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

  • Good morning, Mr Zaymay.

  • Mr Zaymay, you gave evidence about the base at Tiaplay, and you explained that there were 1,500 recruits there. Do you recall that?

  • And you recalled Zigzag Marzah as one of those recruits, correct?

  • Yes.

  • And you recall Zigzag Marzah because he is somebody who stood out. That's right, isn't it?

  • Yes. I recall that he stood.

  • You described him as just a dirty man in the NPFL that everyone knew about. Do you remember saying that?

  • And it's right, isn't it, that everyone did know about Zigzag Marzah?

  • Yes.

  • And he was somebody, as you said, who used and abused drugs, correct?

  • And he was also a person who was known to practice cannibalism, wasn't he?

  • I don't know that.

  • Despite what you have explained about Zigzag Marzah and despite his reputation, he was somebody who remained part of the NPFL, wasn't he?

  • Could I ask for a transcript to be pulled up, please, which is the transcript of 12 May 2010, and that's at page 40874, line 6. I am reading from some evidence that you gave previously, Mr Zaymay:

    "Q. Mr Zaymay, Zigzag Marzah says that you were surviving

    on looting. Page 5862, line 11:"

    And then counsel read from the transcript where Zigzag Marzah gave evidence, and he quotes a question to Zigzag Marzah:

    "'Q. Now, Mr Witness, before the election of

    Charles Taylor as President, were the NPFL soldiers paid

    any salary?

    A. Before election, or after elections?

    Q. Before the election.

    A. No, we had go ahead that what - wheresoever we

    captured, what we got there was for us. So, we were paid

    encouraged to battle. We were not physically paid, no.'"

    Then you were asked about that testimony:

    "Q. Do you follow what Zigzag Marzah is saying, Mr Zaymay?

    He says before Mr Taylor was elected President, the NPFL

    was not - the NPFL fighters were not actually paid anything

    and you were surviving on looting. Actually, you were

    encouraged to go into battle, and that would be your

    opportunity to loot. What's your comment?

    A. It's a lie. A big, big lie."

    Mr Zaymay, you deny, don't you, that the NPFL took part in looting; is that right?

  • Yes, NPFL never looted.

  • And continuing with that transcript, please. You continue. After saying, "It's a lie, a big lie," you say:

    "The NPFL was paid. The payment system started in '92. I

    could - I remember when I was commanding general in the

    southeastern region in Maryland, I was called directly by

    Mr Taylor asking me - he said, 'General Zaymay, report to

    Gbarnga to receive the salaries of the soldiers.' And I

    went there, I got the monies from him, and he asked me to

    give the strength, my total - the total strength of my men.

    And he calculated, he did the breakdown: Commander, 1000,

    deputy commander general, 700; and going right down to the

    last person, 500. And that total was calculated and it was

    signed by him and it was taken to the chief of finance, and

    it was taken to the Ministry of Finance. I took it to the

    Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Finance approved

    it. They gave me a cheque, I took it there, and I received

    my money. I took it with me. I went and paid the

    soldiers. And the salary system started from 2000 up to

    the time Taylor left Monrovia in 2005. No soldier ever

    looted for payment. The SOP was strong. No one could

    tamper with it. It's a big lie.

    Q. I just want to be clear about something. When did the

    salary system start again? You have given two different


    A. The salary started in 2002 when I was in Maryland.

    When I was in Maryland.

    Q. And when did it end?

    A. No, no, no. No, no, no. The salary system started in

    1992. In 1992. 1992. It's a mistake by saying 2002. The

    salary system started in 1992. When I was transferred from

    Bomi Hills to Maryland in 1992. Not 2002."

    So, Mr Zaymay, your evidence is that a salary system operated in the NPFL from 1992. I have got that right, haven't I?

  • Yes.

  • And your evidence is that the NPFL were paid. That's right, isn't it?

  • And you gave a specific example from when you were a commander of being called directly by Mr Taylor to report to Gbarnga to receive salaries for soldiers under your command. That's right, isn't it?

  • I would like you to listen to this evidence and it's going to be evidence from Mr Mineh. If I could please refer to the transcript of 3 May 2010, page 40416, please. I am starting at line 14 and this is a question from Justice Doherty. She says:

    "Before you move to a new topic, Mr Chekera, in the course

    of an earlier answer you cited Zigzag Marzah's evidence at

    page 5, line 5 of my font, in which he said the fighters

    were not physically paid. I do not know whether the

    witness has agreed or disagreed with that piece of


  • Indeed, let me clarify:

    Q. Mr Mineh, when you were fighting in the NPFL before

    Mr Taylor was elected President, were NPFL fighters paid?

    A. No, they were not being paid.

  • Does that assist you?

  • I would like to take that further and ask

    the witness: If you were not paid, how did you live?

    Q. Did you understand the question?

    A. Please repeat the question.

  • If you were not paid in the NPFL as

    fighters, how did you live without payment?

  • We had surplus food. Whenever we captured a

    town, the citizens would give us foodstuffs and they

    welcome us and provide foodstuff for us."

    So, Mr Zaymay, according to - you have testified that Mr Mineh is a battalion commander, correct?

  • Yes, Mineh was battalion commander for 1st Battalion in '91 and '90.

  • Mr Mineh doesn't know anything about NPFL soldiers being paid, does he? So can you tell us, please, who is telling the truth; is it you when you say that NPFL fighters were paid or is it Mr Mineh when he says that NPFL soldiers were not paid?

  • NPFL, when I was commander in Maryland, I was called. I went to Gbarnga and I did receive monies from Ministry of Finance and I went and paid my soldiers. I did. So if Mineh is talking about soldiers that they were fed by civilians, that was in 1990. That was from the start of the war, up to '92. That was in 1990, '91. And whilst I was in the 2nd Battalion, based in Kakata, there were food supplies in Buchanan, which all commanders used to go and receive for their command areas. In '92 when I was transferred to Maryland, there was food and there was a salary system for which I was called to go to Gbarnga to receive the salaries, then to go and pay my soldiers. It happened to me.

  • Mr Zaymay, the question to Mr Mineh was clear. It was this, and I will repeat it:

    "Q. Before Mr Taylor was elected President, were NPFL

    fighters paid?

    A. No, they were not being paid."

    So, please tell us, were you the one telling the lie when you say NPFL --

  • I would hate to interrupt my learned friend, but I think the question has been asked and answered sufficiently.

  • Just direct me to the answer to that question, Mr Chekera.

  • The elaborate explanation immediately preceding the question by counsel where the witness indicated the payment system as far back as 1990 when they were living off the goodwill of the citizens to the time that they were getting provisions from Buchanan to the time that he then went to Maryland and a payment system was instituted.

  • Yes. This is cross-examination. Perhaps you can take it further if you like in re-examination, but I will allow the question. Just repeat the question, please, Ms Howarth.

  • Mr Zaymay, the question to Mr Mineh was clear. It was this:

    "Q. Before Mr Taylor was elected President, were NPFL

    fighters paid?

    A. No, they were not being paid."

    So please tell us, were you the one telling the lie when you said the NPFL were paid or was Mr Mineh telling the lie when he said they were not paid?

  • I continue to say that within my command area in Maryland where I was in control of, I was called and I received monies to pay my soldiers. So Edward Mineh was commanding a different area. So if he did receive or did not receive monies to pay, I don't know. But all I know is that my soldiers were paid and I kept receiving the monies and paying my soldiers. Mr Taylor himself called me.

  • Well, let's have a look to see what Mr Taylor says about all this, shall we. Could I first refer to a transcript from 29 September 2009, page 29811.

  • You can go ahead, Ms Howarth.

  • I don't have in my notes the line I am referring to. I think it's somewhere down the page. It begins, "In the NPFL we provided food."

  • That's line 10.

  • I'm most grateful:

  • So at line 10, Mr Taylor says this: "In the NPFL we provided food. We did not pay salaries." Then if I skip to the question at line 18:

    "Q. This point he makes though, Mr Taylor, that before the

    election of Charles Taylor they were not paid, 'So we were

    encouraged to battle, we were not physically paid,' they

    weren't paid, were they?

    A. If they what again?

    Q. They were not paid. NPFL combatants were not paid,

    were they?

    A. They were not paid."

    And if I could ask for the transcript of 1 September 2009, page 32736 to also be brought up, please. Starting from line 12, please. This is another transcript from the evidence of Mr Taylor:

    "Q. Now, Mr Taylor, from the time that you invaded Liberia

    until you moved to Monrovia as a member of the Council of

    State, what was your salary as the leader of the NPFL?

    A. I was not paid a salary.

    Q. Well, how were your needs taken care of?

    A. We were running a revolution. We received - the

    President was taken care of, just as other people."

    Now, let me pause there, if it could stay on the screen I would be grateful. When Mr Taylor says there that the President was taken care of, just as other people, my question is this: Did Mr Taylor ensure that you were taken care of, Mr Zaymay?

  • If he was sure that I was taken care of? In what sense?

  • Did Mr Taylor ensure that you were paid?

  • I remember that I was called to Gbarnga and I was sent to Gbarnga, and I received money and I took the money with me. I went and paid the soldiers.

  • Did you receive money personally from Mr Taylor for your work?

  • From Finance. From Ministry of Finance in Gbarnga.

  • I will continue with the transcript. Mr Taylor says:

    "We didn't have a fixed salary structure. It depends on

    the need. Most revolutions operate that way.

    Q. So how much money did you receive as leader of the


    A. Oh, it would depend on what the need was. Personally,

    I did not - once I had a house provided by the NPRAG

    government would provide me with that we call a sustenance,

    some type of subsistence during the time, but there was not

    a structured salary for anybody.

    Q. How much did you receive in the subsistence during the

    time you were the leader of the NPFL?

    A. Over the years?

    Q. Yes.

    A. Oh, boy. I would say on an average on a monthly

    basis - if we begin to attach figures to it, I would say on

    an average monthly basis the leader of the NPFL could

    receive anywhere between the value of about $500 to $1,000,

    but it was not in cash. It would be in different -

    different things.

    Q. What kind things?

    A. Food. We bought large amounts of rice for the NPFL,

    and some would be assigned to the presidency. So it's very

    hard to attach a figure, depending on what - we bought

    items in bulk from across the border in la Cote d'Ivoire.

    When it comes, it would be divided with the men in the

    field. Officials of government would be sent food like

    rice, salt, sugar, oil for cooking."

    And then if I could skip down a few more pages to page 32746, starting from the top. Again, this is Mr Taylor's evidence:

    "Q. Now, in this NPRAG you have talked about having

    ministers, correct?

    A. That is correct.

    Q. Did you also have a police force?

    A. Yes, there was a police force.

    Q. A civilian police force or a military police force?

    A. There was a civilian police unit.

    Q. Was there a military police as well?

    A. Yes, there were military police.

    Q. And what was paid to your civilian police force? What

    salaries did they receive?

    A. I'm not sure if - I have said to this Court, there was

    not - this organisation didn't receive - have something

    like a salary structure in the western sense of the word.

    People received subsistence. They were given food. They

    were given medical attention. We were running a

    revolution. We didn't have the kind of money to sustain

    what you're talking about, no. They were given - let's say

    each policemen would be given a bag of rice every month,

    would be given subsistence, a certain amount to upkeep him

    and the family, and you know, depending on the situation,

    small amount. There was no salary structure. We were

    struggling out there as a revolution and didn't have the

    type of set-up that you envision here, no."

    So, Mr Zaymay, you have given evidence that between - from 1992 there was a payment system in the NPFL. Mr Taylor is quite clear there was no payment system in the NPFL at this time. So, please, who is telling the lie: Is it you, or is it Mr Taylor?

  • Um, I continue to say I received money. I received money and I took it with me. I went and paid the soldiers. It might have been subsistence. There was one time when I was in Maryland, I received a huge quantity of rice. And later I was called to go to Gbarnga and I received monies along with my deputy border patrol, and we took that with us and we paid the soldiers. It might have been the allowances that you are talking about. But I did receive money and I went and paid the soldiers, including food. I am not lying.

  • So Mr Taylor is telling a lie. Is that right?

  • One of you must be lying, mustn't you, Mr Zaymay? Because you are saying there was a salary system, NPFL soldiers were paid, and Mr Taylor is telling - saying the opposite. So, please, who is telling the lie?

  • It is not a lie. It's almost the same. Mr Taylor spoke about rice and allowances that were given to the soldiers and foodstuff. So it's the allowances that I am referring to as salaries. He is not lying.

  • Now, you have spoken about SOP, standard operational procedures, correct?

  • Yes, I spoke about SOP.

  • And you talked about them in relation to both treatment of civilians and treatment of prisoners of war, correct?

  • Yes.

  • And you explained how it meant no killing, looting or raping, correct?

