, "28 December 1999", under your signature. That is the date that the judge is referring to. How do you explain that?

  • Well, I have seen it. But, you see, I told you that it has taken a long time, but I know that this statement was taken on the 14th, as I have said, in November. But if the date here is on the 28th, the fact of the matter is that it was the same statement that I gave. So it's been a long time and, you know, maybe I did not recall.

  • You see, the statement begins - and I'm quoting from the statement now - "Statement in full on 14 November 1999 I," meaning you, "received a message from the radio, a message unit about the late brother ceremony which will be held on 15 November 1999." So it looks as though on 14 November 1999 this statement wasn't even in existence. So I'm asking you: How are you quite sure that when you first saw this statement it was 14 November 1999?

  • But the date in full there refers to the time the person took the statement. You're saying that it did not exist on the 14th, but this statement was taken from me in a day.

  • I have a few more questions because of that.

  • Wait. Mr Witness, you are saying that although the date appearing under your signature is 28 December 1999, you are insisting that you actually made this statement on 14 November 1999?

  • Yes. Yes.

  • I made the statement. I made this statement. The investigator wrote the 14th, so I believe it was on that particular date that I gave the statement. But it is that signature part that is confusing me, because when they got through the statement, I signed it. I signed the statement. Yes, I signed it. But the date is what - maybe I just forgot, but the statement was actually taken from me on the 14th.

  • Mr Anyah, please proceed.

  • Mr Vincent, the day the statement was taken from you, is that the same day you signed that last page?

  • Well, it might have been that they kept it for me to view it before I could sign, but this is my signature. It's the date that is confusing me, but the signature is mine.

  • My question was - Mr Vincent, just listen to the question. We're trying to see if everything happened on one day or on two days. The day they took this statement from you, the day you spoke and somebody wrote down what you were saying, is that the same day you signed that last page?

  • I can remember that I signed that same day, so this statement must have been rewritten and brought to me to sign. That's what I'm saying that I do not recall. But the signature is my signature, but that same day I sign the document. So it might have been that they took it away for reviewing, rewritten and brought back to me for another signature, which I cannot recall now, but the signature is mine.

  • There is one part of this document I would like to read to you. It's second to last page before the signature page. Mr Vincent, if you look at the second to last page - if you could give him the original, please, Madam Court Usher. Second to last page, the page before the --

    Madam President, I am told the Prosecution has some parts of the original. I don't know if that is the case, but Madam Court Officer says someone there has it. Is that the case?

  • Isn't the original there? This is not the full original?

  • Your Honour, what is there is the MFI, the two pages that were marked.

  • Yes. Which means, Mr Anyah, you are going beyond the scope of the MFI. Is that what you want to do?

  • Yes, that is what I wish to do, with leave of your Honours.

  • Mr Koumjian, do you have the pages of this statement?

  • The ERN for the page I seek is 00027317.

  • Yes, but 317 is part of the statement, the copies that we were given. It's definitely part of the copy I've given to the Court usher.

  • Mr Vincent, you see the page you hold. It has a red number in the middle. Can you look at the original, or as you wish, if you prefer to look at the screen, you can also do so.

  • I'm looking at the computer, please.

  • If we scroll down to the bottom half of that page. If you look at the computer monitor, from the second line from the top, there is a statement after the date "15 November 1999", and that statement reads:

    "I further went on to says the present vanguard's list has not been completed to submit to the high command Sam Bockarie, the Revolutionary United Front of Sierra Leone leader, His Excellency Corporal Foday Saybana Sankoh has told us to take command from Sam Bockarie as a military command."

    Did you understand what I just read, Mr Vincent?

  • Yes.

  • It continues:

    "Therefore, we are all subject to the command of His Excellency Corporal Foday Saybana Sankoh as a leader for us RUF/SL."

    Now, this seems to be saying, and correct me if I'm mistaken - indeed, it does read, referring to Sam Bockarie, "the high command Sam Bockarie, the Revolutionary United Front of Sierra Leone leader His Excellency Corporal Foday Saybana Sankoh has told us to take command from Sam Bockarie ..."

    Mr Vincent, when Foday Sankoh was not around, who made Sam Bockarie high command of the RUF.

  • The high command of the RUF was made by Corporal Foday Saybana Sankoh himself before he left the ground.

  • To your knowledge, was it Foday Saybana Sankoh or was it Charles Taylor that made Sam Bockarie the high command of the RUF?

  • All I know was that it was the RUF leader who made Sam Bockarie the RUF high command.

  • And you heard me read a reference to Foday Sankoh, referring to him as His Excellency Corporal Foday Saybana Sankoh, as leader for us RUF/SL. Yesterday learned counsel opposite submitted to you that Charles Taylor was the "CIC" of the RUF. Mr Vincent, does this document say Charles Taylor was the leader for the RUF/SL?

  • No, in my statement Mr Taylor's name is not mentioned here. I mentioned Corporal Foday Saybana Sankoh, His Excellency.

  • And who indeed was, to your knowledge, the leader of the RUF when you were a member of the RUF?

  • The leader of the RUF was Mr Sankoh.

