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

  • Mr Kanneh, yesterday when we broke off we were looking at what you had told the Prosecutors about the killing of BS Massaquoi. Do you remember that?

  • And we were looking at tab 3, specifically page 44282 of the Defence bundle. Now I am just going to repeat the passage I read out at the end of yesterday so we can put the whole of this in context. It reads as follows - it's the line above paragraph 34:

    "The witness was asked about the killing of BS Massaquoi and related the following:

    34. The witness states that this killing took place at Kenema Town around the time of the intervention. The witness was present along with Sam Bockarie, Junior Vandi, Captain Dimora Musa and Eddie Kanneh. Jungle was not present and witness thinks he was in Liberia at the time."

    Now, did you tell the Prosecution all of that?

  • Yes, sir, I told him that we were all present, the names that you've mentioned.

  • Paragraph 35, "The witness thinks that Massaquoi was killed because he aided the escape of Momoh and Kpaka ..." Is it Kpaka, or Kappa [phon]?

  • Kpaka.

  • "... two other prominent Kenema residents that were being detained." Did you tell them that?

  • What did you tell them?

  • I did not tell them that he aided Kpaka and Doctor's escape. He did not help. That is a difference.

  • Right, well we had better look in that case at the handwritten notes that were taken presumably as you were being questioned and giving your answers. Page 44303, please, same bundle. Halfway down the page there is the question, "BS Massaquoi killing?" Now just pausing there for a second, that suggests that somebody asked you, "What can you tell us about the BS Massaquoi killing?", am I right? Is that how this particular passage came about?

  • Please repeat. Please repeat. I did not get you clearly.

  • Let me just explain that what we are looking at now is the notes that Mr Streeter wrote at the time that he and Mr Santora, who you probably know as Mr Chris, were interviewing you at the end of October/beginning of November 2007. These notes on this particular subject start with the following, "BS Massaquoi killing?" In other words somebody is asking you, are they, "What can you tell us about the BS Massaquoi killing?" Can you remember if you were asked such a question?

  • Yes, sir.

  • Who was the first person to mention BS Massaquoi in this interview? Had you already talked about him, or were you asked completely out of the blue, "What can you tell us about BS Massaquoi's killing?"

  • There are two questions there, Mr Munyard.

  • Your Honour, if I have I will break them down:

  • Had you already mentioned BS Massaquoi in your conversation with the Prosecutors?

  • When did you previously mention BS Massaquoi?

  • Well I cannot recall the date now, but it was during one of the times that they were taking a statement from me.

  • Well, I can tell you - and again I will be corrected if I am wrong - that the only reference to the BS Massaquoi killing is this passage that we are looking at. BS Massaquoi is never mentioned in any of the previous, or for that matter the later, interviews with you. How did the subject of BS Massaquoi come up for the first time; that is to say before this particular question and the very short answer that you gave to it?

  • I would like you to be making the questions a little shorter, but if it is long I will find it difficult to catch up with you.

  • All right. When did you first tell the Prosecution that you knew something about a man called BS Massaquoi and his killing?

  • I have told you that I cannot recall the date, but the statements that are on the paper you can tell because you have the documents with you. I cannot recall the date that I told them about BS Massaquoi's death, or his killing. You can look at the document.

  • We are looking at the document for - let me just get the date correct. Yes, we are looking at the document for 1 November last year, but you have now told us that before you discussed it at this point in this interview he had already been mentioned. I want to know was it in the course of this same interview, but earlier on, or was it at a previous interview before October/November of last year?

  • Well, I cannot confirm if they did it about BS Massaquoi's death. It would have been on the paper, so whatever time you see on the document that will be the correct time.

  • That is the difficulty, Mr Kanneh. There is no earlier reference to him and so we need to know from you when he was mentioned before 1 November, or before this stage in the interview of 1 November, and you say you can't remember the first occasion when you mentioned his name?

  • Not at all, because it is on the document. You should take the time that is on the document. Look at the document.

  • I am going to look at the document in some more detail in a moment. Why did - well, let me ask this first. Who was the first person to mention BS Massaquoi? Was it you, or was it someone from the Prosecution?

  • I don't think if they knew BS Massaquoi. It could be me.

  • Right. And why did you want to tell them about the killing of BS Massaquoi? What was the relevance of that incident?

  • Well, they must have asked a question how we moved to Kenema, or out of Kenema, what happened, and maybe while explaining I could have called the name. It must have been through that.

  • Right. But although you could have called the name at some earlier stage no-one ever seems to have written it down, do you agree, because we have not got any previous mention of him? Do you agree with that?

  • This is a statement. You know, now you are talking about before, or today, or the day after tomorrow, no. You will respond to questions when they are asked of you, so I only answered the questions that were asked of me.

  • So, does it follow then that it must have been the Prosecution who first mentioned BS Massaquoi and not you?

  • No, I cannot say that now because I cannot recall, but it is on the document. I don't want to say they did it, or I did it, but it is in my statement.

  • Well, let us look at the document and what you told them back in November of last year and we will stay on the handwritten page. "BS Massaquoi killing?", and then what is written next is, "Occurred at Kenema Town around intervention time. Present were SB, witness, Junior Vandi, Captain Dimora Musa, Eddie Kanneh. Jungle was not present. He was by then in Liberia." You have agreed you told them that. Next question, "Why was he killed?", and the answer they have recorded you as giving is, "He aided the escape of Momoh and Kpaka." Now, you told us a moment ago that you didn't tell them that. Do you stand by your earlier reply that you didn't tell them that he was killed because he aided the escape of Momoh and Kpaka?

  • Not at all, because they were all in detention. I don't think that was even possible for a prisoner to aid another prisoner to escape. I did not tell them that.