  • Your Honours, that was not clear to the interpreter.

  • Ask that question again, please.

  • Mr Zaymay, you explained how it meant no killing, looting or raping, correct?

  • Now, in relation to prisoners of war, despite the - as you alleged - existence of these SOPs, prisoners of war were executed, weren't they?

  • By a single-barrel man, yes.

  • And last week counsel for the Defence referred to an exhibit, and I won't put it up unless it's necessary, but it's P-463A, and he read to you an extract from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's report. That extract referred to a finding that in September 1992 nearly 600 ECOMOG soldiers were taken prisoner whom were severely beaten by their NPFL captors. Do you recall him reading that to you?

  • Now, the fact is, isn't it, Mr Zaymay, that despite these SOPs, prisoners of war were killed and beaten, weren't they?

  • Where? Badly beaten where?

  • Mr Zaymay, prisoners of war were beaten and killed in Liberia by the NPFL during the war, weren't they?

  • In what part of Liberia? Liberia is a big place. What part of Liberia, to be specific?

  • Mr Witness, the question was: Prisoners of war were killed, beaten in Liberia. Now, do you know of any prisoners of war killed and beaten in Liberia?

  • I don't know if any prisoner of war was beaten.

  • Now, in terms of the civilian population of Liberia, during the wars in Liberia the civilians were subject to a plethora of atrocities, weren't they?

  • No, not to my knowledge.

  • During the wars in Liberia many civilians were killed, weren't they?

  • Not to my knowledge.

  • There was looting, wasn't there?

  • No NPFL soldiers looted.

  • There were rapes, gang rapes, sexual slavery. That happened during the wars in Liberia, didn't it?

  • Never mind for the moment whether you saw it or not. That happened, didn't it?

  • Let's be specific here. You are talking about gang rapes, sexual slavery. Which one are you referring to when you say "it"?

  • I am referring to all three, but I will take my direction from the Bench if it's better to break it down:

  • People were raped during the wars in Liberia, weren't they?

  • I did not see it.

  • As I said before, never mind for the moment whether you saw it or not. People were raped during the wars in Liberia, weren't they?

  • No. If I saw it, I would have said it. So I did not see it. So my answer is no, I did not see it.

  • Women were subjected to gang rapes during the wars in Liberia, weren't they?

  • I don't know. I did not see it.

  • Women were subjected to sexual slavery during the wars in Liberia, weren't they?

  • It's a lie. I never saw it.

  • You are saying it didn't happen?

  • Oh, if I did not see it, how will I say it happened? So my answer is no, I did not see it.

  • Mr Witness, did you hear reports of such gang rapes or sexual slavery?

  • No. I never heard it. I never saw it.

  • Civilians were abducted during the wars in Liberia, weren't they?

  • No civilian was captured. Civilians freely came to the NPFL-controlled areas because it was safe. The NPFL-controlled areas were the only safe areas for civilians, so civilians came for themselves. No civilian was captured.

  • Civilians were beaten and tortured during the war, weren't they?

  • And it's right that many of the various warring factions committed these atrocities against civilians, didn't they?

  • I don't know. I don't know. I was not with the other factions; I was with the NPFL. So it never happened within the NPFL for me to see to talk about.

  • The NPFL were a faction who committed these atrocities against civilians, weren't they?

  • In fact, the NPFL committed more crimes against civilians than any other party to the conflict, didn't they?

  • No. NPFL was the best amongst all the safe areas for civilians where they could go freely and they were well taken care of.

  • Your Honour, I would like to refer to the bundle of documents I handed up. It's the documents behind tab 2.

  • Yes, your Honour, may I inquire from my learned friend whether this is an exhibit before the Court and if it's not, for what purpose we seek to refer to the document.

  • Yes, it's not an exhibit before the Court. What it is is some extracts from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and I would like to put them to the witness to directly refute what he has just said in evidence. They relate to the commission of sexual violence crimes, they relate to the commission of various other crimes and they relate to the fact that the NPFL committed - was responsible for more crimes than any other perpetrator group. And the pages I am referring to --

  • Let it come.

  • The pages I will be referring to are 17, then 263 to 265 and 262 to 263.

  • So looking first at page 17, Mr Zaymay, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded the following and this is at paragraph 3 on page 17:

    "All factions engaged in the armed conflict violated, degraded, abused and denigrated, committed sexual and gender based violence against women, including rape, sexual slavery, forced marriages and other dehumanising forms of violations."

    Mr Zaymay, that's the truth about what happened in the Liberian war, isn't it?

  • No. But I would want to say something. The TRC report is not correct. The TRC - members of the TRC, even the chairman, Verdier, quoted that he was victimised by the NPFL, and so what do you think he would say about the NPFL? The chairman TRC should have been a neutral person. He was supposed to have been a neutral person. But if the chairman could say that he was victimised by the NPFL, then what do you expect of him to say about the NPFL? So the TRC report is not correct. That is all I have to say about the TRC. So the TRC is not my testimony; it is outside my testimony.

  • Yes, Mr Chekera?

  • Yes, your Honour. I have had the chance to quickly peruse the document that learned counsel seeks to rely on. We observe that admittedly counsel indicated that they seek to use the document for purposes of impeaching the witness's testimony. But, looking at the document, it goes further than that. It impacts on the act and conduct of the defendant in this case and, because it impacts on the acts and conduct of the accused, it has to come within the purview of your decision of 30 November 2009, decision on Prosecution motion in relation to applicable legal standard governing use and admission of documents by the Prosecution during cross-examination, and I would refer to paragraph 27 of that decision.

    We submit that to the extent that it impacts on the acts and conduct of the accused, this is fresh evidence and as such it should follow the requirements that you set out in the decision I have just referred to. I admit, yes, it could be used for purposes of impeaching the witness's evidence, but the document goes further than that to impact on the defendant's acts and conduct and to that extent could not be admissible, unless the requirements in your decision that I have referred to have been met by the Prosecution and for that reason we object to the use of the document in cross-examination of this witness.

  • Do you wish to reply to that objection, Ms Howarth?

  • Yes, briefly. Simply to say that nothing that I am going to read in the sections I have carefully selected goes to the acts and conduct of the accused. There is no mention made of Mr Taylor. The extracts from the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission refer to, as I have already outlined, violations that took place against civilians in Liberia and the fact that the NPFL committed more violations than any other group. It goes directly to the denials that this witness has made that there were no atrocities in the Liberian wars and that the NPFL were not responsible.

  • I see. Just for the record, the decision referred to by Mr Chekera actually specifies the situation of fresh evidence going to the guilt of the accused rather than the acts and conduct, but, in any event, I will just pause and confer with my colleagues.

  • I am sorry, my Lord. Could I just quickly respond on a point of law in relation to my learned friend's submissions?

  • No, I have heard you, Mr Chekera.

  • [Trial Chamber conferred]

  • There are obviously going to be a number of these citings from this particular report. The first one we are concerned with, Ms Howarth, is on page 17. That's the one you have already put to the witness. We will allow you to pursue that question. We note that, although it's fresh evidence, it's introduced to impeach the credit of the witness and we are of the view that it is rather of a general nature, does not go to proof of guilt of the accused.

    Having said that, there are other sections that I think would also fall within Mr Chekera's objection and we will deal with those as we come to them.

  • Before I refer back to page 17, Mr Zaymay, you are aware, aren't you, that the findings in the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission represent the findings of all members of that commission and not just the chairman?

  • Yes. The chairman said that he was victimised and he wrote a book about the whole TRC and the chairman even went on to say that --

  • Your Honours, could the witness be asked to repeat that area and then do it slowly because he did not come out very clear.

  • Mr Witness, the interpreter didn't have a chance to interpret what you are saying. Could you please slow down a bit and repeat your answer, please.

  • You asked me a question that there was mass rape and violations that went on in the NPFL and I have answered that question many times. I said, no, it's not to my knowledge. No, I never saw it. I never heard it. And then you went on to quote from the TRC in Liberia.

    The TRC is a reconciliation area. It's not a court. Why should you bring the TRC issue here whereby it is not in my statement and my testimony? It's outside my statement.

  • On page 17, paragraph 3, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission reached the following finding:

    "All factions engaged in the armed conflict violated, degraded, abused and denigrated, committed sexual and gender based violence against women, including rape, sexual slavery, forced marriages and other dehumanising forms of violations."

    That's what happened during the Liberian wars, isn't it, Mr Zaymay?

  • He has already answered no on a previous - when you asked that question the first time.

  • Yes, I do beg your pardon. I thought I was directed to go back, but I apologise if I have got that wrong.

  • No, there is probably some confusion. The Bench was simply telling you we wouldn't allow the objection by Mr Chekera on that particular passage.

  • In that case I would refer next to page 262 and, over that page, 263 in the same breath:

  • Mr Zaymay, there is a table on page 262 and that outlines the various violations that were reported to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. They record at the second line down "Killing". They talk about 28,042 killings that took place during the Liberian wars. So killings occurred during the Liberian wars, didn't they - killings of civilians, that is?

  • Is this my statement that you are drawing your question from?

  • Mr Zaymay, killings occurred during the Liberian civil wars, didn't they?

  • If you answer to my question, then I will answer to yours. Is this my statement before the Court that you are drawing your question from?

  • Mr Witness, you are there to answer questions. The counsel cross-examining you at the moment is not limited to questions that are in your statement. This has got nothing to do with your statement. It's already been explained to you the document it comes from, so please answer the question.

    Ms Howarth, repeat the question, please.

  • Killings occurred during the Liberian civil wars, didn't they?

  • I only know that soldiers who were enemies to us were killed and not civilians.

  • Civilians were killed during the Liberian civil war, weren't they, Mr Zaymay?

  • I never saw it with my eyes to talk about.

  • If we could just turn over the page for a moment to 263. At the bottom of the first paragraph it says, "The TRC also documented over 28,000 killing violations." Do you want to change your answer, Mr Zaymay?

  • It's now that I have heard that, and I have never come across the TRC report about killings. It is now that I have heard it. So I don't know, because I was not issued a copy of it.

  • If I can take you back to page 262, please, on the table. It refers - beneath "Killings" it refers to "Assault" and it documents 13,222 assaults. Mr Zaymay, assaults occurred during the Liberian wars, didn't they?

  • I don't know. I cannot talk about that.

  • And beneath that, "Abduction", it records that 13,045 violations occurred that they heard about. Abductions occurred during the Liberian civil wars, didn't they?

  • Where? In which of the areas?

  • We are talking throughout Liberia, Mr Zaymay. People were being abducted, weren't they?

  • No, I don't know.

  • And beneath "Abduction" it refers to "Looting violations" and it records 7,619 incidents of looting. Looting occurred during the Liberian wars, didn't it?

  • And then further down, "Rape", it records 2,308 rapes during the Liberian civil wars. Rape occurred as well, didn't it?

  • I never saw raping. I never saw it, and I never caught anybody raping someone that I could see with my eyes.

  • Now, if I could go over the page to 263. You have said, haven't you, that the NPFL never committed any violations against civilians?

  • Yes. Never committed violations against civilians that I saw that I could talk about. One can only talk about what you see.

  • At the bottom of that page, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission say this:

    "It is interesting to note that NPFL is responsible for more than three times the number of reported violations as the next closest perpetrator group, LURD."

    Then I go over the page to 264. They say as follows:

    "By this finding, the NPFL was identified as the perpetrator of approximately 40 per cent of the violations reported to the TRC."

    And beneath that there is a table which puts the NPFL at the top and records 63,843 violations, which they say is 39 per cent of the violations. Mr Zaymay, did you never, ever hear of one single violation against a civilian during the Liberian war? Is that what you are asking this Court to believe?

  • I am saying that in the NPFL - in the NPFL - in the NPFL-controlled areas, that was the safe zone for the entire Liberians that they could run to for safety, and we used to open the areas to them. I never saw any soldiers committing crimes against civilians in my controlled area. What happened in Bassa, that was a different county. What happened in Lofa, that was a different county. I was not everywhere. Liberia, I did not have a telescope that I could see everywhere. I only concentrated on my controlled area, and I did say that within my controlled area there was no violation. That was what I said. I am not saying that within the entire Liberia there was no violation. I am talking about my controlled area. I did not control Grand Gedeh; I did not control Sinoe; I did not control Lofa. The things that happened there, I can't tell. But within my controlled areas is what I'm talking about. What happened within my controlled areas.

  • So are you saying you never heard about any of this until now?

  • I never heard about it.

  • If I can show you finally page 265. There is a graph on there, if you'd care to take a look at it, and it shows "NPFL" at the top and then it lists the various other perpetrator groups. Now, it's quite clear from that, isn't it, that the NPFL committed more violations than any other perpetrator group, didn't they?