  • Thank you, Mr Vincent. That's all I have with the document. Mr Vincent, yesterday you were read transcripts from the evidence of Perry Kamara, radio operator. The transcript in question was from 5 February 2008 and the page I wish to focus on is page 3166. This was in relation to questions about persons within the RUF having their bodies marked by herbalists. Page 3166 of 5 February 2008's transcript at line 12. The question was posed to Perry Kamara:

    "Q. And where was this? Where were these marks applied

    to you?

    A. For those in Buedu, we were there when he did this.

    For those of us who came from Kono, we came to Superman

    Ground. They were calling according to the camp you come

    from. At first they started at Superman Ground and all of

    us from Superman Ground, we all got ours. And then other

    camps, they will call from the other camps and then they

    will sell 50s after 50s. That is how they continued until

    everybody was marked. Nobody escaped the markings."

    Mr Vincent, my question to you is this: Were you ever marked by a herbalist in the vicinity of Superman Ground in Kono when you were a member of the RUF?

  • No. It is true that I was marked, but this was done when I was in Pendembu by one Mr Bangali.

  • And under what circumstances did Mr Bangali you referred to mark you while you were in Pendembu?

  • Bangali was one of the herbalists. We had so many herbalists within the RUF. There were people who pretended to be people giving protection, but most of these things, I did some of them but I did not believe in them.

  • Was, to your knowledge, Mr Bangali sent from Liberia to mark you as a member of the RUF?

  • No.

  • What is the nationality of Mr Bangali?

  • This Bangali, according to his accent, he was speaking like a French speaking person, although he spoke the Krio.

  • And in what year in Pendembu did Mr Bangali mark you?

  • Mr Bangali marked me in the year 1992 when I left the training base and went to Pendembu to prepare myself for the front line.

  • Thank you, Mr Vincent. I want to read to you something you said from yesterday's transcript. This is at page 38350 from yesterday's transcript, 31 March 2010. Line 10 or thereabouts is where I will begin. Well, we might start at line 7 to start at the beginning of the sentence. You gave this in response to a question and the question concerned the SOD, a unit you said that was within the police in Liberia. Your response in part was this:

    "And I believe that any commander could do that with his forces, because even in my own case, like I said, when I entered Liberia, I became AFL. But apart from the authorities in our position, we created our own name that we called Jungle Fire and Quick Reaction Force, so we could give names to our forces that the authorities might not know about."

    Let's pause there. Was it the case, Mr Vincent, that Armed Forces of Liberia personnel located in a particular county away from Monrovia could designate names or characterise themselves by names that the persons you referred to as the authorities might not know about?

  • Yes, this happened. I am saying the example here is in my own case. We created our own unit within the AFL called Jungle Fire Quick Reaction Force.

  • For that particular unit that was created, when it was created did it require authorisation from someone in Monrovia for it to be created?

  • No, this was not something that required anything from the high command. Once you were fighting and you found out that a group you are fighting with are so strong and you want to make them look different from the other you would have different units operating on the front line. This person would be called this name and the other would be called that name. So that was why we were doing that.

  • Would it be under those circumstances that you all were still fighting for the same AFL, even though under different names?

  • Yes, we were all fighting for the same goal.

  • Continuing with your response, this is at line 13 of the same page, 38350:

    "Though we were AFL, we gave us our own name, Jungle Fire Quick Reaction Force. So who knows, it could have been the same thing that happened within the police section. But I know that there was SOD, Special Operations Division. It could have been that it was the commander or the director who had some other things to be done somewhere, so he sent those people to go and put situation under control quickly. So he might have given them that particular name. That does not have to be the concern of the President."

    Mr Vincent, in your experience while you were with the AFL, when units would give themselves specialised names did such occurrences become matters of common knowledge to the President of Liberia?

  • Calls for speculation.

  • Well, this is the same Court that yesterday we were - the witness was asked to indicate whether or not the President's reference to Zigzag Marzah as an idiot was commonly believed in Liberia, or something to that effect.

  • Mr Witness, you will answer the question put.

  • Mr Vincent, let me repeat the question?

  • Yes, repeat the question.

  • The question was in your experience while you were with the AFL, when units would give themselves specialised names did such occurrences become matters of common knowledge to the President of Liberia?

  • If units gave themselves names without the consent of the President? Is that what you mean?

  • When your unit gave itself the name Jungle Fire Quick Reaction Force, to your knowledge did that ever become known to the President of Liberia?

  • Well, I don't really know as to whether the President knew that, but this was not an extra force apart from the AFL. It's just that it was a branch of the AFL which was a fighting group. We would undertake a mission and name ourselves a particular name to run that mission. We would run that mission --

  • Mr Witness, I'm going to stop you. You've been asked a very simple question and your answer was you don't know.

  • You don't know if this name was known by the President. That is your answer.

  • Mr Vincent, when you were speaking yesterday of the SOD I just read you a transcript where you said that does not have to be the concern of the President. Now, in relation to Jungle Fire Quick Reaction Force, in your opinion when you and others gave yourselves that name, is that something that can be the concern of the President of Liberia?

  • No, it cannot be the concern, no.

  • Why do you say it cannot be the concern?