  • So this is another invention by the Prosecutors, yes?

  • They have just made it up and written it down?

  • What do you mean by make it up? They wrote it. I did not say it.

  • And when it was read back to you, what was your reaction?

  • I did not say anything. Maybe I did not get it when they read it, could be.

  • So it is another thing that you didn't get when it was read back to you, is that what you are saying?

  • What about when it was read back to you in the course of proofing sessions here in April in The Hague?

  • That is what I am talking about. It was during the prepping. I thought that was what you were referring to. That is what I am talking about.

  • Now, look, if you didn't understand, I was initially referring to your evidence both yesterday and the day before that at the end of every interview it was all read back to you so that you could correct it, or add to it, or clarify. When it was read back to you at the end of the interview on 1 November 2007, did you hear this particular answer read out?

  • In November?

  • Yes, when you were actually being interviewed and giving them this little bit of information about BS Massaquoi's killing?

  • Yes, sir, I can still recall, but where it was compiled I was not present.

  • When you say, "I can still recall", I am asking you about the interview notes being read back to you at the end of the interview. Do you still recall that happening in November of last year?

  • And so why didn't you say to them, "Hang on a minute, I never said he aided the escape of Momoh and Kpaka"?

  • Well, I did not tell them that. I did not think about that to tell them.

  • And again when it was read back to you here in The Hague on 14 and 15 April, the whole thing read back to you all the way through, why didn't you correct it then?

  • Well, maybe it was a mistake. I did not hear it clearly. That is why I did not correct it.

  • Now you have also said that when he was taken away, this is BS Massaquoi, when you were giving your evidence on Friday you said that he was shot and that there was a colleague with you, another person you named called Manowai. Do you remember telling us about Manowai?

  • Yes, sir.

  • Why didn't you tell the Prosecutors at the time when you were giving this list of names that Manowai was present?

  • Well that too escaped my memory at that time, but he was present.

  • Now you gave us a great deal of evidence about this killing on Friday last, far more than just who was present and where it all happened. Did you tell the Prosecution a great deal more than we have recorded that I have been reading out to you this morning from these pages? Did you tell them when they were interviewing you more than is written down here, and I will read it back to you again if you want me to?

  • Read it again.

  • I am going to try and take it quite quickly. I hope the interpreters can keep up. It's exactly the same as I have already read out.

    "BS Massaquoi killing? Occurred at Kenema Town around intervention time. Present were SB, witness, Junior Vandi, Captain Dimora Musa and Eddie Kanneh. Jungle was not present. He was by then in Liberia.

    Q. Why was he killed?

    A. He aided the escape of Momoh and Kpaka."

    That is all that is recorded in November when you are talking about the killing of BS Massaquoi. You told us a great deal more about it on Friday. Did you tell the Prosecution more when you were first being interviewed, all this detail you gave us on Friday, when you were being interviewed about it in November?

  • Well, if I made any addition maybe they asked me this time about the death of BS more than that time, because even you, you had stopped elsewhere. And even when you give your statement now and later you will be asked why did this not happen so you will have to add or maybe deduct. It depends on the questions that will be asked of you.

  • Is what I have read out to you from that page all that you told them back in November about BS Massaquoi's killing or did you tell them more that hasn't been recorded?

  • The one that you've read is what I told them at that time, the one that is on the document. Only that where there is some problem is where it states that Kpaka and that other man's escape was aided by that man, that was the contributing factor, I said no.

  • I want to move on to something else, please. Again this is the meeting in December 1998 at Sam Bockarie's house. You gave us evidence, again I think it was last Friday, about the Operation Free the Leader and you told us last week when you were giving this evidence that, "Sam Bockarie told us that this plan", that's in connection with free the leader, "Was designed in Monrovia with Mr Taylor." Do you remember saying that?

  • Yes, sir.

  • Did you tell the Prosecutors that when you were giving them a lot of detail about that meeting in the course of the interview in November?

  • Well, let's look at the account that has been recorded. Page 44284, still on tab 3. Now we looked at some of this yesterday and I am not going to go into great detail, I am just going to go through the topics with you because they are set out in numbered paragraphs. I will summarise what is said in each paragraph, Mr Kanneh, and if I am not summarising accurately in the view of the Prosecution then I invite the Prosecution to tell me to add more of what is written down there.

    Paragraph 48, this is the first note of what you were telling them. We went through yesterday that's the names of all the people who were at the meeting and you disputed yesterday that you had ever mentioned some of these being there.

    Paragraph 49: "The witness states that Sam Bockarie had arrived back from Burkina Faso with arms, ammunitions and uniforms."

    Paragraph 50: "The witness states there was a discussion of a major offensive known as Operation Free the Leader. The first targets were to be Kono and Makeni, to be followed by Segbwema and Daru. The final target was to be Freetown. The purpose of the assault on Freetown was twofold: To take power in Freetown and free the leader."

    Paragraph 51: "There was discussion of a two flank entry into Freetown. There was to be a future meeting between Issa and the other front line commanders to discuss this plan."

    Paragraph 52: "The witness stated that Jungle advised them that Taylor instructed that there could be no success without money. That was why they were to hit the main mining areas first."

    Paragraph 53 we read yesterday. This was where some of the people present suggested getting additional manpower from Liberia, but Sam Bockarie rejected that suggestion due to past problems that had occurred when many NPFL members came into Sierra Leone, but Bockarie preferred ULIMO-K assistance.

    Paragraph 54: "Pademba Road was to be the first target of the offensive on Freetown."

    Paragraph 55: "The plan was to execute Kabbah and Foday Sankoh would become president."