  • I am saying, and I continue to say, that in my controlled area, I enforced the SOP. Nobody violated in my controlled area. I cannot talk for the entire NPFL. The areas where I commanded, it never went on there. That's what I continue to talk about.

  • Mr Zaymay, you have deliberately downplayed the crimes committed by the NPFL to these judges, haven't you?

  • I said in my controlled area I never saw it. I can only remember once in Bomi Hills - once in Bomi Hills by Oliver Varney that caused him to be transferred when I went there as commander. In Bomi Hills: One. That is what I can remember: One. But not in the entire NPFL. I was not commander for the entire NPFL.

  • You deliberately downplayed the atrocities committed by the NPFL when you gave evidence before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, didn't you?

  • Oh, I explained - I explained I never saw it. You can only talk about what you see. I don't want the Court to say - I don't want to contradict myself. I can only talk about what I saw. If it is blue, I can say it is blue. It is a blue colour.

  • And you have lied about and exaggerated about the SOPs, haven't you?

  • Ask your question again.

  • Very well. You have lied about and exaggerated about the SOPs, haven't you?

  • I am under oath. I will not lie. I am saying what I saw. What I saw is what I am talking about.

  • Just to clear that question up, when you put it to the witness that he has lied about the SOPs, are you suggesting he has lied about the existence of the SOPs, or the effect of the SOPs if they were in existence?

  • The question was aiming at both of those propositions.

  • Just so that it's clear, put it to the witness. Give him a chance to answer.

  • You have lied about there being SOPs, haven't you, Mr Zaymay?

  • There was an SOP.

  • And if there was an SOP - if there was - then you have exaggerated about it, haven't you?

  • Oh, you asked me that there was massive raping and killing of civilians. I said I never heard it. I said I never saw it. I never saw it. If I say, yes, I saw it, I would - I might have to explain where and when and who did it. So I cannot tell lies. If I saw it I will say, yes, I saw it. It was during the time of war. If I did not see it, I will say, I did not see it. So my own SOP that I was enforcing in the field, how would I frame it differently?

  • You said to this Court that you went on a two-week workshop about SOPs, didn't you?

  • But you were a trained member of the army. You didn't need a two-week workshop to be told not to kill, loot, or rape civilians, did you?

  • I went for a workshop on SOP to be enforced in the field.

  • You have also given evidence to this Court about SBUs, haven't you?

  • And you said that all commanders had SBUs on the field within your area of assignment, correct?

  • No, not within the area of my assignment. All unit commanders - all Special Forces that were heading as unit commanders in a battalion, they controlled different battalions. Not in my area of assignment.

  • If we could please refer to the transcript of 11 May at page 40795. At line 24 you were asked this by Defence counsel:

    "Q. Did you have a unit that was called SBUs?

    A. SBU was not a trained unit. I also had SBUs. All

    commanders had SBUs on the field within your area of


    That's your evidence to their Honours, isn't it, Mr Zaymay?

  • Not within my area of assignment. If I said all commanders, it meant battalion commanders, Special Forces. When we entered, we had battalions. Battalion commanders Special Forces had SBUs. I had three. SBU was not a trained combat unit. I continue to say this.

  • So today you're saying that all battalion commanders and Special Forces had SBUs and that you had three. Do I understand you correctly?

  • Yes. The Special Forces battalion commanders that I know, I saw them with theirs and I started creating mine.

  • Can you tell me, did Mr Taylor have SBUs?

  • No. SBU was not created as a fighting unit in the NPFL, no.

  • Did Mr Taylor have any small boys, small boy soldiers like yourself?

  • I never saw it. I was not based in Gbarnga. I continue to say this. I never saw it.

  • Could I please refer to exhibit D-301. This is an extract from a book by Mr Herman Cohen. That book is called "Intervening in Africa" and I wanted to refer to - there is the cover page of that book and I wanted to refer to page 154, please. Now, in the middle of the page where it says "On 20 September", and the author is relating one of his own experiences here, he says this:

    "On 20 September, in the most interesting experience of the mission, we flew to the northern Cote d'Ivoire airport at Man. There, joined by our ambassador in Abidjan, Kenneth Brown, we boarded four-wheel-drive vehicles and crossed ten miles into Liberia to meet with Charles Taylor. The most striking and frightening aspect of Taylor's forest hideaway was the overwhelming presence of heavily armed 14 to 16 year old boys."

    Mr Zaymay, you know about this, don't you?

  • Where? Where? In which area?

  • Well, let's take any area. Wherever you went to visit Mr Taylor you knew that he had young boys, 14 to 16 year olds with him, didn't you?

  • I continue - Prosecutor, I continue to say that my authority was at the front line. I only went to Gbarnga once. I did not even sleep there. I went back to my front line. I never experienced it.

  • What Mr Cohen's wrote in this book here is the truth, isn't it?

  • I was not assigned with Mr Cohen. What he saw, I did not see. I don't know him. I was at the front. I continue to say this. I only went to Gbarnga once for a meeting and back to my front line where my concentration was. I never saw it. If Mr Cohen saw it, I did not see it.

  • Could I refer to the trial transcript of 22 September 2008, please, at page 16792, line 9. This is some testimony from a journalist who came to give evidence before this Court, named Stephen Smith, and he gave the following evidence. He was asked: "Now, you mentioned his security was with him." And they are referring to Mr Taylor there. And he is asked:

    "What normally was the make up of his security, if you


    A. There again, to be precise, you would distinguish when

    Mr Taylor was on the move or whether he was in his

    residence. In his residence, it was a well-organised

    security set-up which I do not know in detail. I can only

    describe it from my viewpoint as someone who came to visit

    him to interview him. So you would have an outer ring of

    security. I would associate that fairly often with the

    Small Boys Unit, child soldiers, if I had to estimate young

    boys, sometimes girls, between the age from 10/11 up to

    15/16. They would be the outer ring of security and then

    you had various inner rings of security, bodyguards,

    Liberian bodyguards, but also we spotted Burkinabe security


    So when Mr Taylor was on the move, he had a Small Boys Unit, didn't he? He had child soldiers, 10/11 up to 15/16, around him, didn't he?

  • I was not in the bodyguard unit. I can't tell. I continue to say it. I lived at the front line. Where Mr Taylor moved here and there, I was not with him. I did not see Small Boys Unit with him. I continue to say it.

  • And when he was in his residence he also had a Small Boys Unit with small children from the age 10/11, 15/16, didn't he?

  • No, I never saw it. I continue to say no. No.

  • You have told us that all battalion commanders, all Special Forces had Small Boys Units. This included, Mr Taylor, didn't it?

  • No, no. I said these small boys --

  • Your Honours, can he kindly repeat his answer slowly.

  • Mr Witness, the interpreter has missed what you have just said. Could you please go over your answer again a little more slowly.

  • I said the Small Boys Unit was created by we, by us the commanders, the Special Forces battalion commanders. It was not within our range - it was not within the range of Mr Taylor.

  • You are not telling the truth about that, are you, Mr Zaymay?

  • I am saying the definite facts, the truth. I never saw it. I created SBU.

  • Your Honours, can he kindly repeat the name.

  • Mr Witness, once again the interpreter didn't get everything you said. You mentioned a name there. Can you repeat that name, please.

  • I said when I went to Johnson Leaman in Bomi Hills, the navy chief of staff, when I went to him in Buchanan, the navy chief of staff, I went there for my supply, I saw him with the children and I said, "Oh, who are these?" And he said, "Oh, you don't have your own SBUs? I took these children from the displaced camp. They do not have families. I brought them here to live with my family just for fun."

  • Your Honours, he is stating the names very fast. I can't get them clearly. Can he repeat this other name?

  • Mr Witness, just to remind you, this evidence is not only being written down, it is being interpreted as well. The interpreter can't keep up with you. You have said - these are your words, "I brought them here to live with my family just for fun." You were talking about the navy chief of staff. Now, what did you say after that?

  • He told me, You don't have your own SBUs? There are some children in the displaced camp. They do not have families. You need to help them. Bring them home. I went to Paul D Weah and he too told me the same thing, so I decided to create my own SBU. There were three of them with me. SBU was not an organised unit. They were not a trained unit for anything, only within the range of - only we, the commanders, created SBUs. It was not to the knowledge of Mr Taylor. I never saw Mr Taylor with any SBUs. I continue to say the fact. Why should I lie?

  • Mr Zaymay, in your evidence you have mentioned somebody called Tom Woweiyu, correct?

  • Are you aware that in 1994 he spoke out publicly about the NPFL, and he criticised Mr Taylor for walking around with eight-year-old children dragging weapons behind them; are you aware of that?

  • I never heard it. I was not on radio at that time. I was in the field.

  • Now, you have told this Court about your own SBUs. You explained that you got one from the displaced camp at Fendall, correct?

  • Yes.

  • And you said the second one, you found him during the attack on Monrovia; that's correct?

  • And that's the July 1990 attack you are referring to. Is that right?

  • Tell me, when you saw him, as you said, lying on the street amongst corpses, was he conscious or was he unconscious?

  • I saw him lying down and I took him to be a corpse. So my bodyguard told me that he was alive, he was breathing. That's how I took him and put him in the car. I rescued him.

  • And you explained that you took him to Kakata, correct?

  • And was it in Kakata when you were able to first speak to him?

  • Yes. After he had taken treatment and had become conscience enough in my residence in Kakata.

  • So was it in the streets of Monrovia or in Kakata when you thought to ask him whether or not he had any parents?

  • It was in Kakata. The man was already dead. He was not even talking. He can hardly - he could hardly talk.

  • You mentioned that --

  • I thought you were going to follow that up, Ms Howarth. What man are you referring to, Mr Witness, who was nearly dead and could hardly talk?

  • This boy. This boy.

  • Now, there were - let me rephrase that. You have referred to the corpses lying on the street that you took him away from. There were civilian casualties during the attack on Monrovia in July 1990, weren't there?

  • There were soldiers. I never checked whether he was a soldier, but she was wearing a military T-shirt fatigue, so I took her to be a military lady.

  • Which lady are you referring to?

  • The corpse that was lying down with this child beside her. When I got there, I saw a body lying down. I saw a body lying down. She was - I saw her in a fatigue T-shirt. She was wearing fatigue T-shirt lying down.

  • What about this boy, was he wearing a fatigue T-shirt? Was he a child soldier?

  • No. This boy was a civilian lying down. Whether he was lying beside his mother or not, I don't know. He was a civilian boy. I met him lying down there too a little distance away from the woman when they were changing my tyre.

  • So he is the only civilian that you ever saw hurt or injured during your time in the wars in Liberia; is that right?

  • Oh, this lady, I can't tell whether she was a soldier or a civilian. From --

  • I am talking about the boy, the boy who you say you rescued from the streets of Monrovia. He was injured. He was unconscious, you told us, until he got to Kakata. So my question is this: Is he the only civilian that you ever saw hurt or injured during your time in the wars in Liberia?

  • Yes, at that time - entering Monrovia at that time.

  • I am going to move on to your third --

  • Before you do move on, Ms Howarth, I notice that we still have not got an answer to the question that you originally asked, whether this boy was able to answer any questions about his parents. I need to go back and look to the font. At page 40, line 7, you asked, "Did you ask him whether or not he had any parents?" He made an ambiguous reply, which was the taken up by Justice Lussick, but he's never actually answered the question whether he spoke to this child about parents.

  • Yes. When the child became - got back to himself after two weeks' treatment, I asked him about his parents.

  • And it was in Kakata, wasn't it, that you asked him about his parents, correct?

  • Yes, after two weeks after he had taken treatment in Kakata.

  • Now, in relation to the third SBU you told us about - and I am quoting here from the 11 May transcript, 40802, lines 19 to 22 - you said, "The third SBU, he was one of my girlfriend's younger brother that was staying with her." How many girlfriends did you have at this time, Mr Zaymay?

  • I had two girlfriends. One that was with me in exile, she followed me to Liberia. That makes it two.

  • The first woman you have just referred to as your girlfriend who followed you to exile, previously you told us that she was your wife and you told us a story about how you sent her to get your pay. So she was your wife, not your girlfriend, wasn't she?

  • Yes, that's my legal wife. She was not with me in exile.

  • And your words were, "The third SBU, he was one of my girlfriend's younger brother that was staying with her." How many girlfriends did you have? You said "one of my girlfriends".

  • I said I had two girlfriends. The first one - apart from my wife, the first one was the girl who accommodated me in exile in the Ivory Coast. When we entered, she came to me. She came to me in Kakata. Apart from that, I had another girl. I had another girl. She made the second one. She brought her brother to me. That's why I said "one of my girlfriends". She makes it two apart from my wife.

  • This girlfriend you are referring to whose younger brother was staying with her, was she somebody who had been captured by the NPFL?