  • Well, it would only be the concern of the President if we were doing something contrary to his administration. But as long as it was in the interests of the government that we bring ourselves together to fight the common enemy, I did not see any problem with it.

  • Thank you, Mr Vincent. May Mr Vincent be shown what he was shown yesterday, Prosecution exhibit 93 as well as Prosecution exhibit 149, please. Starting with 93 first.

    Madam President, while that is being done, with leave of your Honours, may I ask that the page from MFI-4 that I covered with the witness in cross-examination not covered in chief be marked for identification? Your Honours might wish to include it as part of the already marked component of the same document. It ends in ERN 17, that is, 00027317?

  • Mr Koumjian, you're on your feet.

  • Your Honour, first I just wanted to take advantage of the few minutes before the break to bring a possible issue before the Chamber unless --

  • Is it related to the application on the floor?

  • So allow me to finish this. This is page ERN 00027317, which is part of the document that we marked yesterday as MFI-4. I'm going to mark this page as MFI-4A.

  • Thank you, Madam President.

  • Now, Mr Koumjian, can I hear you.

  • Unless I'm missing something, I just noticed what could be a small problem with the page numbering of the transcripts. Because looking at the 30 March transcript that I have the last page is 38338, but the 31st of March begins earlier at 38198. I noticed that because counsel gave a page reference and I found it in both transcripts. I think we might have misnumbered the beginning of yesterday's transcript.

  • I'm going to ask Madam Court Officer to look into this aspect during the break.

  • Your Honour, we will do that.

  • Yes. And unfortunately, Mr Anyah, I think time is upon us. Could you continue your re-examination after the break? We're going to take a half hour break and reconvene at 12 o'clock.

  • [Break taken at 11.30 a.m.]

  • [Upon resuming at 12.00 p.m.]

  • Yes, Mr Anyah, please continue.

  • Thank you, Madam President:

  • Mr Vincent, before the break I had made a request of the Court Officer to produce Prosecution exhibits 93 and 149. Let's start with 93, please.

    Madam President, if I could be heard about a change of appearance. Just for purposes of the record, the Defence has been joined by Silas Chekera.

    Mr Vincent, do you see that document?

  • Yes.

  • You were shown this document yesterday by counsel opposite, and we see it says, "Revolutionary United Front of Sierra Leone, RUF/SL. To: Major General Sam Bockarie. From: Brigadier Issa H Sesay."

    What date do you see on that document, Mr Vincent?

  • The date I am looking at I believe is the 26th, but I think it's not well written. It is saying "January" something like "26, 1999".

  • Have you seen this document before you were shown it yesterday in court?

  • Do you know who prepared this document?

  • I do not know, but I am seeing here "From: Brigadier Issa Sesay".

  • May we go to the last page, Madam Court Officer, please. Can you see the last page, Mr Vincent?

  • Yes, I am seeing it, yes.

  • Do you know whose signature that is?

  • Do you see any inscriptions on that page that would make you conclude that Issa Sesay's signature is present on that page?

  • No, there is nothing like that.

  • Besides counsel opposite indicating yesterday on the record that this was prepared by one Samuel Jabba, do you see any reference to Samuel Jabba on this document?

  • No. I am only seeing a signature, but I do not know whether it is that of Samuel Jabba or not.

  • Can we go to the second page of the document ending in ERN 5504. If we scroll down on that page, please. Now, bearing in mind the date of this document, 26 January 1999, we see in this paragraph the reference to a Colonel Boston Flomo says we were 100 per cent welcomed by the commander, Colonel Boston Flomo (alias Rambo). Doe do you see that, Mr Vincent?

  • Yes, I am seeing it.

  • Now, let's look at Prosecution exhibit 149. Do you see that document, Mr Vincent?

  • Yes, I am seeing it.

  • There is a date that is written at the top. What date do you see written at the top of the document?

  • The date I am seeing, to me it is "21 January 1999".

  • So 149 is dated 21 February 1999 - that's Prosecution exhibit 149 - and Prosecution --

  • Isn't that 21 January?

  • 21 January, yes.

  • I may have misspoken, Madam President. I said "February", yes. My apologies:

  • Mr Vincent, Prosecution exhibit 149 is dated 21 January 1999, and Prosecution exhibit 93 appears to be dated 26 January 1999. Now, when you look at what's on the screen, what alias do you see being used in reference to Colonel Boston Flomo? Is it Rambo or something else in that first paragraph that reads:

    "Upon hearing the confirm report that the strike force commander, Brigadier Goodial entered Freetown with his troops, Colonel Boston Flomo (alias)", what alias do you see there, Mr Vincent?

  • I am seeing "Brigadier Goodial entered Freetown" and not "Boston Flomo".

  • Yes, but continue on that sentence after "Freetown".

  • Okay. "... with his troops. Colonel Boston Flomo, alias Verndame, was instructed to meet with him with his troops, date 5 January 1999" --

  • Mr Witness, they asked you a simple question. What is the alias that appears there for Boston Flomo, "alias" being another name.

  • Yes, Van Damme. Van Damme.


  • Was Boston Flomo's alias Van Damme or was it Rambo, to your knowledge?

  • Well, I know Rambo.