    Then the final record of what you told the Prosecutors in November about that meeting is:

    "The witness stated that after this meeting Jungle spoke with Charles Taylor about this mission. The witness stated he heard this conversation take place on Sam Bockarie's satellite phone."

    Then there is a reference to Charles Taylor taking satellite calls directly. That's all you told the Prosecutors when you were going into detail about this in November, Mr Kanneh. No reference in there to the fact that this plan was designed in Monrovia with Mr Taylor. If that's the truth, the evidence you gave last Friday, why didn't you tell the Prosecutors that important fact when they were interviewing you last November?

  • Well, the story is on this document that Mr Taylor was involved in that mission. Just come where Jungle said the Pa had said nothing would go on without money, so we should hit the mining area. So that alone proves that the Pa was involved, that Charles Taylor was involved. And thinking about what Jungle said and he was the representative of the Pa.

  • Let's look at handwritten note of that. It is on page 44312, same bundle. In fact, we looked at this yesterday as well, the first line of it:

    "Q. At this meeting did Jungle or CO Lion say anything

    about CT?" Charles Taylor presumably.

    "A. Jungle said that CT said that there would be no

    success without money. That is why we were to hit the main

    mining areas first."

    Nothing in there about Jungle saying that CT had designed this whole plan, it was all his idea, is there, Mr Kanneh?

  • There is something. If somebody said you should hit the main important mining area, what do you understand about that word, that expression? If somebody says hit this and this mining area, an important mining area, that expression and plan, what do you think are the differences if there is a mission to go on and somebody advises that you should do this? What do you think is different from plan?

  • Back to paragraph 51 on page 44284: "There was to be a future meeting between Issa and the other front line commanders to discuss this plan", the two flank entry into Freetown. Did that future meeting ever occur?

  • Well, at that time they had gone to Kono. They gave the instruction in Buedu, Kailahun District. So after giving out the instruction and when you go near the target you will have to tell the commanders. So I cannot tell you whether the meeting was held, but the mission went on and it worked. So I believe that the plan went on.

  • So this future meeting never did occur. Is that what you're telling us?

  • That is not quite what he said, Mr Munyard. He said he didn't know. He said, "I cannot tell."

  • Well, I will leave it at that:

  • Moving on to something else, are you someone who is in the habit of reading or having read to you United Nations Security Council resolutions? Tell me if there is anything in that question that you don't understand?

  • I don't understand the whole question.

  • Right. Have you ever heard of any United Nations - well, have you ever heard of the United Nations Security Council?

  • Have you heard of the United Nations?

  • When did you first hear about the existence of the Special Court for Sierra Leone?

  • I heard it from about 2000.

  • What did you hear from about 2000?

  • They said there was going to be a Special Court for Sierra Leone.

  • Who is "they" who said this?

  • Well, I cannot get the particular person's name now, but I think it was on the radio, over the news.

  • Yes, the BBC again presumably.

  • Well, it could be VOA, or BBC, or any other station that I cannot recall now, or FM.

  • So you were in the habit of listening to these radio programmes, were you?

  • Yes, at that time if I met the news on, yes.

  • It is written down here as COA.

  • VOA, Voice of America.

  • That's one of the radio stations you listened to, is it?

  • Only if I met the news, not that I had a particular radio station that I used to monitor.

  • I think we are all familiar with the BBC. When you refer to FM are you talking about a particular radio programme or are you talking about the FM band, tuning into radio stations on the FM band?

  • There are FM radio stations. There is BBC, there is VOA and there are other radio stations. Like in our country there are a lot of FM stations locally.

  • Yes, all right. Thank you. So, it is tuning into radio stations on that band. Were you doing that regularly in the year 2000?

  • No, not frequently because I had some other duties to perform.

  • And what were they that stopped you listening to the radio?

  • At times I had military operations. There were some other times I had some other arrangements to attend to and I had my own personal work to do.

  • Yes. Well you don't have military operations now, do you, in 2008?

  • 2008? No, I don't have any military operations.

  • So that doesn't prevent you listening to the radio these days, does it?

  • Well, besides military operations I have some other personal operations that will not allow me to be listening to just radio. If I am paid for that I will not do anything else, I will just be listening to the radio, but that is my choice. If I want to listen to the radio, I can. If I don't, I will not.

  • Mr Kanneh, we will come on to what you are paid for in a moment. What I am suggesting is there was nothing to prevent you listening to the radio from time to time this year, any more than there was when you used to listen to Voice of America, the BBC and tune in to local radio stations, or any radio stations you could get. That is right, isn't it?

  • There are a lot of things. Even batteries, or even the radio that you listen to, you would have to buy it. If I don't have a radio, how can I listen to it?

  • When in 2000 did you make this third trip in which you met Sam Bockarie at his house in Four Houses Road?

  • Well at that time in 2000 it was almost at the end, going to the end of 2000 almost.

  • Well, wasn't this at the time that you were involved with the Ceasefire Monitoring Commission?

  • After. After the ceasefire monitoring.

  • I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I think you said the other day that when I was asking you questions about why was the RUF interested in getting arms and ammunition at a time when they were actively involved in the Ceasefire Monitoring Commission and the disarmament process - and, indeed, if we look at page 100501, which is in I think tab 5 - no, it is tab 7, sorry. Now, just let's have a look again at the part of paragraph 6 that appears at the top of that page and the following paragraphs. Halfway down that first paragraph there is a sentence that reads:

    "Witness later taken by Yeaten to Monrovia and Issa Sesay arrived at next day. Sesay went to see Taylor and received $50,000 and some ammunitions. The witness saw the money and Sesay said he got it from the Pa. This was sometime in 2000.