  • Was she somebody who was captured and who you used as your bush wife?

  • And is that why both her and her younger brother were with you?

  • No. This girl, she was in Kakata. I said that I never fought in Kakata. From hospital in Burkina, when I went, the soldiers were in position to attack Monrovia at that time. Kakata was a safe zone, so this girl was in Kakata. When I got there, she and I fell in love. She told me that she did not know where her people were; she was going through difficult times; I should help her. So I took her home as my girlfriend.

  • Now, you spent some time explaining to their Honours about going to Fendall and delivering food supplies, yes?

  • About delivering footballs for the children?

  • And you have explained how benevolent you have been in terms of taking three children under your wings and treating them like members of your own family. That's your evidence?

  • I rescued them. I rescued them. This, my girlfriend, brought in her brother. I did not know where her brother was living. She took her brother to me. And the first boy, I met him dying and I rescued him and took him to my house. I rescued these people. I did not forcefully take them.

  • So you are the Good Samaritan in all of this, aren't you; taking children to your home and bringing them up on your own. That's your evidence, isn't it?

  • Yes, I rescued the children.

  • But, Mr Zaymay, going back to your testimony before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, when you told your story to them, you didn't mention any of this to them, did you?

  • Yeah, but I continue to say, if I did not mention, TRC only told me - they only asked me about the cause of the war. The way they presented their statement was the way I followed it. They did not ask me the part I played in the war. They asked me about the root cause of the war. That was how I explained the cause of the war in Liberia. It was the way they presented it.

  • You didn't tell them about this part of your story because it never happened, did it?

  • For example, if you ask me, how did you get here? I will explain how I got here. If you did not - if you asked me - if you don't ask me about a different thing, I won't explain. TRC wrote me a letter that I should appear before the TRC and explain what the root cause of the war was, and I went and explained what the root cause of the war was. But they never asked me to explain during the war how many children did you rescue?

    It was the way they presented their story, that was what I followed. I had to explain what brought the war in Liberia, so I did not go outside of what brought the war in Liberia and explain a different thing. How could I have explained about children when they did not ask me about children? So what I am telling you here is a fact. I rescued three of the children and they were with me. Even right now, some of them are in Liberia.

  • You have spoken about domestic chores that were performed by the SBUs, correct?

  • Yes. They were living as children. They joined my children and they used to help with the domestic work. Sweeping the compound, washing dishes and to cook.

  • Now, it's right, isn't it, that children would also be used to carry weapons, wouldn't they?

  • I never took any children with me.

  • Well, you have been able to give us evidence not only about the children with you, but also about the children with other commanders, haven't you?

  • Yes, I used to see some of them. I used to see some of them carrying their commanders' arms. When we would be going for programmes, they will dress them in military uniforms and they will be carrying their commanders's arms, they will be laughing at them and making fun out of them. I used to see them with their commanders.

  • And which commanders dressed them in military uniform and got them to carry the commanders' arms?

  • First I saw them with Johnson Leaman. Then when I went to Buchanan, Johnson Leaman told me we should go to the Freeport for my supplies. And he was in charge of the navy. He was having a cold storage where he kept fish, so he said we should go to that cold storage for some fish. The boys got into the car with him and we went and I was laughing at them.

  • Mr Zaymay, my question was a little more focused than that. And just as when you were giving evidence when your own lawyer was asking you questions, when I'm asking you questions please also try, if you can, to focus on the precise question that's being asked. I asked you about which commander and you told us about Johnson Leaman. Which other commanders did you see with small boys carrying their commanders's arms?

  • I saw Paul D Weah.

  • And as well as Paul D Weah, were there any other commanders that you saw with small boys carrying their arms?

  • We were the only people that were close to each other. The other people were in far off counties, way at the rear, way behind Gbarnga.

  • And it's right, isn't it, that as well as carrying out domestic chores and carrying arms, there would also be small children at gates, wouldn't there?

  • Oh, it was just for fun. The children - the commander created the SBUs just out of fun. It was not a crime. They were not meant to fight.

  • Small children were used to search vehicles at gates, weren't they?

  • No, I never saw it.

  • Well, Mr Taylor said that happened, so it did, didn't it?

  • If Mr Taylor said it happened, he saw it. I was mainly concentrated at the front line and not the rear and so I never saw it.

  • And there were also children used at checkpoints, weren't there?

  • No, I never saw it.

  • Now, you said a moment ago that the children - that they were not meant to fight, but they did fight, didn't they?

  • I never saw them at any target.

  • Mr Witness, that does not answer the question.

  • No, no, I never saw them fighting.

  • Independent of whether you did or didn't see them, they did fight, didn't they? They were not meant to fight, but they did fight, didn't they?

  • I have answered no. I never saw them fighting for me to talk about. No.

  • But all factions used child soldiers, didn't they, Mr Zaymay?

  • I can only talk specifically about the NPFL. I was not with the other factions.

  • You interacted with the other factions, didn't you? You fought against them?

  • When you fought against them, you would have observed that just as the NPFL used child soldiers, so did they, correct?

  • I never saw them. I never encountered any SBUs from different factions engaged at the war front for me to see. If they created it, I did not see it. But at the front line, no SBU ever attacked me at the front line. They were all men.

  • You have talked about SBUs being created just for fun. Were they fighting just for fun too?

  • I never - I continue to say it, I never saw SBUs fighting. There is no fun in fighting. I never saw SBUs fighting for me to say it was for fun.

  • I wanted to refer again to the tab 2 in the bundle. It's again at page 17 and it's at the bottom of that page.

  • Again, your Honours, I rise to note the objection we made earlier in relation to new evidence that could go to the guilt of the accused. And in this particular instance I raise the issue of child soldiers specifically because it is one such issue and I would refer your Honours to the opening statement in this case of 4 June 2007, page 282. I will probably start from line 12. Sorry, I beg your pardon. Page 276, line 14. This was an opening statement by the Prosecutor:

    "Moreover, many of the crimes committed by the rebel forces supported by the accused in Sierra Leone mirrored crimes that had been committed by the accused's forces in Liberia. The RUF trained and learnt war and methods of guerilla warfare in Liberia in camps with the forces of the accused, specifically his NPFL. An example is the recruitment of child soldiers."

    I will probably just end there and make the point I wish to make. I do again concede that the reference that counsel seeks to make refers to all armed factions, but to the extent that all armed factions includes NPFL, in light of the Prosecution's allegation which goes to Rule 93 evidence, to the extent that the excerpt that counsel seeks to put to the witness refers to the NPFL, that goes to the guilt of the defendant in this case.

  • Thank you. Do you wish to answer that objection, Ms Howarth?

  • Simply to reiterate really what my learned friend just said at the end, that I am seeking to put that sentence to this witness and it does relate to all of the armed factions in the conflict and therefore, in my submission, is remote from this accused and it's appropriate to put to this witness in light of his evidence that he is unaware of it.

  • Yes. Thank you.

  • [Trial Chamber conferred]

  • The Trial Chamber is of the view that the passage referred to and objected to by Mr Chekera does not go to the guilt of the accused necessarily. It refers to other factions and it's quite a vague statement as well, so we will overrule the objection and allow the question.

    You can put it again, Ms Howarth.

  • I got as far as putting the question on that occasion, so I will just refer to page 17.

  • Mr Zaymay, you will see at the bottom of page 17 there is another finding by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and they find as follows:

    "All factions and other armed groups recruited and used children during periods of armed conflicts."

    Now, that's the truth of the matter, isn't it, Mr Zaymay? All factions and other armed groups recruited and used children during periods of armed conflict in Liberia, didn't they?

  • I said NPFL never recruited child soldiers.

  • Your Honours, can he kindly repeat his answer slowly.

  • Mr Witness, once again you are going a bit too fast for the interpreter. Can you continue.

  • You last said, your words, "I said NPFL never recruited child soldiers." Now, could you go on from there, please.

  • I continue to say NPFL never recruited and trained child soldiers. Child soldiers were inducted by the Special Forces commandos in the field. Child soldiers were not a fighting unit. The TRC report - I continue to say what TRC was saying about the NPFL, the TRC commander said he was victimised by NPFL. What good things do you think he would talk about the NPFL? If he can say that the child soldiers were recruited, they saw it and they can bring the evidence, they can bring the proof. But I did not see it.

  • We will leave it there, Ms Howarth. We will take the morning break and come back at 12 o'clock.

  • [Break taken at 11.30 a.m.]

  • [Upon resuming at 12.02 p.m.]

  • Good afternoon, Ms Howarth. Please continue.

  • I'm most grateful. Just before the break we were in fact using some extracts from the TRC report which was tab 2 in the bundle, and I want --

  • Sorry, just to note that Mr Munyard is no longer present.

  • Yes, I was going to ask that tab 2 be given an MFI, and I would note that there's one page I haven't referred to that's in there which is 261, so that ought properly to be removed before an MFI is given.

  • The document contained in tab 2 is entitled "Volume 2, Consolidated Final Report" consisting of how many pages, Ms Howarth?

  • So sorry, can I just have one moment, I'll count them up. I have ten in total.

  • Then that document with the exception of page 261, the ten pages of that document are marked MFI-2.

  • Mr Zaymay, before the break you said - this is at my page 51, line 15, "I continue to say NPFL never recruited and trained child soldiers." Are you aware that the TRC found exactly the opposite and found the recruitment and use of child soldiers to be a tactic favoured by Mr Taylor's NPFL?

  • I will say here that I never saw it. I was at the front. I never saw it. If the TRC says that they saw it, then they have proof to that. But I never saw it.

  • And so are you inviting their Honours to disregard any other evidence you've given in this case where you haven't seen that thing for yourself?

  • You spoke about SBUs with Mr Taylor, right?

  • I'm going to move on. Could the transcript of 11 May 2010, page 40807, please be displayed. I'm starting from line 7. This is an extract from your own testimony, Mr Zaymay:

    "Q. Now at what point from the time you entered Liberia

    from Ivory Coast did you first see these children that were

    referred to as SBUs?

    A. No, I came across them during the first ceasefire in

    '92, no.

    Q. Sorry, if you could just repeat your answer, because

    there is a part of it that was not captured. The question

    was when did you first come across the children you

    referred as SBUs from the first time you entered Liberia

    from Ivory Coast?

    A. During the first ceasefire, 1992. 1992.

    Q. Well - and besides seeing them with Leaman in - where

    else, if any, did you see these SBUs?

    A. In '91 when I went to visit Paul D Weah at Harbel, I

    met the same boys with him too.

    Q. You said that was in 1991?

    A. 1991."

    Mr Witness, you've also explained to us that you got your first SBU during the July 1990 attack on Monrovia, correct?

  • Yes. Not SBU. Not SBU. The first child that I saw was not an SBU at that time in 1990. Not SBU. He was a civilian boy that I rescued. Not SBU at that time in 1990.

  • You've described him, haven't you, as your first SBU, correct?

  • I described him as a civilian boy who was lying down that I rescued in 1990. He was not an SBU.

  • Mr Zaymay, this is another example of when you're getting confused about dates again, isn't it? Because you were asked when you first came across them, you say 1992. Then you talk about Paul Weah and his small boys in 1991 and you've got your own SBU in 1990. So you're confused about dates again here, aren't you?

  • No. Listen to me carefully. In 1990 there were no SBUs. When I entered Monrovia around the Sinkor area and whilst I was changing my tyre there was a boy lying down almost dead. I even considered it a corpse, but my bodyguards told me, they said, "Oh, chief, the boy is living. He is breathing." So I said, "Pick him up and put him in the car." So I'm saying that he was not an SBU but a civilian boy. And when I took him to my house and after that I visited my friends, I saw them with SBUs. That was how I created my own SBUs. But the boy I saw at that time was a civilian boy and not an SBU.

  • So this time you are just confused about whether the SBUs began in 1991 or 1992. That's right, isn't it?

  • The SBU came about in 1991. And when I went to Bomi Hills in '92 - yes, it came about in 1991. But when I went to Bomi Hills in 1992, that was how I took my boys with me and they were with me in Bomi Hills in '92. In 1990 the boy I saw on the ground was not an SBU.

  • Mr Witness, when you say you took your boys with you to Bomi in 1992, you took them where exactly in Bomi? To the front line, or where?

  • When I was ordered to go and take over as commander in Bomi Hills, those boys who were with me, my SBUs, they told me, they said, "Oh, chief, we are not going to say here. We'll go with you wherever you are going." At that time there was no war, so they went with me to Bomi Hills - to Bomi Hills in Tubmanburg.

  • And what did they do with you when they got there? They went with you to do what?

  • Those boys had got used to me. They did not know any other person. They only knew me. So they told me that anywhere I was going they will go with me. The same way they had stayed with me in my house was the same way they stayed with me in Bomi Hills in my house.