  • I am not asking you if you know Rambo. What alias do you know Boston Flomo to have had when you served with him in the RUF?

  • I said I only know Rambo.

  • You know Rambo as being what?

  • Thank you, Mr Vincent.

    Yes, Justice Lussick?

  • Mr Witness, you pronounced that alias a moment ago as Van Damme. Where did you get that from? That's not how it's written in this document.

  • You mean in this script?

  • If you look at the alias that was presented to you in the document P-149, it says "alias Verndame". Where did you get "Van Damme" from?

  • I don't know what you are talking about, getting Van Damme from. Where would I get Van Damme from?

  • [Microphone not activated] to me. You were asked about the alias and you pronounced it Van Damme, as in Jean Claude Van Damme. That's not how it is spelt here. I am asking you where it did you hear the name Van Damme?

  • Van Damme? They asked if I am seeing this name Van Damme, and I can recall that there is a show that we watched on video - there was an actor called Van Damme. That's what I know of. But on this document, I am just seeing Van Damme. Yesterday this document was shown to me, that's what I can remember.

  • You spell Van Damme V-E-R-N-D-A-M-E, do you?

  • Yes, that's what I am seeing. I may not know the right spelling, but that is what I am seeing here, sir.

  • Now, if we scroll to the bottom of the page of P-149, sorry, the last page with the signatures, Mr Vincent, do you see the last page with the signatures and names under each signature? Do you know a Lieutenant Raymond Kartewu?

  • No.

  • And the next name below the second signature Major - what appears to be - Christ A Mannah. Do you know such a person?

  • Thank you, Mr Vincent. Now that concludes the necessity for those documents. You were asked on Tuesday, the 30th, a question about when you joined the NPFL. Do you remember being asked that, Mr Vincent?

  • Indeed, counsel opposite read you a transcript from 24 March, what you said on the first day of examination-in-chief regarding the period when you were a member of the NPFL and I today would like to read you what you said on 25 March. This is the transcript of 25 March 2010, page 37982, line 16. Mr Vincent, on Thursday last week this is what you told the Court, line 16 --

  • Excuse me, objection. I believe counsel is reading from the direct examination, he can correct me if I am wrong.

  • My objection is that redirect should not be repeating the direct examination.

  • Well, they read him a transcript from the examination-in-chief, one portion of the examination-in-chief, contending that he misrepresented the time period of his membership within the NPFL and I am entitled to read him another portion of his examination and ask him which one is the truth or which one has the accurate information. This was one of the first areas in cross-examination --

  • Have you put to him though, firstly, the aspect that was put to him in cross-examination?

  • And also, Mr Anyah, I am not sure of this yet but you may be able to answer it, are you attempting to impeach something this witness said in examination-in-chief or cross-examination?

  • No, Justice Lussick. To the extent there is lack of clarity on the record regarding a particular subject matter that in our view was touched upon in cross-examination, in my view leading to more confusion, then it is incumbent upon us to clarify what exactly the time period of his membership was.

  • All right. Let's hear what you are asking.

  • Let me start from the beginning. On the transcript of the 24th, when I started my examination with you at page 37964, lines 14 to 16, this is what counsel opposite read to you on Tuesday this week. There was a question I asked you very early in the examination, I said, line 14:

    "Q. We just need to know the period, the months that you

    were with the NPFL?

    A. From June 1990 to September 1990."

    That was on Wednesday last week, the 24th. On Thursday, the 25th, at line 16 of the page I gave before, 37982, these questions were asked of you and you gave this response:

    "Q. Would you refer to that rope as a checkpoint,

    Mr Vincent?

    A. Well, it was a checkpoint for the NPFL.

    Q. How long were you assigned to the checkpoint?

    A. I was assigned there from the time that I stopped

    selling up to September 8, 1990. September 8, 1990.

    Q. And the time when you stopped selling, was it in June

    of 1990?

    A. It was not in June 1990. In June 1990, Bong Mines was

    captured, as I have said. A week later I started my

    business. But when the harassment went on, it was in

    September. It was in this September that the harassment

    went on. From there, I went to the MP office and gave

    myself up and that I would want to be part of the NPFL. It

    was in that same September that I started manning that

    gate - that checkpoint."

    Mr Vincent, did you join the NPFL in June or in September of 1990?

  • Objection. Counsel has just put to the witness two contradictory statements in the direct examination. That's not the purpose of redirect; to explain contradictions in the direct examination. And if we are just repeating something that's already been covered and it further is impeaching his own contradiction.

  • Mr Anyah, what is your response?

  • Well, my response is ordinarily that would be the case, but if the effect of cross-examination was to leave the record in more confusion I am entitled to clarify what the witness's position is on an issue. We have the witness before the Court, once he leaves the witness box there is no way to clarify these things and it's a simple matter for him to clarify and if cross-examination has left his information in confusion, or capable of mischaracterisation, it is incumbent on us to clarify it.

  • Have you cited to him the passage from cross-examination?

  • So then why are you putting to him two bits and pieces from direct examination?

  • Because I assume that everybody here is fresh in their minds what was said on Tuesday the 30th, and I can cite it to him if it is necessary.