    The ammo and the $50,000 that they collected were taken to Kono but it was peace time and most areas had disarmed. Sesay called the witness to Kono and said he was not to allow disarmament to take place in Kailahun as Taylor had given him a mission to go to Guinea and that was the reason for the ammo and money they had collected in Monrovia.

    The witness returned to base at Kailahun and told his officers that they were not to accept the suggestion of [Issa Sesay] as it would tarnish their reputation. The next day the witness put everything in place for disarmament. UN commander Daniel Opande thanked them for the program the witness started in Kailahun."

    It was peace time. You were involved in the Ceasefire Monitoring Commission. That all took place - your involvement in the Ceasefire Monitoring Commission we know from your card was from 24 January 2001 to 24 June 2001. So this trip to Monrovia when you say you met Bockarie occurred earlier in 2000 than the end, didn't it?

  • The end. It was after May. Before we went there, there was no ceasefire monitoring any more. I did not say that in my statement, that early. At that time there was no ceasefire any more before - when we went for that mission everything had broken down.

  • I beg your pardon? Are you saying now that everything that I have just read to you, or half of what I have just read to you, has been wrongly recorded by the Prosecution?

  • Your Honour, I object to that. That was a long slab of material. He should be taken through it.

  • I am willing to do it. I am just loathe to repeat it for about the fifth time as we have covered this subject already.

  • I note that these paragraphs were put to the witness on the 12th and he agreed to them.

  • Yes, that is precisely my point, Madam President. I will - if need be, if I am requested to, I will laboriously go through it line by line and see what he is now saying is wrong, but that is if the Court requires me to.

  • Mr Munyard, what would help is if we would focus on the question at issue. I don't think the content of the paragraphs is denied by the witness. You have gone through it once before, but together with the witness I have to admit I don't follow the question.

  • Very well, your Honour. If anybody has any difficulty with the question I will rephrase it and deal with it again. Right, it is just about to disappear off the top of the page and so I will go back to that:

  • What you have just told us, page 19, line 7 onwards, you are talking about the time you met Sam Bockarie and you said, "The end. It was after May. Before we went there ...", and you are talking about the trip to Monrovia there, "... no ceasefire monitoring any more. I did not say that in my statement, that early. At that time there was no ceasefire any more before - when we went for that mission everything had broken down."

    Now if you look at page 100501, paragraph 7, "The ammo and the $50,000 that they collected were taken to Kono but it was peace time and most areas had disarmed."

  • Yes, that is what I said. Most areas had been disarmed.

  • So why were you saying just a moment ago, "At that time there was no ceasefire any more. Before we went for that mission, everything had broken down"?

  • Ceasefire monitoring. Please be listening carefully, please. When I am talking, please listen carefully. I said ceasefire monitoring, not ceasefire. CMC. In 2000 there was no war anymore in Sierra Leone. I said ceasefire monitoring was no longer existing. That is what I said, not ceasefire.

  • You started by saying ceasefire monitoring. I will read out the note again, "Before we went there, there was no ceasefire monitoring anymore. I did not say that in my statement, that early. At that time there was no ceasefire any more. Before we went for that mission, everything had broken down." Now, Mr Kanneh, that is different from what is in paragraph 7 where you have earlier agreed you did tell the Prosecution that, "The ammo and the $50,000 that they collected were taken to Kono but it was peace time and most areas had disarmed."

  • Yes, sir, I am not denying that. It was during peace time. I stand by it, you are right.

  • I don't know if that answers the question for Justice Sebutinde, but I am propose moving on.

  • I think you should move on really.

  • You previously have said in interviews with the Prosecution that what Sam Bockarie told you was that Charles Taylor - he was concerned that Charles Taylor might hand him over to the Sierra Leone Government. Do you remember saying that?

  • Concern? Already Charles Taylor had sent for his arrest, that he had pressure from the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and so he was concerned about his life. That is what he said. Already he knew that he had been informed. In fact, that was why he was detained.

  • You have never mentioned the Special Court for Sierra Leone in any of your interviews, Mr Kanneh, do you agree?

  • You appreciate, don't you, that if I am wrong on that then the Prosecution will point out my error? Do you understand that?

  • Well I cannot tell whether you are wrong, or the person who wrote the statement was the wrong person. So you will go through the document, if you read all of the documents, but that was the time when there was pressure on Charles Taylor.

  • When you were interviewed by the Prosecution, were you given money for your expenses in attending interview?

  • Did that happen every time you were interviewed?

  • Any time I used to go there, they were responsible for my transport fare. That was the money they gave to me and my feeding.

  • Right. So they actually gave you money in order to repay you for the cost of your transport and your meals, is that what you are saying?

  • Well, if somebody invites you, he will be responsible for your meals and your transport fare. Yes, that is what I am saying.

  • I just want to understand this. Each time you were interviewed, were you given money? Was money put in your hand to compensate you for your travelling expenses and for the purchase of food?

  • No, because there were times they were not the ones who will go to pick me up. They will just say come. So when I would come that was the transport fare that I was talking about. They were not compensating me or giving me any other money because I was giving statements to them. But that was what they used to tell me. I will pay from my pocket and when I would come they would reimburse.

  • When you were first interviewed in the end of February 2007 you told us that was somewhere other than Freetown. Did that involve you in any expenses for which you were then reimbursed?

  • When they met me in Kenema, yes, sir.

  • In other words, did you have to spend any money to see them then and they gave you the cost of that?

  • You were interviewed a month later on 27 March and this time you were interviewed in Freetown, so did that involve you in any personal expenditure which was then reimbursed?

  • To go to Freetown?

  • To go to Freetown involves money.

  • Yes, were you given money for those expenses?