  • Mr Witness, you said earlier that the - were with your children, they were like your children. Did your own children call you chief?

  • Yes, my children used to call me chief. They used to call me CO. CO, because that was the name for all commanders. So everybody used to call one CO, so my children too used to call me CO.

  • Did you also take your own children with you to Bomi Hills?

  • I took my first child with me to Bomi Hills. They were all playing together. So I wouldn't have left my son over there and take only the boys with me.

  • Could I please refer to exhibit D-118. So this is an article from the New African. The date is October 1992, and it's an article by Baffour Ankomah and I'm referring to page 11. It says, "Baffour Ankomah spent a month behind the lines with Charles Taylor and his forces in Liberia." I'm going to refer to the final paragraph on the first column of the article beginning with "small boy soldiers". He says as follows:

    "Small boy soldiers, some as young as 9 and 10 years old would put a knife to the throat of some elderly Krahn man and tell him, 'Poppy, Papa, don't worry. It won't hurt you.' In another minute his head would not be his. Some teenage soldiers both boys and girls told me in separate interviews that they wanted to seek revenge for the atrocities committed against their parents. His dismembered bodies were left to rot in the open by Doe's soldiers."

    Now, that's right, isn't it, Mr Zaymay? Some children joined the NPFL because they wanted to seek revenge, didn't they?

  • I am saying that no small soldiers were within the NPFL. I continue to say this. I continue to say this. No SBUs were trained to take revenge within the NPFL. I continue to say this. NPFL had grown men.

  • It continues: "One boy who is now 14 years old told me in a disarmament camp at Kuindin near Tappita, Nimba County, 'I returned to our village from school in Monrovia to find I had no mother, no father. They had been slaughtered like goats by Doe's men. What else did you want me to do? Sit down and cry? I joined President Taylor's army and sought revenge.' More of such orphans now put together in a Small Boys Unit joined Taylor's forces."

    Now, that's the truth, isn't it, Mr Zaymay, these small children wanting revenge joined Mr Taylor's forces and were put together in a Small Boys Unit?

  • No, not to my knowledge. I continue to say that the NPFL fighters were grown men. We had more men to fight. Nobody recruited Small Boys Units. No, not to my knowledge.

  • And that's why, isn't it, when you spoke to Paul D Weah he referred to his SBUs as small boy soldiers because that's exactly what they were? They were small boy soldiers, weren't they?

  • When I went to Paul Weah to visit him, I saw him with two and he told me that he himself created them. They do not go anywhere. They were staying with him in his compound. They were not a fighting force.

  • Your Honours, could the witness be asked to repeat that last bit.

  • Mr Witness, could you repeat the last bit of your answer for the interpreter to interpret to us.

  • I said I went to Paul Weah. That was on my way from receiving my supplies. That was on my way going to get my supply in Harbel. In Harbel. It was not Tappita. In Harbel. In Harbel, Margibi County. And I came across two of the boys with him and he told me that those were his own Small Boys Unit that he had created but that they were not fighting men. They do not go anywhere. They were only staying in the compound with him. That was not in Tappita. So it was then that I also decided to created mine, but they were not a fighting unit to take revenge.

  • He called them small boy soldiers, didn't he?

  • Yes, we called them SBU. So if that is what they are talking about, that there were SBUs in NPFL, no, they were not a fighting unit. We the commanders created them just for fun.

  • Mr Zaymay, you were asked this and perhaps it's unnecessary to pull it up but the reference is 11 May 2010 at line 17. The question was - my question was, "For how long did NPFL commanders remain to have small boys under their charge?" And your answer was, "From '91 - from '91 up to '95." Is that the truth?

  • Yes. The ones that were with me stayed with me until the time I went to Monrovia. They stayed with me until they found their parents. We went to Monrovia. I am talking about mine.

  • Mr Zaymay, you've told this Court your SBUs didn't have any parents?

  • I told you that when I came across them, the one that I saw at first, he told me that he did not know where his parents were when I asked him in Kakata. And the one I saw in the second place in Fendall, he also told me that he did not know where his parents were. And the one I saw - the one that my girlfriend brought to me, he told me that he did not know the direction their parents took. So he said they were all running away from bullets. But at last when I went to Monrovia, a Krahn lady came to me. The boy that I had got from Monrovia, the boy was a Krahn boy. One Krahn lady came to my office at the MP headquarters and said, "Zaymay, I learnt that my child is with you." And I asked her to call the name. And she called the name of the boy and I said yes.

  • Your Honours, could the witness be asked to slow down and say that clearly.

  • Mr Witness, please slow down. Start from where you explained that the lady called the name of the boy and you said yes. Now, continue from there slowly.

  • I said, "Yes, I saw a boy who was dying and I took him. He is called Abraham. He is in Sinkor." And she said, "Okay, where is the boy?" And I said, "The boy is at my house. The boy had now got used to me to the extent that anywhere I went to, he went with me." And then I said okay to her. I said, "Come the following day and I will bring the boy with me." And she came and I brought the boy to the office. And when she met the boy, she started crying. The boy had a mark on top of his eyebrows. On the eyebrows there is somewhere that he's marked and she said, yes, that is the identity of the boy.

    When she saw the boy in my office she started crying, and the following day she and the husband came to me to tell me thanks. They brought a pastor that prayed for me in my office for the great job that I had done for them bringing their child back to them. At that time I met them. They did not even know - the time I met them they did not even know the locations of their families.

  • If I could refer, please, to the transcript of 11 May 2010 at page 40802. I've finished with the exhibit, thank you.

  • Could you kindly repeat the page number again, please.

  • It's 40802. At line 23, please:

  • Mr Zaymay, this is in your evidence when asking questions from the Defence counsel when you're talking about your SBUs and you were asked this:

    "Q. And how did that SBU get to be your - to be under you?

    A. All the three children were with me. They hadn't

    parents, so they were with me at my house and I was feeding

    them out of humanitarian feelings."

    So you told the Court on 11 May that they didn't have any parents, didn't you?

  • Yes, at that time that I came across them they did not know the location of their people. They did not know the location of their people until the time we went to Monrovia. What I mean that they did not have parents is simply to say that at the time I met them they did not have parents. That was what I said.

  • I'm going to move to a different area now. Mr Zaymay, you have given evidence that prior to the initial invasion of Liberia, yourself and others were sent to Guinea and that in Guinea you were arrested and deported to Ivory Coast, correct?

  • Now, when you met with Mr Gray, then later Silas and Logan in Monrovia, this wasn't something that you mentioned to them, was it?

  • You mean I never told them that I was deported from Guinea back to Ivory Coast?

  • Yes, when you spoke to them in Monrovia you never told them that, did you?

  • Yes, but even if I did not tell them then I might have forgotten.

  • So that's something that you forgot about at that time, correct?

  • Yes, if it's not in my statement, then I forgot about my deportation from Guinea to Ivory Coast.

  • And you've given evidence to the Court about the Nimba raid, haven't you?

  • And again this is something that you didn't mention to your lawyers in Monrovia, did you?

  • Well, if it's not in my statement, then I forgot about the Nimba raid, but I think I made mention of it.

  • You've explained that when you gave evidence to the TRC you were talking about the root causes of the conflict and that's something you mentioned earlier on today. But when you gave evidence to the TRC, you didn't mention the Nimba raid, did you?

  • I can't remember. But the - in the root cause of the war, the major thing in there is the Nimba invasion. So if I did not explain about the Nimba invasion, then I might have forgotten.

  • You've also given evidence in the Court about someone called Sam Tozay and about Sam Tozay betraying the NPFL cause by revealing to Sam Doe that the NPFL were plotting to invade Monrovia, correct?

  • Yes, I explained about Sam Tozay.

  • And the first time you've mentioned that has also been here in The Hague, hasn't it?

  • I do not remember.

  • Can you try to remember?

  • Oh, about Sam Tozay?

  • No, not about Sam Tozay. The first time you have mentioned Sam Tozay is here in The Hague, isn't it?

  • Okay, I continue to say, you see, what happened in 1990 - check from 1990 up to this moment, it's almost 20 years. It's not something that we took statements about. It was on top of my head. So the one I know - I remember is what I've spoken about, so if I did not speak about Sam Tozay then it did not come to mind.

  • Yesterday you told the Court that whilst you've been here in The Hague you've spent about six days with Mr Mineh in hotel accommodation, correct?

  • And you agreed that during those six days you've shared conversations with him, haven't you?

  • Yes, the man is a Gio man and he's a Liberian. If they say, "Let's go and eat," then we'll go and eat. If he says, "Let's go and watch video," we'll go and watch the video. If I was not doing any other thing else we would go and watch the video. So that was about all what we discussed. Or to say, "Excuse me, I'm going to bed." That's all about discussing.

  • Now, whilst you've been having conversations with him the two of you have discussed your shared past, haven't you?

  • We did not talk about that. I was told by the protection security there - they have people there watching over us, and I was told not to share my testimony with anybody, so we did not discuss about any past.

  • You've discussed about being arrested in Guinea and being sent to the Ivory Coast, haven't you?

  • I am saying we never discussed about any past. I never even knew whether Edward Mineh was ever in Guinea. I only came across Edward Mineh at the border inside Cote d'Ivoire, in Ivory Coast.

  • You discussed the Nimba raid, didn't you?

  • We never discussed anything. Edward Mineh was in Nimba and I was in Monrovia, so we did not discuss anything about the Nimba raid. We were told. We had securities watching over us in that same building.

  • You told the Court last Wednesday that you didn't meet Mr Mineh until 1996, didn't you?

  • I never what?

  • You told the Court last Wednesday that you didn't meet Mr Mineh until 1996. That's correct, isn't it?

  • I said I met Edward Mineh - I met Edward Mineh in Ivory Coast during the time of our deportation. But he and I were not living together. I did not even know whether Edward Mineh was in Guinea.

  • Your Honours, the last bit again did not come clearly to the interpreter.

  • Mr Witness, the interpreter thinks you said something towards the end which we didn't catch. Now, did you say, "I did not even know whether Edward Mineh was in Guinea"? Did you say that?

  • Please continue from there.

  • In 1996 - in 1996 NPFL was moving. We were all together. I knew Edward Mineh from the base and from there I said we moved into Guinea in groups and my group was the last group that entered Guinea and they took me to a community. And some other groups had gone ahead. They were also in Guinea. So we were not living together. I came across Edward Mineh in Sekudu [phon] in Ivory Coast by the time we were deported and at that time we were all together up to the present. It was not in 1996 that I got to know Edward Mineh.

  • Yes, I think I might have to take --

  • Your Honours, the interpreter would want to make a correction. The town the witness referred to is Sepulu and not Sekudu.

  • Yes, I was just going to say I might have to take responsibility for adding to confusion in relation to dates because it should be 1986, not 1996 as I said:

  • On 12 May, and this is page 40911, again no need necessarily to go there, you said:

    "A. I met Edward Mineh when he was in exile in the Ivory

    Coast when we were all fled into exile in 1986.

    Q. Just so we're clear, my question was when you first met

    him was it in 1986 in the Ivory Coast that you first met

    Edward Mineh?

    A. Yes, I first met Edward Mineh in 1986 in the Ivory


    So that was your evidence, correct?

  • Yes, when I went into exile Edward Mineh was already in exile before I went there. So when I went I met him in Danane.

  • Your Honours, could the witness be asked to slow down.

  • Mr Witness, I'm going to ask you again to slow down when you are giving your answers and not to speak too quickly, please.

  • Yes. The answer is yes, Edward Mineh went into exile before me. I went into exile. When I went into exile, that was in '86. I went to Danane. I met Edward Mineh in Danane and Edward Mineh's wife was operating a restaurant. We all went there and ate. He was introduced to me by one of our heads that this is one of our friend's wife who is an ex-soldier. But I met Edward Mineh in Danane.

  • But you also told this Court that Mr Mineh was one of the persons who was arrested in 1983 as a result of the Nimba raid, didn't you?

  • Yes.

  • But you didn't meet him until 1986, did you?

  • No. They brought them straight to the Post Stockade. They were in jail. I did not meet him.

  • You were able to say and remember that Mr Mineh was one of those arrested in 1983 because whilst you've been in the shared accommodation you've been discussing your shared past, haven't you?

  • No, I continue to say I was told - I was told that I should not discuss my testimony with anybody as long as I'm in The Hague. So Edward and I never discussed. We never discussed.

  • And you also have discussed Sam Tozay and his betrayal of the NPFL and you also discussed Alfred Mehn, Godfather, didn't you?

  • We did not discuss anything. It's not to my knowledge. When I got here, my concern had been how would I go through this process? This is my first time. So I was embarrassed because it's great to me. Sometimes I spend more time in my room.