  • Mr Anyah, the crux of the matter is this: Mr Koumjian is right. You do not take a second bite at your direct examination to clarify matters that perhaps the witness might have contradicted himself under the examination-in-chief. That is not the purpose of re-examination. You have not shown any part of the cross-examination that you now wish to straighten out and so I will not - I cannot allow that question. The record has to remain as is.

  • Well, may I seek leave of your Honours to cite the cross-examination transcript and where I feel there is confusion in the record?

  • That is why I asked you before my ruling have you cited a transcript from cross-examination that you should then put to the witness? That would be a different question.

  • I have the transcript right here. I can proceed in that manner.

  • That is the question you should put to the witness, not two pieces from direct examination. That is taking a second bite at the apple.

  • May I proceed in the alternative manner?

  • If you have a different question that relates to a matter arising out of cross-examination, that is permissible.

  • Thank you, Madam President. May we go to the transcript of 30 March, page 38262. This is now cross-examination. Starting at line 10. Mr Vincent, during cross-examination you were read the transcript I have just read from last Wednesday's session, at page 37964 of last Wednesday's session, and this question was posed to you by counsel opposite after he read you what you said last Wednesday. At line 10:

    "Q. So, sir, was that the truth; that you were with the

    NPFL from June to September 1990?

    A. That is not correct. I was within their controlled

    territory, but I joined the NPFL in September. I was not

    NPFL until September. So you say from June to September,

    you might be correct one way, that I was in their

    controlled territory and I had no option but to, you know,

    undergo any consequence that I would have undergone until I

    joined them."

    Now, my question is simple. Did you join the NPFL in June or in September of 1990, Mr Vincent?

  • I joined the NPFL in September.

  • Of 1990.

  • Thank you, Mr Vincent. Also on the first day of cross-examination, 30 March, Tuesday this week, a question was asked to you regarding the nationalities of the RUF members who went through Bo Waterside. Do you remember being asked that, Mr Vincent?

  • Well, I can't remember, but you should ask me. If you should ask me, there are two nationalities that went through Bo Waterside, but I can't remember that question.

  • Yes, there's a question. I will read the transcript from 30 March, page 38307. This is the question I am referring to, Mr Vincent, when I speak about you being asked about Bo Waterside and the nationalities of those who went. 30 March, 38307, line 15:

    "Q. Now, the group that went to Bo Waterside, the

    commanders you mentioned is it correct were George Daniel,

    Martin George and Sam Kolleh; is that correct, sir?

    A. Yes, yes, yes."

    Line 19 a question is posed by counsel opposite:

    "Q. All three of those are of Liberian nationality,


    A. Yes."

    My question is this, Mr Vincent: Besides Martin George, George Daniel and Sam Kolleh, were there any other commanders that went with the group through Bo Waterside?

  • Yes. There were many commanders that went, vanguards that went. These vanguards --

  • Your Honours, can he take his answer slowly.

  • Please pause. Mr Witness, the interpreter didn't get you at all. Please repeat your answer a little slower.

  • Yes. I am saying that there were vanguards that went and they were of the two nationalities. I named these people because they were the names that I recollected quickly. That was why I named these names.

  • When you say there were others who were of the two nationalities, what nationalities are you referring to?

  • Both Liberian and Sierra Leonean vanguards.

  • Of the group that went through Bo Waterside, within the RUF command structure at that time who was the most senior person amongst that group?

  • The most senior person who went with that particular group was George Daniel, I believe. But I was not on that side, but I know these people went. But I cannot actually give you --

  • Your Honours, he has spoken very fast again.

  • You have got to repeat your answer, Mr Witness. You said you cannot actually give us what?

  • I said I cannot actually give you the actual commander, but I know that the senior man that was with this particular group was George Daniel apart from the leader himself, because the leader went there. George Daniel was the commander for that group, I believe, and we had other vanguards who were also Sierra Leonean. Momo Rogers, he was also with that group.

  • With which group did Mike Lamin go?

  • I told you earlier that Mike Lamin went with us. That is the Kailahun or Koindu group.

  • Thank you, Mr Vincent.

  • Mr Anyah, before you proceed, there is a matter that Mr Koumjian raised before the tea break. This is with regard to the numbering in the transcript out of which you are now citing as you go along. Now, I have received some messages from the Courtroom Officer, but I think I will call on the Courtroom Officer to explain what her findings were and what she would like - how she would like the parties now to proceed in relation to these transcript pages.

  • Yes.

  • Your Honour, in relation to the transcript of 31 March, it was mistakenly set to begin with the same page number as that of 30 March. So the transcript of 30 March which in fact counsel is referring presently is unaffected. However, a suggestion has been made that - a new transcript for 31 March has been re-issued with the corrected page numbers which probably can now be referred to if the transcript of 31 March needs to be used.

    A question was raised as to whether, in view of the corrected page numbers, should this now be substituted in today's transcript so that the record so a true picture is given on the record of which page numbers counsel actually referred to, because it is possible for the stenographers to do that.

  • Yes, but when will these new pages re-issued?

  • Your Honour, it's not really new pages, but the transcript of 31 March has been re-sent out to all the parties who had have access to their Lotus Notes indicating the correct page numbers.