  • Yes, sir. I said the transport fare that I spent was refunded.

  • Were you working then?

  • Any kind of work to earn a living.

  • In February and March of 2007, just over a year ago?

  • And did the fact that you had gone to see the Prosecution to be interviewed involve you in loss of earnings at that time?

  • Well, I will not say that one made me to lose money because I was willing to go and testify, so I went, but what I paid for my transport fare was refunded to me.

  • I would like you to look, please, at tab 9. Tab 9, Mr Kanneh, is a record of monies spent by the Prosecution in connection with your giving information to them. There are a number of receipts that are listed here. The first three on that page are all from 1 November 2007 for meals, communication and transport and lost wages. Then there is a receipt for 8 December 2007 for transport. Now you had been interviewed on 31 October and 1 November. We have been looking at those interviews and presumably the payments on 1 November related to those interviews. Do you agree?

  • Yes.

  • You have also just told us that when you were interviewed in February and March of that year that involved expenses that you'd had to spend and that you were reimbursed for that, but there is no record here that at the end of February, for example, that you were actually given anything by the Prosecution. Were you or weren't you given anything by the Prosecution at the end of February last year?

  • Well, whatever they were doing, or that we were doing together, it's on the document just as you said. If I paid transportation cost they will refund my money. So I would want you to go through the documents where the amounts are listed. You will not give anybody money that you will not list.

  • Mr Witness, you are not answering the question. Were you given anything by the Prosecution at the end of February last year?

  • Well, before I could answer that I would want to know where the meeting was held. I will not just say yes or no when I don't know where we even met.

  • Mr Munyard, are you prepared to refresh the witness's memory on this meeting?

  • If the Court requires me to. We did deal with it about ten minutes ago:

  • Mr Kanneh, this is the two initial interviews, 28 February and we also talked about the interview on 27 March last year. At the moment I am only concentrating on 28 February, the very first time you are interviewed, in Kenema. Were you paid anything by the Prosecution?

  • Yes, sir.

  • Can you definitely remember that? Say if you can't.

  • The first time they met with me I had money from them.

  • We have no record of that here. Now, the second time you are interviewed is 27 March. I am going to come back to that date in due course, but let's just finish looking at what's in tab 9. On 8 December you're paid 20,000 leones for transport costs. You had finished being interviewed on 1 November and then about five weeks later you are paid for transport. In fact, there is two receipts; one for 20,000 and over the page in box 5, same date, another receipt for 22,000 for transport/lost wages. Does it follow that you were seen by the Prosecution in December of 2008?

  • Well, December, I don't think December 2008 has reached yet, but if they said they gave me money in December 2008 maybe you should ask them the question.

  • I'm sorry. I'm doing it now. 2007. Mr Kanneh, I'm afraid these sort of errors apparently are catching. 2007, December. Think back to last December.

  • What I want to say about this, whenever I will meet, because I am not resident in Freetown - whenever we will meet they will give me some money because I will either pay transport to come, or something else. I will get some money from them. I am not denying that, but they must give me some money for some reason.

  • That's right. All I want to know about is what was it you were doing with the Prosecution in December of 2007? Were you giving them more information, or were you being interviewed, or what?

  • Well, I believe that whatever we were doing when we see each other is on document, because I did not record it, that when we met this time this was what we did, or that was what we did. Whatever we did is documented. I don't want to give you any wrong information.

  • We don't have any documents of any interviews or any information that you gave the Prosecution at any date in December of 2007. That's why I am asking you these questions.

  • Well, you should know the reason why the money was given to me. Just read it. Whatever money that is given to somebody, there must be a reason. You cannot just see somebody because he is handsome and say, "Let me give you some money" because of that. Read the document and that will answer it to you.

  • Mr Witness, the crux of this matter is counsel is saying there was no interviews in December 2007. There is a record of payments in December 2007. Can you explain why there were payments in 2007? Have I paraphrased it, Mr Munyard?

  • Unfortunately, your Honour, not quite. I will tell you why. I am not saying there were no interviews in December 2007. I am saying there is no record of any interviews.

  • Sorry, let me correct that, Mr Witness. There is no record of an interview in 2007, but there is a payment in 2007.

  • Two payments in December 2007.

  • And they both involve transport so you obviously travelled somewhere in connection with the Office of the Prosecutor. Can you remember going to see them around 8 December 2007?

  • Well, I cannot recall. I cannot recall. Even if it happened, I cannot recall.

  • Did you ever go and see them and not sit down and give them some information, or did you always give them information when you went to see them?

  • Well, if they invited me for an interview I must have given them some information. It was not that I would just sit and volunteer, oh, let me visit you. So whatever they invited me for must have been for a purpose, but I was not documenting it at all. Okay, so this money that has been given to me it is for this reason, or that reason, let me write it down. No, I did not write anything down. So maybe they know better.

  • Final box in tab 9, Monday 4 February 2008, you were given 15,000 for a cell top-up card for communication with your family. Do you remember being given that?

  • Yes.

  • Either being given it or it being bought for you?

  • Well, they bought it for me. But whatever was bought for me, they will write down the amount, because it was bought, used money.

  • Tab 10, please. Now this document, Mr Kanneh, is a memorandum of the witness expenses incurred in relation to you by a department of the Court called the witnesses and victims service, WVS, or section. This reads as follows:

    "Witness attendance allowance. Witness first arrived on 25 March 2007. To date he has been paid a total of 816,000 leones as witness attendance allowance."

    Then in addition to that there is the following other expenditure: For medical expenses 175,000 leones, for transportation 545,000 leones and something called miscellaneous, it looks like it is 1,022,000 leones making a grand total incurred in respect of you of 2,558,000 leones.