  • The issues that I've just raised are issues that Mr Mineh spoke to you about and that you have weaved into your testimony, aren't they?

  • He spoke to me about what?

  • The various issues I've raised about Sam Tozay, about Godfather, about the Nimba raid, and so on?

  • Oh, the thing is not something that someone needs to teach me about. It actually happened. It happened. And Sam Tozay was arrested by our forces and he was brought to Gborplay. And he was brought to Gborplay. I was there. Mr Taylor called me. I went and saw him. He said, "You see what one of your friends have done to us?" Some of the Special Forces died. I saw it. It is not something that someone needs to educate me about. It happened.

  • Mr Zaymay, you were asked by the lawyer for the Defence whether you knew anyone by the name of Sam Bockarie, and you said no. "No, all these names are strange to me." Do you remember giving that evidence?

  • Mr Zaymay, you lied when you said that you had never heard of Sam Bockarie, didn't you?

  • They asked me - I don't know Sam Bockarie. I don't know Sam Bockarie, but I heard about Sam Bockarie's death. I don't know him. I don't know him. I heard about Sam Bockarie when he was killed, but I don't know Sam Bockarie.

  • Now, Mr Zaymay, you were one of the militia forces that Mr Taylor sent in to the Ivory Coast, weren't you?

  • I never went to Ivory Coast. I do not speak French.

  • You're aware, aren't you, that Mr Taylor sent militia forces into the Ivory Coast, are you not?

  • I am not aware.

  • You know, don't you, that Daniel Chea was Mr Taylor's Minister of Defence?

  • Yes, I knew Daniel Chea as Defence Minister.

  • And you're aware, aren't you, that even Daniel Chea admitted that Liberian militia forces were involved in the Ivory Coast?

  • No, not to my knowledge.

  • And in October 2002, you went there, didn't you, on Mr Taylor's instructions, to fight for Philip [sic] Doh?

  • I never went to Ivory Coast. I do not speak French. I never went into Ivory Coast.

  • Mr Zaymay, you're a loyal supporter of Charles Taylor, aren't you?

  • Yes. A committed one too.

  • You've guessed at dates in your evidence before these judges in a way that you think might benefit Mr Taylor, haven't you?

  • No. No. I am under oath. The oath I have taken, if I lie, it is up to me. I am not speaking in defence of Mr Taylor.

  • You've denied and dismissed atrocities that were committed by the NPFL in order to disassociate blame for these atrocities from both yourself and Mr Taylor, haven't you?

  • I admitted to the facts. I admitted to the fact. If you are talking about something that should be known, you should know so that you'll be able to explain details so that it can be clear. But I cannot talk about something that I don't know where to start and where to end. But I know that I'm speaking the facts.

  • You've denied that the NPFL committed atrocities this morning, haven't you?

  • I admitted to the fact that NPFL never committed atrocities in my presence. In fact, there were some other things that the NPFL did that were great. Me sitting here, I captured about five to ten POWs and I turned them over to Mr Taylor. I captured a girl, a Krahn girl called Elizabeth. Elizabeth, a Krahn girl, I captured her in an ambush and I sent her to Gbarnga. And the girl is living today with her parents in Monrovia. There were a lot of civilians and Mandingo men - one civilian Mandingo man called Alhaji, he was arrested. He was arrested and I took him to Gbarnga. And Alhaji was in charge of the mosque in Gbarnga. All the Mandingos who were arrested were turned over to Mr Taylor and Mr Taylor turned them over to Alhaji. Those were the people that the very Mr Taylor used to send to Mecca. They were civilians. And even some of the captured people on the front line, when we got them and took them to Mr Taylor, Mr Taylor would say, "There is no death in heaven."

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

  • Mr Witness, pause, please. You said, "Mr Taylor would say, 'There is no death in heaven.'" Now, continue from there your testimony slowly, please.

  • Even when the fighters at the front, when they heard that the POWs sent to the rear, Mr Taylor was buying materials, mattresses, Jean suits for them and food for them, the fighters will say, "Oh, commander, you see, the people who are killing our people, when we capture them we send them to the rear. Mr Taylor is going ahead buying mattresses, bags of rice, Jean suits for them. So we will not fight any longer." If Mr Taylor heard about it, he will call us to a meeting and then he will go --

  • Your Honours, could the witness be asked to slow down again and be clear.

  • Mr Witness, please slow down again. You are narrating - I don't know what you are narrating. But perhaps, Ms Howarth, you could bring us back on track.

  • [Microphone not activated] my best:

  • Mr Zaymay, you want to tell the story about the greatness of the NPFL, as you put it, the NPFL were great. Correct?

  • I said NPFL did great things for some people during the war, people who were captured. So if they are talking about NPFL committing atrocities, killing of civilians, raping civilians, that is why I want to emphasise on this.

  • Mr Zaymay, you're here because you're a loyal supporter of Charles Taylor, aren't you?

  • I am not a loyal supporter of Charles Taylor per se in his defence. I am here to explain what happened during the war, not to defend Taylor per se.

  • Well, a few moments ago I asked you exactly the same question and you said, "Yes, and a committed one too." That's why you're here, isn't it, Mr Zaymay?

  • I said I was committed to NPFL. NPFL to fight the war, not to Mr Taylor as an individual.

  • Madam President, I have no further questions.

  • Thank you.

    Mr Chekera, do you have any further questions in re-examine?

  • Yes, Madam President. I'll probably run into the lunch hour.

  • Mr Zaymay, I'm going to ask you questions related to the issues that was raised by the Prosecution when they were cross-examining you. In your answers I do not want you to repeat the evidence that we've already discussed. I want you to specifically focus on the questions I'm going to be asking you in relation to the issues that arose. Do you understand?

  • The first issue I want you to help us with is the issue concerning the battalions, the brigades and the divisions. That was an issue that was raised yesterday. I want you to be very clear as to when the highest unit in the NPFL was a battalion and when battalions were upgraded to brigades and when brigades were updated to divisions. I'm going to ask you specific questions about those - about those units. You said in your evidence that in 1990 the battalion was the highest unit in the NPFL. How many people constituted --

  • Yes, Ms Howarth?

  • Yes, I just wonder if - if my learned friend is going to be referring to what the witness has said, if he could possibly provide a citation, please.

  • What I had sought to do was to summarise the entire evidence as it came out in the cross-examination, but if I have to go back to the basics, I would be happy to do that and take the longer route.

  • In relation to this particular area, I think counsel for the Defence is entitled to put this kind of question because this was an area that we took a long time going over with the witness. It's not in question in anybody's behind that this matter arose in cross-examination. So please go ahead, Mr Chekera.

  • Thank you, Madam President:

  • When the highest unit in the NPFL was the brigade, what was the strength of a brigade? Sorry, let me rephrase. I meant battalion. What was the strength of a battalion, sorry?

  • A battalion? I cannot come up with an exact figure, but we used a 15-man squad. So a platoon - the platoon constituted 68 men. So a company - okay, a battalion was 1,506 men. A 15-man squad.

  • Sorry, what's this about a 15-man squad? Is that in any way related to the battalion?

  • Yes, Mr Zaymay, you mentioned a 15-man squad. What has that got to do with the strength of a battalion?

  • The 15-man squad, four squads make a platoon. Four platoons make a company. Six companies make a battalion. So my brain is not a calculator. I cannot come up with an exact figure about the battalion except I multiplied the platoons and then I give the strength and then company by the numbers and I give the strength, but it's not something that has been calculated in my mind.

  • Are you able to do that?

  • Yes, I can do that.

  • If you were given a pen and paper you would be able to calculate the number of a battalion?

  • Yes, sir.

  • Madam President, may I ask that the witness be provided with a pen and paper.

  • Yes, please, Madam Court Officer. Mr Witness?

  • Yes, please give me one minute. I want to attend to nature.

  • Okay. The witness could be escorted out or shown out, please.

    Mr Witness, I believe you are calculating the numbers - the figures?

  • Yes. Platoons. 60. 51 men. A brigade.

  • Mr Witness, when you are ready with your figures, indicate to me and then you can give out your evidence.

  • Okay, sir.

  • No, sir. One moment. A little bit more. Okay.

  • Mr Chekera, please ask the various questions related to the calculation.

  • Now, do you have a total for the number - the total number of a battalion?

  • And what number do you have?

  • Battalion is 6,204.

  • Now, if you could just help us how you calculated the battalion. Let me just direct you to the issues - to the other units you mentioned. You mentioned a squad. How many men are in a squad?

  • About 15 men. About 15 men commando squad. 15 men in a squad. 15 times --

  • Sorry, just pause there. And after a squad you have a platoon. Is that correct?

  • How many squads constitute a platoon?

  • Four squads. Platoon leader plus platoon sergeant.

  • And after platoon you have a company?

  • Yes.

  • And how many platoons constitute a company?

  • A company? Four platoons make a company.

  • And after platoon you have a battalion. Is that correct?

  • Yes. After company you have a battalion. After squad you go to platoon. After platoon you go to company. Four companies - after company you go to battalion. From battalion to brigade.

  • And how many companies constitute a battalion?

  • At that time we were using - in the normal army four companies make a battalion, but during the commando movement we created six companies in case of manpower. Six companies.

  • Madam President, I will just do my math to verify the figure based on the formula.

  • No, counsel, you are not the one giving evidence. It's the witness who is giving evidence. You don't suppose you are going to tell us how to do mathematics from where you're standing?

  • I was going to check with counsel opposite whether my calculation would be disputed and I notice it will be.

  • But also, Mr Chekera, does this boil down to a mathematical exercise? The witness said that he was a commander on the ground. Doesn't he have any independent recollection of how many men were in a battalion?

  • Mr Zaymay, you've given us a number. The number that you said generally constituted a battalion in the NPFL. Now, when you were commander of the 6th Battalion in Bomi, how many men were under you?

  • When I was a commander in Bomi, when the unit was turned into a division, a brigade - a brigade was 1,496 men in a brigade. So four brigades make a division. So the total strength of a division was 24,906 men.

  • Let me take you back. Let's take this in stages. Let's start with the time that you were battalion commander of the 6th Battalion. Before it became a brigade, when you were commander of the 6th Battalion, how many men did you have under you?

  • When I was a commander of the 6th Battalion, I had 6,204 men, a battalion strength.

  • That was - when was that when you had this strength? Just give me a date.

  • It was in '91. It was in '91.

  • And you've indicated that that battalion was then upgraded to a brigade?

  • And did you remain in command when the battalion was upgraded to brigade, the 6th Battalion?

  • Yes. When the battalion was upgraded to a brigade, I remained a commander until it was upgraded to a division that I left.

  • Just pause there. When the battalion was upgraded to a brigade, when exactly was that?

  • Within 1991. It did not take long. When information was coming that there was a unit called ULIMO trying to invade Liberia through Bomi, that was how the units were modified to division, in order to make sure that there was manpower to protect the border line.

  • We'll come to division in a minute. I just want us to deal with the brigade. You said from 6th Battalion it became a brigade, and that was sometime in 1991. How many men did you have under you when the 6th Battalion became a brigade?

  • 1,000 - no, 15,906 men.

  • And from a brigade you've said it became a division. Yes?

  • When was the brigade - rather, before I ask that, when the 6th Battalion became a brigade, what was it known as?

  • It was the 6th brigade.

  • And when was it that the 6th brigade then became a division?

  • The 6th brigade became a division early in May, from the beginning of May.

  • Sorry, May of which year?

  • And what was the strength of the - of a division?

  • 24,906 men.

  • And were there more than one division that was created at this time?

  • How many divisions were created?

  • Where? In Bomi Hills?

  • Yes, let's stick to Bomi, which is where you were.

  • Only one division was created to take care of the three counties.

  • And what was the name of the division?

  • And who was commanding the 6th division?

  • I was the commander for the 6th division up to the time I was transferred.

  • When you talk of your transfer, which transfer are you talking about?

  • When I was transferred from Bomi to Maryland to take care of the strike force division in Maryland.

  • And just to remind us again, when was that transfer effected? When was it that you transferred to Maryland?

  • I was transferred in November. November 2001.

  • Sorry, you said you were transferred in November 2001?

  • Earlier in your evidence you gave a different date for the time that --

  • Please pause, Mr Chekera.

    Yes, Ms Howarth.

  • Yes, I object on the basis that the witness has clearly given the answer to this question twice and it seems that my learned friend is about to try and impeach his own witness, and I would object to that.

  • Yes, certainly. Mr Chekera, move on. The record speaks for itself.

  • How long were you in Bomi for before you were transferred to Maryland?

  • I said I was in Bomi Hills for almost a year, from February to November.

  • February of which year?

  • February 1991 to November 1991.