  • Yes. Is the assumption that people are now going to abandon the proceedings and go looking into the transcript to see the latest changes?

  • Your Honour, the suggestion is not that this should affect the proceedings in the courtroom; but rather, just for purposes of - at the end of today, whether the transcript of today can reflect the pages referred to by counsel earlier in the day which may have - for example, with regard to 31 March, which may not have been actually the correct page in terms of the - I mean, in reference to the situation.

    So the query was simply with regard to the transcript of today, whether that can reflect the correct page numbers for purposes of the future reference to the transcript. So that what counsel asked earlier would actually - for example, if it was page 356, it would now be page 549 on today's transcript to show what counsel was actually referring to to avoid confusion in the future.

  • I can assist with this, Madam President. I have downloaded from my email, while Madam Court Manager was speaking, the re-issued transcript, so I will just repeat the relevant pages I have cited. From 31 of March I cited - this is the previous pagination - 38215, and I side that in relation to a question that learned Counsel opposite posed regarding an investigator and MFI-4 and MFI-4A. The correct page now in the re-issued transcript for that station is 38360. So that's one citation I made to the transcript of yesterday. The correct page would be 38360, the relevant lines being 21 to 23.

    I also cited a page in yesterday's transcript regarding the Jungle Fire Reaction Force, and the page I cited previously was 38209. The correct page in the re-issued transcript just circulated would be page 38350. This is where the witness speaks about the Jungle Fire Reaction Force, and the relevant lines would be line 7 through line 21 of page 38350 in lieu of page 38209. I think those are the two references I have made to yesterday's transcript.

  • Thank you. That is very helpful. I personally I am a bit wary to leaving the correction to someone other than the parties - leaving the technical correction of pages in the transcript to either a transcriber or, I don't know, Court Management. I would rather that this was done in Court by the parties, as you have now done. That eliminates any margin of error. I know it's problematic probably to us, Mr Koumjian, to go back in the length of his cross-examination to now start mapping out the pages that he referred to, but perhaps that can be done also in due course. I am not asking you that you do it now.

  • Your Honour, I believe what the transcribers were suggesting is that when today's transcript is issued, when there is a citation to 31 March, they will put in the correct page and they will be able to match it by looking at the language that was cited. I am not sure, I didn't download the new transcript, but actually I don't quite understand how the pages come out as counsel said. I take his word for it because as I look at it, the transcript of the 30th was 140 pages. The new transcript, it should simply - the transcript of the 31st, it should be able that we simply add 140 to whatever page was cited and that would be the correct page number, but that didn't work out compared to what counsel was citing.

    But my suggestion is just to ask the transcribers, and then of course it would be the duty of the parties to check the transcript an alert the Court about any errors in the citations. We will do that.

  • But, you see, it's not just today's transcript. It is probably yesterday's transcript as well.

  • The transcript I downloaded while we were in session this half hour was re-issued at 12.07 p.m. by the Court Management Office and it runs to 136 pages, and I am fairly confident that the citations I have given for the relevant portions I read from the inaccurately paginated transcript matches the correct transcript as has been re-issued.

  • Let me put it this way. Since this was an error made by one of the departments of the Court, we will now order that in the final transcript for today, the correct page numbers be reflected in the evidence.

  • You are much obliged, your Honours.

  • Then, of course, it is for the parties now to cross-check and ensure that for your sakes there are no errors made issued in today's transcript. Please proceed, Mr Anyah.

  • Mr Vincent, you were asked questions on Tuesday, 30, about Zigzag Marzah. Do you remember being asked questions about Zigzag Marzah two days ago?

  • Yes, I remember.

  • In particular, you were read transcripts from the evidence of Zigzag Marzah - evidence given by Mr Marzah on March 12, 2008 at page 5868 regarding the invasion of Sierra Leone. Do you remember being read portions of the Zigzag Marzah's evidence given to this Court?

  • Yes, I saw it. They read it, yes.

  • Mr Vincent, when you were engaged in the invasion of Sierra Leone in March 1991 making your way into Koindu and Kailahun, did you see a person named Zigzag Marzah during that time?

  • You have identified for us in a photograph the person you believe to be Zigzag Marzah during your testimony here. Did you hear of that person you identified being present in the vicinity of Lofa County as you made your way into Sierra Leone amongst other RUF members in March 1991?

  • You were asked questions today about Dopoe Menkarzon and whether or not you met Mr Menkarzon before you came to The Hague to testify. Do you remember being asked those question?

  • Yes, I remember, yes.

  • When you say you met Dopoe Menkarzon before you came to The Hague, what was the purpose of you meeting him?

  • The reason for meeting Dopoe Menkarzon was that - it was not that I told him I was coming to The Hague. There is a company - an American company that I had applied to. It is about to start work, and Dopoe Menkarzon is one of their heads or one of the bosses in the company. So I had to go to ask for an excuse - that is why I met him - to ask for excuse that I was not going to be around for a length of time. Probably they will start and somebody may say that I am not interested in the job. Just to make things safe. That was why I met him.

  • When you met Mr Menkarzon, did you discuss with him any of the testimony you were going to give when you came to The Hague?