    Now, in other words, in addition to the expenses that we have already looked at given to you by the Prosecution, the Witness and Victims Section have spent just over two and a half million leones on you since 25 March last year.

    Can you just help us with this: 816,000 leones as witness attendance allowance, do you know what that means?

  • No, I don't know what that means.

  • Have you been getting money for rent, for example?

  • But rent is normally listed under other expenditure, as far as I'm aware, but witness attendance allowance, does it involve you getting a weekly or a monthly amount of money to live on?

  • No.

  • So are you able to shed any light on what this witness attendance allowance means?

  • Well, the understanding that I have about this is that any time I met with them I used to pay my transport cost and return. Then I was based in Kailahun. I was doing - I was mining and when --

  • Your Honours, can the witness repeat this?

  • Please pause, Mr Witness. The interpreter has not caught up with you. Please speak more slowly and pick up where you said, "I was doing - I was mining and when ..." Continue from there, please.

  • I said at that time I was in Kailahun, Kailahun District, mining, so whenever they would invite me I would come. They were responsible for my transportation and even when I would be returning they were responsible for my transportation. So whenever I was with them they will give me 16,000 leones on a daily basis, so that is what I can tell you for now.

  • Sorry, who gave you 16,000 leones on a daily basis?

  • That was WVS Office. Every day that I was with them, they will give me 16,000 leones. Even if I was invited for four days, for example, they will give me 16 thousand leones on each day.

  • Sorry, you were invited for further what? It has not come up on the screen. Maybe you didn't say it. Invited for further what?

  • Further?

  • Mr Witness, you said, "Even if I was invited for ...", and then you said a word we didn't catch.

  • I said any time they would invite me to explain, or to take a statement from me, I must receive that money, that 16,000 leones, every day that I was with them. That is the only thing I can say. The times that I would be with them they will give me that money, but if I went back then I was on my own.

  • So do you think that the 816,000 leones witness attendance allowance is that money, the 16,000 per day?

  • Well I cannot tell you that that was the money, because I don't have a copy of any receipts. They wrote it. I cannot say it was 16,000 leones, or that. I would like you to go through the documents and maybe the reason is stated there, but I cannot tell you.

  • Well I can't help you any more than that, because they have not given us any more information other than what I have read out to you. Now you told us yesterday that you arrived here some time in April, is that right?

  • Are you absolutely sure about that?

  • Were you here in February?

  • I arrived here in April.

  • Well, I want to ask you about a matter that I am told involves you. Is this the case, Mr Kanneh, that the Witnesses and Victims Service staff here in the Netherlands discovered soft drugs brought by you to the Netherlands from Freetown?

  • What type of drugs?

  • I am only told soft drugs.

  • Well, I don't have an idea about that.

  • Have you been spoken to by two ladies from the Witnesses and Victims Service about bringing soft drugs to the Netherlands from Freetown?

  • Yes, people have been telling me that.

  • Well, let me just explore what you mean by that and then I will clarify what I mean by my question. Which people have been telling you what?

  • The people whose names you have mentioned, you said two ladies, I said, yes, they have been telling me about that and I responded to them.

  • I am not asking you about two ladies telling you things. I am asking you about two ladies asking you about drugs that were found in your possession. Were soft drugs found in your possession?

  • Madam President, I make it clear that when this information was originally given to us the TF1 number was the same numbers as this witness, but in a different sequence. I enquired - we have enquired through e-mails, but I have also enquired personally of the Prosecution as to which individual it is, and I have been told it is this witness and that is why I am putting these questions in a rather tentative way. I am not going to spell out the other - the way in which the witness's pseudonym has been set out in the document because I don't want to identify anybody else either rightly or wrongly, but I wonder if I could confirm through my learned friends opposite that what I was told last week, that it was this witness that this document relates to, is correct? I will not pursue it any further if it turns out it is not, but we have attempted to clarify whether it was this witness or somebody else with the same three numbers in a different order.

  • Ms Baly, are you able to assist?

  • Would your Honour excuse me? I just need to confer for a moment.

  • Please do so.

  • Your Honour, can we make a request that we be shown the document that Mr Munyard has and that might assist us in answering this question?

  • Certainly. I think it was sent to us by the Prosecution. There are various other documents. The sequence is wrong, but in the e-mail exchanges both the sequence there and this witness's number are referred to and that is why we sought clarification. I was actually told specifically by members of the Prosecution opposite that it was the Witnesses and Victims Service who had got the numbers wrong in that document.

  • Your Honours, we can confirm that 517 should be 571. What this document does not show, however, is that the drugs were found in the possession of this witness.

  • Can I say I used the word "possession" in the legal sense, rather than the practical sense, in the sense of having power or control over.

  • Well the document doesn't even show that, in our submission.

  • I will ask more questions about that then:

  • When you told us that two ladies talked to you about the question of drugs, what did they talk to you about?

  • Well, after a particular day when I came from prepping they invited me into their office. In fact, they were not even two ladies. It was a woman and one white man who was in charge. They interviewed me and they told me that they heard that when I was travelling I brought drugs with me, but I said to them, "No". They asked me whether I did not bring drugs. I said, "No, I did not bring any drugs". Then they told me marijuana, they said they were not talking about any other drugs, but then I told them, "No. In the first place I do not smoke in fact and so that is a wrong information, so if you want you can go upstairs and check in my room", and so that was what I told them. So they told me it was an information they received and that they were going to forward it, but actually I did not bring marijuana with me and I do not even smoke it.

  • Well, Mr Kanneh, let --

  • And they had no evidence.