  • Yesterday when you were giving evidence about the command structure you also mentioned Isaac Musa's position. You said Isaac Musa's position was battle group in 1990. Was that position changed at any point after 1990?

  • Yes.

  • What was the position of battle group changed to?

  • It changed to chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.

  • And who occupied that position?

  • When the change was effected, who was occupying the position of joint chief of staff?

  • General Isaac Musa.

  • And what were the functions of the joint chief of staff?

  • He was the overall boss for all the commanders. From us to him and from him to Mr Taylor.

  • And what were the functions of the battle group commander?

  • Oh, when Isaac Musa - before when Isaac Musa was battle group, he supervised the front.

  • And when he became joint chief of staff, did he have any responsibility relating to the front?

  • When he became joint chiefs of staff, he did not have any responsibility to the front directly. He had a deputy called the deputy joint chiefs of staff.

  • And who occupied that position?

  • Major General John L Teah.

  • Now, you were also asked about the year that the war in Sierra Leone started. You remember in your evidence you said you heard about the war in Sierra Leone on the news. When you heard about the war in Sierra Leone, what position were you holding at the time?

  • At that time I was with the 2nd Battalion in Kakata.

  • You also were questioned about someone called One Man One, and it was put to you that he was a brave fighter who was well known within the NPFL. You were also asked whether you knew him by any other name. Just a quick question on that one. One Man One, was that his given name?

  • Given by who?

  • Was that his what we would probably call Christian name? Was that his official name?

  • One Man One? That was the only name that I knew. When I went to the command, that was the name I knew him go by, One Man One.

  • And do you know how that name came about?

  • Yes. The name came about --

  • Your Honours, can he repeat his answer more clearly.

  • Please pause, Mr Witness. You are going to repeat your answer because you are going a little too fast. Please, can you tell us again how the name One Man One came about, slowly.

  • There is a rifle in Liberia called One Man One. This rifle has a round that is bigger than an AK round and it is bigger than an M16 round. This rifle, some people use it to kill an elephant. It is too heavy. The round is like my finger. So One Man One liked - only liked that rifle to fight with. That was the rifle he was used to. He said he liked it. That was how they named him, after the rifle, One Man One.

  • Where was One Man One deployed when you were in the NPFL?

  • One Man One? I deployed One Man One in Tiene. From Tiene - Tiene it's a district town - a district headquarters in Cape Mount County on the main tarred road heading straight for Bo Waterside, the border between Sierra Leone and Liberia. Also by the riverbank by Mano River Kongo. There were several crossing points there. That was where One Man One was responsible for, the headquarters was in Tiene.

  • Do you know whether he was assigned anywhere else outside Cape Mount?

  • No, as in you don't know, or he had no other assignment outside of Cape Mount? Which is which?

  • No, he never had any other assignment outside Cape Mount that I know of.

  • When you transferred to Maryland, did the fighters in Maryland know One Man One?

  • One Man One, the rifle or the human being?

  • The person One Man One whom you said was well-known. My question is when you were transferred to Maryland, did people in Maryland know about One Man One, NPFL [microphone not activated]?

  • Please pause, Mr Chekera. Yes, Ms Howarth.

  • Yes, I believe the way that the question is currently phrased is calling for speculation about the knowledge of third parties, so I would object to it as its currently phrased.

  • Mr Chekera, would you care to rephrase it, please?

  • Madam President, respectfully not when the question that was put to the witness was, "One Man One was well known within Liberia, wasn't he?" The question that I'm directing the witness to in re-examination is a direct response to a question that was put by the Prosecution which put forward the proposition that was itself based on what my learned friend now calls speculation.

  • Very well. The objection is overruled. Put the question as you did.

  • Mr Zaymay, One Man One, who was - as it was put to you by the Prosecution - well known in Liberia, was he well known in Maryland when you were in Maryland by NPFL fighters?

  • I don't know. One Man One was only popular - I knew him to be a popular man within his area of assignment, but I did not know whether the Bomi Hills - the Maryland soldiers knew him. I don't know.

  • You were asked questions about the time that you were recruited in Ivory Coast and it was alleged that you told the TRC that you were recruited by Mr Taylor in Ivory Coast and that that was different from what you told this Court about your recruitment. I'm going to refer you to a transcript, the transcript of 6 May 2010.

  • Mr Chekera, it is 1.30 and I'm just wondering if we can pick that up after the luncheon break, the idea of that transcript. We will adjourn until 2.30.

  • [Lunch break taken at 1.29 p.m.]

  • [Upon resuming at 2.31 p.m.]

  • Good afternoon. Mr Chekera, before you continue with your re-examination I wish to deal with one outstanding administrative matter in relation to which counsel made submissions and that is the matter of the summer recess.

    We've given some thought - serious thoughts to the scheduling of this trial and the stage at which it is. We've also given consideration to the submissions by I think Mr Munyard it was who said that he thinks that the parties should have a break between the Easter recess and the close of the Defence case and that it's not very practical for us to just keep going until the close of the Defence case. We appreciated that.

    We've also taken into account the submissions by Defence counsel that your estimated closure of the Defence case is somewhere between the end of August and beginning of September. And so taking all that into account, we have decided that the Court will take out a week, a week meaning five sitting days, that is the week of July 19th to Friday the 23rd. So those five days we will regard as part of the break that constitutes our recess.

    Now, the balance of the recess will be taken as and when the Defence close their case and we shall revert to that later. So I will not give a commitment to the date, but we intend to take the balance of the recess at the close of the Defence case so that we don't take too much time out of the sitting of the trial.

    Now, Mr Chekera, you may continue, please.

  • Thank you, Madam President:

  • Mr Zaymay, I was going to refer you to your evidence before the TRC concerning your recruitment in Ivory Coast where you then went for training in Libya. And the allegation that was put to you by the Prosecution was that you told the TRC that you were recruited by Mr Taylor in Ivory Coast and that was a different account from the account you gave before this Court. I'm going first maybe to refer you to an excerpt of your statement before the TRC.

    Madam President, for the record, that's testimony before the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission which was marked as MFI-1. And I will refer to page 3, the portion that is highlighted by - that was highlighted by the Prosecution. There are no numbers and I have no idea how to draw your Honours to the place where I seek to read from, but it is where there are two lines that were marked by the Prosecution:

    "And so I left and make my way into exile and while there I met some soldiers, Namibians, civilians and others in exile and we decided that we should remain there and rally and buy single barrel and enter Liberia because we are all trained the same way. That was our plan but there was no leader. It was Prince Johnson, Isaac Musa and by then Podier was in Abidjan. We remained there and if it were Butterfly that came as a leader and said to us let go, we would have done it and we will take him to be God and remained committed him like Taylor. And so we were there until Taylor came and recruited us and we pulled out."

    The part I want to emphasise is the part where you said, "And so we were there until Taylor came and recruited us and we pulled out." You were giving an account of the time that you were in Ivory Coast, and you say you were in Ivory Coast until Taylor came and recruited you and you pulled out. What did you mean by that? And I don't want you to give a long explanation, I just want you to be very concise and clear in your answer.

  • I mean here that the recruitment that was done by Godfather - Godfather was working for Mr Taylor, so it was Taylor who recruited us where we were. Godfather was working for Mr Taylor, so Taylor recruited us through Godfather. That's what I mean.

  • Let's compare that with the evidence you gave before this Court on 6 May 2010. Page 40594, line 2. Again you were talking about the time you were in Ivory Coast and how you were recruited, and this is what you said at line 2:

    "There was no support at the time. We had some groups in Abidjan, we called them our heads, like Cooper Miller and the late Vice Head of State for Doe, General Podier. He was also in exile in Abidjan. So these - we depended on these people to come in and lead us. There was no way. That was how Mr Charles G Taylor came in because of humanitarian feelings."

    Again I would like to emphasise the part where you said, "That was how Mr Charles G Taylor came in", and if we go to page 40596 of the same transcript at line 4 where you were explaining how - what you meant by "Mr Taylor came in", this is what you said: "Mr Taylor came in by" --

  • I beg your pardon, Mr Chekera. Ms Howarth.

  • Yes, I'm on my feet at this point because I'm concerned that what counsel might be seeking to do is to clarify the evidence given in chief of this witness. I wasn't cross-examining on 6 May; that was his evidence-in-chief. And in my submission, the re-examination ought to be limited to clarifying the matters that were raised in cross-examination and not have a second bite at the cherry for examination-in-chief.

  • Mr Chekera, what is your response?

  • The issue that arose was that the witness gave a different account in his evidence before this Court and the evidence he gave before the TRC, and the relevant excerpts I have referred to will give the witness an opportunity to comment on whether there are two different accounts of evidence that he gave; one before this Court and a different one before the TRC.

  • Yes, but you are now reading a transcript of issues that counsel opposite says were not touched in cross-examination.

  • The transcript was not touched, but the issue was raised. The question is not what was raised, not the relevant parts of the transcript, but the issue. And I underline, Madam President, the issue is whether we have two different accounts: One which was given before this Court which is covered by the entire transcript of the witness's evidence; and the evidence before the TRC. So to the extent that learned counsel opposite has raised the issue of a discrepancy in the witness's evidence in this Court and before the TRC, I am at liberty in re-examination to put what the witness has said before this Court and compare it with what he said before the TRC.

  • We are of the view that Mr Chekera is correct in drawing to the witness's attention the part of his testimony that he reckons is consistent with his testimony before the TRC in this very regard. So the objection is overruled.

  • Thank you, Madam President:

  • Mr Zaymay, I was referring you to the part where you were explaining that when you said that is how Mr Taylor came in, and at page 40596, line 4, your answer was, "Mr Taylor came in by recruiting us and taking us for training," and the question I was going to pose to you was what did you mean by that?

  • I meant that when we were in the Ivory Coast, Taylor came to Abidjan. He came to Abidjan, and I met him with Godfather and Degbon. He organised them as the recruiting team to recruit for him. That's what I meant, that Taylor came in to recruit. He never appeared as a team to talk to me on the recruitment deal. It was Godfather who was recruiting for Mr Taylor. That was what I meant when I said Taylor came in. It was Godfather who was recruiting for Mr Taylor, so generally it was Mr Taylor who recruited us. That was what I meant.

  • Thank you. I'm going to refer you to another issue that was raised in your cross-examination regarding your training in Libya. Counsel opposite suggested that you deliberately sought to hide out the fact that you were trained in Libya before the TRC. Do you remember that part of the cross-examination?

  • I remember, but it was not exact.

  • Yes. When you say "it was not exact", what do you mean?

  • I never conceived Taylor training us in Libya. I never explained to the TRC where I took training. I continue to say TRC asked me to explain what the root cause of the war was, what motivated me to take up arms against the constituted Samuel Kanyon Doe government. TRC asked me to explain. That was what I explained. That was what I explained.

  • Now, did you have cause to conceal the fact that you had been trained in Liberia when you - sorry, in Libya when you testified before the TRC?

  • No, I never concealed it. I was trained in Libya. NPFL came and waged war on Liberia. Where was NPFL organised? Where was NPFL trained? In Libya. I never concealed it.

  • You were referred to a part of the report, the TRC report, that would be page 7, and you were referred to comments by Commissioner Konneh, and I just want you to explain to us where Commissioner Konneh said to you:

    "From your general testimony we gathered that you were one

    of those who went to Libya for training, is that right?

    Response: Yes."

    In view of the question and the answer that you gave confirming your training in Libya, what is your comment to the allegation by the Prosecution that you were trying to hide your training in Libya before the TRC?

  • Oh, I never hid where I took my training. I never hid where I took my training. If the TRC were to tell me - introducing the TRC to me, because when you appeared they explained to you what you were there to do. The TRC introduced to me - if they had introduced to me or told me where you had come from to enter Liberia or where you took your training, I would have explained. But they only told me - asked me what had motivated me to take up arms against the government, and I explained what motivated me. I did not conceal my training in Libya and how we entered Liberia. When we entered Liberia, everybody knew where NPFL had come from. It was not in secret for me to have concealed it. But that appeared in my question and I answered yes, I was one of the Special Forces who were trained from Libya. I did not deny that.

  • I'm going to refer you to another issue that was raised in cross-examination by learned counsel opposite for the Prosecution relating to your command of the 1st Battalion and why you omitted to mention it when I asked you to enumerate the respective units that were in the NPFL and who was in command of those units. You remember that part?

  • Oh, you know --

  • Sorry, I just want to be sure you remember the part of the evidence I'm talking about. I will ask you a specific question, and I want you to answer directly to the question. You remember the part where you were asked about whether you were in command of the 1st Battalion and if so, why you did not mention it when you wrote down the list of commanders and their respective units of command in the NPFL?