  • No. He doesn't even know that I was travelling to come to The Hague. No.

  • Thank you. I have nothing further in re-examination.

  • Thank you. Now, Mr Koumjian, you had wanted an opportunity to ask questions to the witness arising out of questions from the Bench. Now, only arising out of questions from the Bench, not a second bite at cross-examination.

  • No. Your Honour, I would say that I should be allowed to touch on the matters that counsel raised arising out of questions from the Bench because he argued --

  • No, no, no. Only questions arising out of questions asked by the judges.

  • That's why I have been hastening to add. And if I think you are going beyond the scope, I will pull you up.

  • I am certain you will. Thank you, your Honour:

  • Sir, I want to go to what Justice Doherty first asked you and that was, I believe, at about page 35 of my LiveNote, so I want to get it as exact as possible. First, you had said in talking about why some people - about different Prosecution witnesses - you said "ashamed". Let me get the exact page. I believe it's 35, line 12, in my LiveNote.

  • Could you start with the question of Justice Doherty. Please direct us to the part that you are referring to.

  • Yes, there is only one question from Justice Doherty and that question was --

  • It's certainly not on page 35. That is why I am asking you to direct us to the question you are referring to.

  • I thought I had it. Does someone have that page?

  • So the bottom of page 26 her remarks begin. She was talking about something you had said earlier where you had said, "It was alleged most people went to testify for the Prosecution were given up to $10,000." And then you talked about, "It was this that was being said by people who was against what was going on." Sir, who are these people, first of all, who are against what was going on? Who were you referring to?

  • I told you I am referring to Paul Veal who gave me this information.

  • So the one person --

  • The witness has not answered. I don't know if there is something lost in translation. Mr Koumjian, I am going to ask you to repeat your question because he hasn't answered your question.

  • Well, I understood his answer.

  • He is really telling you what Paul Veal told him, but he is not answering your question. Listen carefully, sir, Mr Witness.

  • When you were talking about persons who was against what was going on, you were talking about Paul Veal and only Paul Veal. Is that right?

  • Yes, I said Paul Veal, but that was the confirmed information that it was the direct person who gave me the information that I have said here. All the information that I have given here pertaining to Nya, Isaac was given to me by Paul Veal.

  • When you say Paul Veal was against what was going on, you mean he is against the trial of Charles Taylor. Is that correct?

  • Not that he was against the trial, but, according to him, people were saying things that were not done.

  • And the things that he is upset about, something you said on page 35, line 12, you said, "Ashamed in the sense no RUF member like us would have expected Nya to go against us." So, sir, when you talk about witnesses going against us, do you mean telling the truth about RUF crimes? Is that what you are against?

  • I am not talking about telling the truth about RUF crime. We are not against them telling the truth about RUF crimes, but at least let them say something straight. Not to bring in things that did not happen. So those that did not happen are the things that we are against. Everybody has a right to justice, we know that very well.

  • When you said, sir, "Ashamed in the sense no RUF member like us would have expected the witness to go against us", what did you mean when you say for a witness - this witness "to go against us"?

  • Well, what I mean here is that going against us in a sense that it is somebody that all of us have come together, we have been together and somebody looks at you and mentions things against your name of which you were not part of. I can even give an example wherein somebody testified here that I speak Mende and I do not even understand Mende. That's what we are against. That's what I mean.

  • Mr Witness, do you understand the witness that told that lie about you speaking Mende was a Defence witness? You didn't know that, did you?

  • No, I did not really know until later somebody called the name of Charles Ngebeh. But I don't know. I don't know if he's on the Prosecution side or the Defence side, because he is in Sierra Leone and I am in Liberia.

  • Sir, the name of the witness that I'm talking about I can't tell you because it's protected. You told us the basis for all this information that you are talking about, these Prosecution witnesses and payments, was a rumour from Paul Veal?

  • Do you agree with what Charles Taylor said about rumours in this Court on 17 August 2009? If we could have page 26907.

  • Mr Koumjian, you are now skating on thin ice. You are going beyond the question that Justice Doherty asked.

  • This is my last question and I hope the ice will support me for a few minutes.

  • Yes, I hope the ice will support you.

  • Madam President, it is the case he is going beyond the scope of the question posed. The question was not asking about whose definition of rumours matter or what Charles Taylor said about rumours. Justice Doherty's question was quite specific and now we are going to repeat evidence given in chief by the accused regarding what rumours are or aren't, or their consequence.

  • Your Honour, if I could just be heard on that. Counsel based his whole area of cross-examination which was not part - I mean redirect, which was not part of the cross-examination, all of these questions about supposed payments to specific Prosecution witnesses on Justice Doherty's questions. That was his basis on why he could go beyond the cross and address these issues. So I think out of fairness I should be allowed to at least put this transcript to him.

  • No, no, no, wait. Just give me a moment. Look, I am certain that Justice Doherty did not speak about rumours and where you are now going is to try and counter what counsel on the other side led in re-examination and I cannot allow that question. Ask another arising out of the Bench's questions, if you have one.

  • All the additional questions I have would arise out of Mr Anyah's points addressing what he said was Justice Doherty's question. All these questions about payments.