  • Let me read out what is written here. You are quite right that in addition to the two ladies there was a man, wasn't there, or maybe there was just one lady and a man and another lady has witnessed the document? Was the man called Mr Ras?

  • Do you know the name of the man who you say interviewed you?

  • I have forgotten the name.

  • Does the name Mr Alex ring any bells?

  • Alex Ras.

  • Yes, yes. That is the name, Alex.

  • And was there a lady called Nancy who was interpreting?

  • And the report that we have says, "This afternoon ..." - this is signed by Mr Alex, Alex Ras, "This afternoon I discussed the issue about the soft drugs brought to the CC from Freetown with client TF1 ...", and it should read "571" which is you:

    "I asked the client if he brought any soft drugs with him to the Netherlands for other clients. Client mentioned to us that he didn't bring any soft drug to the Netherlands for the other clients. Client is not a smoker and therefore did not bring cigarettes, or any other things."

    Now there is nothing in this report that suggests that you said, "I did not bring soft drugs here from Freetown", do you understand?

  • There is nothing that proves what?

  • Did you actually deny to Mr Alex that you had brought soft drugs to the Netherlands from Freetown?

  • I denied. Just when he accused me, I denied. There wasn't any exhibit in fact and it is something that I denied from day 1 and as I sit in front of you here I continue to deny that.

  • What did he tell you about where these drugs were found?

  • Well, I did not know if he found drugs. Just when I arrived he called me and then he said that they heard that I brought drugs with me to the Netherlands. Then I said to him no and I asked him, "What kind of drugs are you talking about?" Then he said, "Marijuana." But then I said, "That is a lie, I did not do that. May the Lord forbid. I don't even smoke cigarettes. Why should I bring marijuana to the Netherlands?" He said he was going to send a report. Then I told him, "That's up to you, you can send a report anywhere." So that was where we stopped.

  • I have no other questions of this witness. Thank you.

  • Thank you, Mr Munyard. Re-examination, Ms Baly?

  • I have some very brief re-examination, thank you, your Honour.

  • Please proceed.

  • This morning Mr Munyard asked you some questions about the killing of the person BS Massaquoi and in particular he took you to an interview that you had with the Prosecution on 1 November 2007 and in particular he took you to a question at tab 3, the question being, "Why was he killed" and this is at page 00044303. The question, "Why was he killed" and the answer that is recorded on the document, "He aided escape of Momoh and Kpaka." In your evidence you said you did not say that and you agreed that you did not correct it when it was read to you. My question for you now is did anyone aid the escape of Momoh and Kpaka?

  • Yes, sir.

  • I was number one person.

  • And is that the evidence - does that relate to the evidence that you gave to this Court I think on Friday of last week?

  • Yesterday Mr Munyard was asking you some questions about the meeting that took place at Sam Bockarie's house in December 1998 --

  • Sorry, Ms Baly, when the witness says, "I was number one person" is he saying he aided?

  • Yes. I can clarify.

  • And is there a number two and number three or something?

  • I will ask him that, thank you, your Honour:

  • When you say you were the number one person who aided the escape, what do you mean?

  • Well, we discussed it with --

  • Your Honours, the witness has referred to "pikin" which could mean child actually, but here I don't know the gender.

  • Mr Witness, the interpreter says you have referred to "pikin" but he doesn't know if it's a boy child or a girl child. Please clarify that.

  • A boy child, sir. And he was Lamin Kpaka. We were all in the RUF. He was called Battle Group. He met us, he discussed with us and Manowai and then we informed him that the man had plans to kill them, so that they should find a way to escape. So they remain in the hospital --

  • Who is the man that had plans to kill them?

  • Sam Bockarie. Sam Bockarie.

  • Your evidence was that you were number one. What did you mean by you were number one?

  • I took part in their escape. I highly contributed for them to be able to escape.

  • And were there other people who contributed to their escape?

  • Your Honour, I am going to leave it there:

  • Can I return now to the meeting and the questions in particular that Mr Munyard asked you about the meeting in December 1998 at Sam Bockarie's house. During the questioning on that issue he read a list of people to you and there was a name of a person called Martin. You agreed that Martin was at the meeting. Can I ask you, please, who was Martin?

  • Well, Martin was a Sierra Leonean in the first place and, secondly, the satellite and the computer that Sam Bockarie had, he was the person who worked on them. He was an operator for Sam Bockarie.

  • Do you know the person Martin's full name?

  • Well, that was the name by which we called him.

  • My final question to you, Mr Kanneh, again concerns the meeting and in particular the questions that Mr Munyard asked you about the discussion you had at the meeting concerning the SAJ Musa issue. Mr Munyard read a portion of an interview that you had on 1 November with the Prosecutors on that particular issue. I am going to read to you from another interview that you had with Prosecutors, this is at tab 4, on 8 March 2008 and 10 March 2008 and in particular at page 00047088. At paragraph 23 did you say this to the Prosecutors:

    "During the meeting Sam Bockarie referred to SAJ Musa as a traitor and said that those on the mission should go all out to get rid of him."

    Do you remember making that statement?

  • Yes, sir.

  • Did you say that you recalled hearing Bockarie say that SAJ Musa should not live to tell the story? Did you make that statement to the Prosecutors?

  • And did you say that Gullit and Sam Bockarie had been friendly since the overthrow?

  • And did you say that you believed that Gullit and Bockarie had been conniving?

  • Yes, I had had that belief even before Sam Bockarie brought this information up, yes.

  • The question is did you say that to the Prosecutors during this interview?

  • Did you say that those at the meeting were told by Sam Bockarie that Gullit had been given the job of getting rid of SAJ Musa during the battle and this plan was supported by the other RUF members in attendance at the meeting?