    Now, on 7 May you in your evidence-in-chief told this Court that while you were in - when you entered Liberia and during the time that Prince Johnson split, Mr Taylor recalled you back to Ivory Coast and you met Mr Taylor in Danane, and while in Danane Mr Taylor ordered you to go and establish a base in Gbutuo and take command of the 1st Battalion. Do you remember that part of your evidence?

  • Yes.

  • Now, when I asked you on 11 May to list all the positions of command in the NPFL and who was in command of those positions, could you explain to the judges why you overlooked or why you did not indicate that you had been in command of the 1st Battalion?

  • I never took up the assignment seriously. I never - I never stayed in the assignment for long. It was one month, so I considered it a deployment. So I started from '91 - I started from '90 when I was commander to enter Monrovia for the 2nd Battalion.

  • Madam President, just for the record, 7 May 2010, at pages 40701 and 40702, that's where the witness talks about his deployment in Gbutuo as commander of the 1st Battalion:

  • Questions were also raised about your command of the 6th Battalion and it was put to you by the Prosecution that your evidence on that account could not be trusted for a number of reasons. One of the reasons, they said your account cannot be trusted concerning your command of the 6th Battalion is because; one, Mr Taylor never mentioned it; two, other Defence witnesses like Yanks Smythe and Edward Mineh never mentioned it; thirdly, because it was never mentioned in your statement - rather, in the summary, in the summary of your evidence which was provided to the Prosecution; fourthly, because it was never mentioned in the TRC report. I'm going to take each one of those in turn and ask you specific questions.

    When Mr Taylor was being questioned about you, the excerpt of the questions were put to you when Mr Taylor was asked about - when your name was mentioned to Mr Taylor. Do you know whether Mr Taylor was asked to enumerate all the positions of command that you had held in the NPFL?

  • I don't know. I was not with him at that time. I don't know whether he was asked to list all the commanders' names. I don't know.

  • Edward Mineh, his evidence was referred to and reference was made to the time that Edward Mineh was in the Bomi area and it was put to you that Edward Mineh never mentioned you as a commander of the 6th Battalion in Bomi. Do you know what time Edward Mineh was in Bomi?

  • I don't know when Edward - the time that Edward Mineh was in Bomi.

  • The time that you were in Bomi, was Edward Mineh in Bomi?

  • I said I don't know whether Edward Mineh was in Bomi.

  • And during the time that you were commander in Bomi, was Edward Mineh fighting under you?

  • During my command, Edward Mineh was not with me.

  • Now, when you were called to testify before the TRC, were you ever asked to enumerate the different positions that you had held in the NPFL?

  • What did they ask you with respect to the positions you had held in the NPFL?

  • I explained that I was a 2nd Battalion commander who attacked Monrovia.

  • Did you tell them about the 6th Battalion?

  • I can't tell. It happened a long time now. I can't remember.

  • Now, your evidence before the TRC, how long did it last, the entire evidence?

  • It took me a day at the TRC.

  • Let's talk in terms of hours. A day has got 24 hours. Which part of a day did that take?

  • It took me a whole day. 24 hours.

  • You were testifying for a whole 24 hours before the TRC?

  • Yes. I gave a statement. After the statement, they started asking me questions. I think about - by five of the commissioners. They asked me questions in turns, from the morning up to 4 o'clock.

  • What time in the morning did the interview start?

  • I was not having a watch. I can remember that we started at 9 o'clock. 9 or 10.

  • And you said you finished at 4 o'clock?

  • And during that time that included the evidence you gave and the questions that were asked to you?

  • Now, the Prosecution also alleged that you never mentioned your appointment as the 6th Battalion commander to your lawyers, including myself when I interviewed you in Monrovia. I am going to refer you to your statement that I took in - sorry, to your summary of the statement that the Defence prepared pursuant to your - sorry, Madam President, could I just have a minute. I need to consult.

    Maybe before I refer you to the summary, you were in Bomi you said from 1991 February to the end of the year, yes?

  • Yes. I said I was in command from February of 1991 to November 1991.

  • And after that you were transferred to Maryland?

  • I am going to refer you to the evidence of a witness who came before this Court who talks about the command in Bomi during 1991. When you were transferred to Bomi you said you replaced Oliver Varney who was sent to Maryland. Is that correct?

  • And when Oliver Varney was transferred back to Bomi, you were sent back to Maryland?

  • Now, I'm going to refer to the evidence of 5 November 2008. It's evidence of Prosecution witness TF1-579 at page 19797. Maybe I'll start from line 14:

    "I said while we were in Bomi it was later that Oliver Varney's assignment changed to Maryland, that was by Mr Taylor. So we went to Maryland. But while we were in Maryland, some areas in Bomi came under attack from the ULIMO-K. Mr Taylor again called Oliver Varney to return and re-take his assignment in Bomi, so Oliver Varney left Maryland with his troops back to Bomi and he repelled the attacks. So Mr Taylor told Oliver Varney to stay in Bomi on his assignment there. And while Oliver was there, ULIMO attacked again and Bomi was captured."

    Now, the witness goes on at page 19798 to put this into perspective in time frame and at line 3 the witness says this happened in 19 --

  • Sorry, Ms Howarth?

  • Yes. Again, I'm not entirely clear as to what this has to do with the points that I raised in cross-examination, because I certainly didn't refer to the testimony of TF1-579. It seems to me that Mr Chekera is straying from the original point.

  • The original point being what?

  • Yes, I'm just trying to see where that begins now. Yes, the original point, if I recall correctly, is that this witness didn't mention either to the TRC or to Defence counsel in Monrovia that he held the position of 6th Battalion commander. Now, while that certainly is fair game in terms of the re-examination, bringing in the evidence of a Prosecution witness that I certainly didn't refer to, in my submission, isn't.

  • Mr Chekera, the transcript you are now referring to the witness, what does that have to do with the allegation by the Prosecution, as you've pointed out, that the witness never mentioned his appointment as 6th Battalion commander to the lawyers, including yourself, or to the TRC?

  • The general issue - those were instances of why the witness's account should not be trusted. The general underlying proposition was that the witness's account of the command in Bomi cannot be trusted. That was the general issue. And some of the instances the Prosecution raised to show that the account cannot be trusted included the fact that he did not raise the issue with the TRC, he did not say it in his summaries. But the underlying issue is command structure in Bomi, who was in command at what point, and the Prosecution put it in dispute that the witness was ever in Bomi and actually at a certain point indicated that the time that the witness alleged to have been at Bomi was the time that Oliver Varney was at Bomi. So the transcript I'm putting to the witness will put into perspective who was in command of Bomi at what point.

  • But, you see, Mr Chekera, when you prefix or when you begin your question by saying, "In cross-examination the Prosecution put to you A, B, C, D," you should stick to evidence that contradicts what the Prosecution put and not to generally with a broad brush start pulling out all the other evidence that you think corroborates your side of the story. And to that extent, I would uphold this objection.

  • I will rephrase, Madam President:

  • Mr Zaymay, when you were being cross-examined by the Prosecution, the Prosecution put in doubt the fact that you were in command of Bomi in 1991 and suggested that actually Oliver Varney was the one who was in command of Bomi in 1991 and they referred to the evidence, among others, of Edward Mineh. Now I'm going to refer you to evidence of a witness who talked about the command structure in Bomi, and tell me whether it agrees - or whether you agree with what the witness said concerning the command of Bomi structure at the time that you were - or you say you were in Bomi.

    And, Madam President, I'll still refer back to the same transcript.

  • But, Mr Chekera, some of your approaches really are approaches that should be taken in closing submissions, even arguments. Because on the record as it stands, we have various witnesses saying various things. Some are even Defence witnesses saying various things. For me - and I think the judges do agree with me - that some of these issues are not matters that you can put in re-examination; but, rather, they're issues for submissions. Wouldn't you agree?

  • Madam President, to the extent that the command of Bomi was put into dispute by reference to other evidence, in my respectful submission it is within our right to raise evidence that supports the witness's allegation.

  • But that evidence is already on the record, and that's the point we're trying to make. You're not raising new evidence.

  • This is evidence that is already on the record that you can in your final arguments point to to say this witness actually corroborates Mr Zaymay. You don't need to put it to Mr Zaymay now.

  • Yes, very well, Madam President, I will move on and deal with another matter:

  • Mr Zaymay, it was alleged by the Prosecution that in your evidence - when you gave a statement to the Defence, you did not - among many other things that were alleged as glaring omissions in your statement to the Defence - you did not talk about the time that you were in Guinea. I'm going to refer you to a summary of your statement.

    Madam President, I will refer to the summary of 5 May 2010 which was referred to by learned counsel in evidence-in-chief - in cross.

  • Sorry, I hesitate to interrupt yet again. What was actually put this morning was that it was not mentioned to the - either Mr Gray or to Silas and Logan in Monrovia; not that it wasn't mentioned altogether.

  • Yes, I think that was the ambit of the cross-examination, Mr Chekera.

  • My only hesitation which would put me in a very difficult position is that I would be a witness to that issue in the sense that I participated in the taking of the statement. That would be my constraint with respect to the submissions that were made as to which parties --

  • Mr Chekera, if I were you - I don't know how you see it. The statement of the witness that he made with you is not in evidence.

  • It's not even in issue, as far as I'm concerned. What is in issue is the answer that he gave, and I think the answer that he gave you should be very comfortable with. I don't know why you're fighting with that answer.

  • We are not fighting, Madam President. There were issues that were mentioned that we seek to clarify, but I have the predicament that I've just mentioned and I'll consult with my learned friend as to how I can get around it.

    Very well, Madam President, I will just briefly deal with the issue and hopefully move on:

  • Mr Zaymay, the statements that you gave to the Defence - to the representatives of the Defence in this case when they took statements from you, did you ever get an opportunity to read those statements?

  • No.

  • Do you recall everything that you said in those statements?

  • I think that would deal with the issue that covers the statements.

    Madam President, could I have a minute to confer with our client. Now the distance is longer, so I have to walk back. Thank you.

    Madam President, that will be all in re-examination.

  • Mr Zaymay, I think we've come to the end of your testimony. I just wish to thank you for the evidence that you've given in court, and you are now free to return home, and we wish you a safe journey home. The witness will now be escorted out, please.

    Yes, Ms Howarth?

  • Yes, there are two MFIs that came from the testimony of the last witness. I wanted to ask that they be admitted into evidence as exhibits, please.

  • I'm sorry, we completely overlooked that. Madam Court Officer, we're up to which Prosecution exhibit?

  • Your Honour, the next Prosecution exhibit would be P-532.

  • Mr Chekera, you have something to say in relation to the exhibits?

  • Yes, just to qualify that only those portions that were referred to directly in cross-examination and re-examination be admitted. We have more pages on the exhibits than were actually used, and if only those relevant pages would be admitted.

  • Ms Howarth, I recall, at least in relation to MFI-1, that when I asked you which parts of the document you wanted marked, you said the entire document.

  • Yes, I did, apart from one page of substance --

  • I'm talking about MFI-1.

  • MFI-1 is the TRC testimony of the witness. Yes, in relation to that, the Prosecution position would be that the entirety of the document ought to be admitted into evidence, and the principal reason is because the questions asked, both in cross-examination and now re-examination, related to not only what was there, but also to what wasn't there; and therefore, it's important, in my submission, for your Honours to have the entirety of the document in that record.

  • Mr Chekera, why would you object to the entire MFI-1 being admitted in evidence? We need to hear your submissions, please. What are your objections?

  • Firstly, because that would amount to giving the Prosecution more than they have asked for. The document was used for a limited purpose, and it was only for that limited purpose that it was confronted by the Defence. And to go on to tender the whole document into evidence goes beyond what the document was used for. That would be one.

    Secondly, the document from my previous objections - both documents contain certain allegations that go to the conduct of the accused which might impact on the guilt of the accused, and those parts, if they were to be admitted, then they would have to satisfy your decision on the admission of fresh evidence, which learned counsel opposite hasn't done.

    So for those two reasons, I would submit that only those parts which have been used in cross-examination be admitted into evidence.

  • Mr Chekera, if you recall, when the Prosecution was putting tab 1, MFI -1, to the witness, sometimes it was with a view to showing the witness that in the entire document MFI-1, from page 1 to the end, certain issues were never covered, meaning that the entire document was used by the Prosecution in cross-examination. And clearly and distinctly I recall asking Ms Howarth when she asked me to mark the document - asking her what parts of the document she would like me to mark, and she said the entire document because she had used the entire document, albeit to prove to the witness that the document was silent on certain aspects. And so as far as we're concerned, the Prosecution did use the entire document.

    Now, you've said in your submissions that you object to those parts that the Prosecution didn't use. Now, that submission would not hold water any more in view of what I've just said. Now, if you are going to submit that some of this document, MFI-1, consists of material that goes to proof of the guilt of the accused, I would like you to point those out to us, please.