Thank you, Madam President, your Honours. This Defence application under Rule 92 bis should be dismissed. First of all, they have not established that it is in the interests of justice to accept this filing outside of the deadline that was imposed by your Honours.
Secondly, were your Honours to be disposed to accept the filing and consider it, the documents and the arguments do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 92 bis. In relation to the documents pertaining to Prince Taylor, not only are the - is the filing of these documents unjustifiably out of time, but it is unduly cumulative.
As to the document relating to Stephen Jusu Moriba, this document addresses a Defence manufactured issued and is not relevant.
As to Prince Taylor, filing outside the deadline, the Defence argues to you that they must file this application outside the deadline because of issues raised by the Prosecution after the filing deadline. However, in that same application they admit the reality and the reality is that the issue of the identity of Prince Taylor has been raised before, long before the last days of the Defence case. And even though it was raised before, the Defence chose not to call witnesses on that issue or to file a Rule 92 bis application in a timely fashion. So this last-minute filing after the deadline is not justified.
In paragraphs 9 and paragraphs 13 of the application, the Defence acknowledge that the issue of the identity of Prince Taylor has been raised before. And at paragraph 13 they give you citations to earlier testimony in which this issue has been raised, including the testimony of Charles Ngebeh way back on 12 April of this year and they cite you to page 38718. Also the testimony of Fayia Musa, also known as Musa Fayia, again along time ago on 19 April of this year and they cite you to pages 39286, 39287. And also they cite you to the testimony of Isatu Kallon on 23 June of this year and they cite to page 43272, although the topic begins on page 43271.
So it is an issue that has been raised much earlier in the Defence case and they have chosen not to address it at this time. It is therefore not justified that they be allowed this last-minute filing.
You would please note if you look at the testimony of Fayia Musa, that his testimony on this issue is ambiguous and certainly allows for the Prosecution to continue to question on this issue. The Prosecution is not persisting in moving forward with unfounding propositions. And at page 39287 of the transcript of 19 April you will find the ambiguity in the responses of Fayia Musa as to Prince Taylor and whether Prince Taylor was the investigator for Charles Taylor. That is to say, the Prince Taylor who was an RUF member was the investigator for Charles Taylor. And he seems to indicate that he was, but again it is ambiguous and merited follow-up questioning by the Prosecution.
So the issue has been before your Honours, the issue has been known to the Defence for some time, there is no justification for a late filing. The fact that the issue has been raised before also precludes the filing, in our submission, because it is unduly cumulative. There is already evidence on the record that deals with this matter and those same citations that the Defence gave you that I have mentioned to you just previously also have the witnesses indicating that there are two Prince Taylors and that a Prince Taylor with whom they spoke in relation to this case was a different Prince Taylor, except as I have noted Fayia Musa's somewhat confusing and ambiguous responses.
There is jurisprudence to the effect that unnecessarily cumulative or repetitive evidence need not be admitted because it could affect the expeditious nature of the proceedings. And in that regard I am referring to the Prosecutor v Blagojevic and Jokic, that is an ICTY decision of 12 June 2003 at paragraph 20 and Blagojevic is B-L-A-G-O-J-E-V-I-C; Jokic, J-O-K-I-C.
For those reasons, your Honours, we suggest that the application as to Prince Taylor be dismissed by your Honours.
In terms of the application as to Stephen Jusu Moriba, this application should also be dismissed as again there is no justification for any filing at all actually, because this is a Defence-created issue and, further, the document at annex B does not establish that this Stephen Jusu Moriba is not Pa Moriba.
But first of all let's look at whether in fact as the Defence tell you in their pleading this is an issue that has been raised by the Prosecution where we have suggested that Gbao Defence team witness assistant Stephen Jusu Moriba is the same as Pa Moriba who was an adviser to Foday Sankoh. There was no suggestion by the Prosecution and we certainly never mentioned this person's name in relation to his being a Gbao Defence team witness assistant. If you look at the citations that are given to you by the Defence, they simply do not support their application. None of those citations show you that we have suggested that these two individuals are one and the same, or that we have identified Stephen Jusu Moriba as a Gbao Defence team witness assistant.
If you look at the citation for 3 November which was given to you by the Defence, pages 48554 to 48558, you see that all of the questions there relate to Yusef Dafae and Stephen Jusu Moriba. Nothing about Pa Moriba. Nothing at all. And if you look at that exchange about this confusion, Yusef Dafae or Stephen Jusu Moriba, you will note that the first question was posed by her Honour the Presiding Judge. So nothing there supports their argument.
If you look at the 4 November citation which was obviously a typographic error, it's cited as 448701, there is no such page, but the Prosecution believes they are referring to 48701 where Jusu Moriba is mentioned, but he is mentioned on that page, if that is the page they're referring to, in relation to the witness's house burning down. Nothing about is he the same person as Pa Moriba.
In fact, your Honours, the questions on 4 November, again we think it is page 48701, the only mention of him is between lines 19 and 23 where he says, "Stephen Jusu Moriba and myself, we built the houses." And they're talking about houses being burned down.
The 5th of November is of import to your Honours. The pages that are cited there are pages 48897 to 48898 and the relevant questions on those pages begin at the bottom of page 48897 and they are questions, you will see that. They are questions. "Who is Pa Moriba?" And then the question:
"Q. Is this the person you said was your adjutant?
A. No, sir."
There's no suggestion by the Prosecution that they are the same person. These are questions, and these are legitimate questions.
On 8 November the Defence cites you to pages 48956 to 48960. If you look at those pages you will see there is no mention of Pa Moriba. Certainly no mention or suggestion that Stephen Jusu Moriba is the same as Pa Moriba.
On 9 November, pages 49071 to 49072, in fact this is re-direct examination. This is not the Prosecution cross-examining this witness at all. It is re-direct examination and the witness is asked if they're one and the same person and the witness says that they are not.
So if you look at the cites they have given you there is nothing to support what they say is the issue; the Prosecution suggestion that Pa Moriba and Stephen Jusu Moriba are one and the same person. And on that ground alone it should be dismissed as there is no issue to be addressed by this document.
In addition to that, the document that you find at annex B is not relevant. It does not establish that Stephen Jusu Moriba is not Pa Moriba. In fact, the witness said he did not know what part of the Court Stephen Jusu Moriba worked for, so the email saying that Stephen Jusu Moriba worked for the Gbao Defence is of no relevance here because the witness himself said he didn't know what part of the Court this person worked for.
So we suggest there is no relevance here to assist in any issue that has been raised because no issue has in fact been raised. On those grounds, Madam President, your Honours, we would ask that your Honours dismiss this application.