  • And did you say to Prosecutors that you recalled that Bockarie said that they could only get rid of Musa during an operation as it was easier to do it this way?

  • I am going to leave it there. Your Honour, those are my questions in re-examination.

  • Thank you, Ms Baly. Mr Witness, that is the end of your testimony. We thank you for coming to the Court and giving your evidence and we wish you a safe journey. You will be assisted to leave the well of the Court.

  • Yes, sir. I thank you very much.

  • Your Honour, I have some MFIs that I wish to tender at this point.

  • I let the witness go before. Is it necessary to have the witness?

  • No, it's not necessary to have the witness.

  • I apologise, Ms Baly. It should have been dealt with before he left, but in any event it is not causing a problem.

  • I tender MFI-16.

  • Mr Munyard, you have heard the application.

  • Your Honour, I look to Justice Sebutinde as our guide to the MFIs and I thought it probably was a photograph. I have no objection to that. I think it's already in evidence as an exhibit.

  • In any event, I don't object to those photographs going in.

  • There is a clear copy that is already in evidence, but this is a copy that this witness marked.

  • So this is a one page document in which the witness has identified one person as Benjamin Yeaten. It now becomes Prosecution exhibit number?

  • P-114, your Honour.

  • [Exhibit P-114 admitted]

  • Your Honours, I tender MFI-17A and 17B, the copies of the witness's card.

  • Very well, this is a one page document showing a photocopy of card headed "Ceasefire Monitoring Committee Southern Province" and it becomes Prosecution exhibit P-115A. The rear of the card is a one page document headed "The bearer of this card is a member of the joint monitoring commission." It becomes Prosecution exhibit P-115B.

  • [Exhibit P-115A and P-115B admitted]

  • Your Honour, I wish to tender a document, a fresh document that was distributed this morning and it is a Security Council resolution 1315 of 2000. It is a two page document.

  • Mr Munyard, this is a new document.

  • The difficulty with this, as I see it, is I am accustomed to exhibits being exhibited by a witness. This is exhibited through thin air.

  • Your Honour, the witness gave evidence that is relevant to this document. In particular he gave evidence both in chief and he was cross-examined quite extensively about the conversation he had with Sam Bockarie wherein Sam Bockarie told him that Charles Taylor had said he was going to hand him over, that is Sam Bockarie, to the Special Court. He gave a time frame for that and he said it was after May 2000. In cross-examination he said it was in September or August of 2000 and again this morning he confirmed that it was certainly after May 2000.

    Now it was put to him in cross-examination that the Special Court was not in existence at that time in, one can only assume, an attempt to discredit the witness's evidence on this point. This document is relevant because it clearly states that the Court was certainly contemplated at that time and it is generally relevant. A document does not always have to be tendered through a witness. If it is relevant on its face then it is admissible per se. It would be entirely inappropriate and in fact unnecessary to show this particular document to this witness because it is relevant and it is relevant specifically to the witness's testimony and that is why it is being tendered at this point.

  • Ms Baly, but you had an opportunity in re-examination to put the contents of what you have just said to this witness and you didn't.

  • No, I didn't do that, your Honour, because this witness, as you heard in cross-examination, is not familiar with Security Council resolutions. He was asked that question by Mr Munyard and he said he was not familiar with them, so there could be no point in putting this document to him.

    The point is that what flows from this document is that as early as 14 August 2000, paragraph 1 on page 2, the Secretary-General - the Security Council was requesting the Secretary-General to negotiate an agreement with the Government of Sierra Leone to set up the Court and, in the context of this witness's evidence where he said it was being discussed, it was being talked about, that they would hand over these men, it is therefore relevant. The document could be tendered without the evidence of the witness, but it is proposed to tender it now because it attains a certain flavour and additional relevance because of the evidence of this witness.

  • [Trial Chamber conferred]

  • We have considered the submission. We do not consider it is admissible - this document is admissible - through this witness. There are provisions in the rules for alternative proof of facts and we do not consider this tender through this witness is an appropriate procedure in this particular instance.

  • I have nothing further, your Honour. The next witness is to be taken by the Prosecutor, Mr Stephen Rapp, and it is witness TF1-561.

  • Thank you.

  • If your Honours would just allow us to change places?

  • Yes, please do so. Just before we do, I notice I misread my own writing when I made that ruling. I said, "This document is inadmissible through this witness". It is recorded as "is admissible through this witness". It is inadmissible.

    Just let me revise this brief ruling. I want to make sure I got my wording correct. My apologies, counsel. I misread my own scribbles and so I will read it out properly and, if I omit something, I am sure my learned colleagues will assist.

    Whilst we accept the document is relevant, we do not consider this document is admissible through this witness. There are provisions in the rules for alternative proof of facts and we do not consider this tender through this witness is an appropriate procedure in this instance. Thank you for your patience.

  • Madam President, your Honours, the next witness is TF1-561. This witness will testify in English. He wishes to testify in his own name. There were two provisions of a protective order applicable in his case entered on 16 March 2007 referring back to the 5 May 2006 order that provided protection of his identity in court, one allowing him to testify under a pseudonym, the other prohibiting dissemination of identifying details, and we would ask that both of those provisions A and G of 5 May 6 order be rescinded.

  • Yes. Mr Griffiths, you have carriage of this?

  • We welcome that, your Honour.

  • [Trial Chamber conferred]

  • We note the application by counsel for the Prosecution and that it is consented to by the Defence and accordingly we rescind and vary the order of 6 May. I understand the effect is that the witness will give evidence in open session and using his own name. Am I correct in that, Mr Rapp?

  • Madam President, that is correct.

  • Thank you, please proceed.

  • We would call Moses Blah as our next witness.