  • I have already said no.

  • Then we have no further questions.

  • Okay. Thank you. Now, are there documents to be tendered? Can I hear the parties on this?

  • Yes, Madam President. All documents marked on the basis of requests made by the Defence for identification, we respectfully move that they be admitted into evidence. In particular I believe we had the witness mark MFI-1 - well, we had the witness sign MFI-1, as well as MFI-2 and just today we asked the Chamber to identify what has become MFI-4A.

    Now, in respect of MFI-4A, it is part of a larger document. I have been notified by the Court Management Officer of a practical difficulty they face with the document. MFI-4A corresponds with ERN number 00027317. On the reverse side of the page, a single page, is what your Honour has marked as part of MFI-4, and that one has the ERN number of 00027318. Essentially the signature page of this purported statement was marked as part of MFI-4 and the page preceding the signature page has now been marked as MFI-4A.

    So the proposal from us would be that, with leave of the Chamber, subject to the consent of the Prosecution, perhaps the entire document, that is the three relevant pages which have been marked for identification, pages 1, the signature page, both consisting or constituting MFI-4, be joined as one exhibit with MFI-4A, which is the page before the signature page. So we are asking for one exhibit number in respect of three pages from the same document.

  • And do you have any objection to MFI-5 being also admitted, while you are on your feet?

  • MFI-5 I believe was a photograph.

  • 3 and 5 are Prosecution MFIs and I am asking you, whilst you are on your feet, whether you have objections.

  • No. This is the photograph that the witness could not see the persons clearly, but he did --

  • He did speak to the photograph.

  • -- speak to the photograph, so I have no objection. And neither do I have an objection in respect to the map of Liberia. Thank you.

  • Mr Koumjian, what are your submissions on these MFIs?

  • We move all of them into evidence, have no objection to the Defence documents or to the proposed inclusion of all pages in MFI-4, because actually these are front and back so if the originals go into evidence the front and back will be included.

  • Mr Anyah, do you mind if MFI-4 and 4A become a Prosecution exhibit? Does it make a difference to you?

  • No, so long as that exhibit is limited to the three pages we covered with the witness.

  • Madam Court Officer, I think the next exhibits are D-412 and P-513.

  • That's correct, your Honour.

  • In that case, the photograph that was formerly MFI-1, this is photo with ERN number P0000627 as marked and signed by the witness is now exhibit D-412. The photo formerly MFI-2 that was ERN numbered DP-247 as marked and signed by the witness is now exhibit D-413.

  • [Exhibits D-412 and D-413 admitted]

    The map of Liberia formerly marked MFI-3 as marked and signed by the witness is now exhibit P-513. The document formerly MFI-4 and MFI-4A, which together is a memorialisation of a statement by Colonel John Vincent now constituting pages ERN 000027313, ERN 00027317 and ERN 00027318, that is three pages, are now exhibit P-514. Lastly, the photograph that was formerly MFI-5 with ERN 0000673 is now exhibit P-515.

  • [Exhibits P-513 to P-515 admitted]

    Mr Vincent, thank you very much for your evidence. Your evidence has now come to an end. We thank you for your patience and your testimony and you are now free to leave and we wish you a safe journey home.

  • Now, Mr Anyah, we had an outstanding testimony I think for witness - if I am not mistaken, witness DCT-146. Is that the witness waiting in the wings.

  • Yes, it is, Madam President. And your Honours will recall the witness is here for purposes of cross-examination by the Prosecution. I would indicate that this is Mr Munyard's witness, and with leave of your Honours, may he and I change places, depending on what transpires.

  • Madam President, I see no reason to hold up the Court now. We can carry on until the lunch break and then we can swap places.

  • Right. Could the arrangements be made to bring in witness 146, DCT-146? And I think --

  • Yes, your Honour, Ms Hollis is doing the cross-examination of this witness. I would ask your Honours for permission to leave and do other matters and wish everyone a good break.

  • Thank you, Mr Koumjian.

  • Thank you, Mr Koumjian. We wish you the same.

  • May I make the same request of your Honours, also wishing you all an excellent Easter holiday.

  • And you wish to abandon us also?

  • With leave of your Honours, yes.

  • Thank you, Mr Anyah, you may have an early break. But then, Mr Munyard, I think it may be in order for you to shift now, now that there is nobody --

  • Madam President, the process of logging off and logging on again, I can do that without wasting any Court time during the break, and I am capable of watching and listening to the cross-examination from over here. I am quite used to, in the English courts, sitting much further back than this and still participating in the trial.

  • [Witness DCT-146 enters courtroom]

  • Good afternoon, Mr Ngebeh.

  • Yeah, good afternoon, ma'am.

  • We are hoping this afternoon to continue with your testimony. You remember that at the time we sent you to have a break, the lawyers on the other side had some questions for you. And that is what we are now going to do, to listen to the questions that the lawyer on the other side is going to ask. However, before they start, I want to remind you that at the beginning of your testimony you took an oath to tell the truth.

  • Yes.

  • Now, that same oath is binding on you today as you commence your testimony. You understand that, sir?

  • I got you, my Lord.

  • Thank you. Ms Hollis, please continue.