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

  • I've done the volume rather than the on switched. Mr Witness, can you help us, please, what can you buy in Sierra Leone that comes in a jar apart from mayonnaise?

  • I'm unable to help you with that question. There are so many jars. I don't know what kind of jar you are talking about. There are mayonnaise jars, there are some jars in which you have juice, so I don't know which type of jar you are talking about.

  • I think you have answered the question in fact. You said there are many jars. In other words, there's all sorts of products that you can buy in Sierra Leone that come in jars. Is that right?

  • Yes, but you said mayonnaise jar and in a mayonnaise jar you only have mayonnaise inside. That is how I understood your question.

  • I wouldn't dispute that. Why is it that it is not until the middle of June this year when you are involved in an intensive prepping session with the Prosecution that you first mention that diamonds that you had seen were contained in mayonnaise jars of all jars?

  • Mr Witness, I don't understand that answer. You were asked why you said certain things to the Prosecution, and you said yes. What do you mean yes? Or did you understand the question?

  • I have not been able to understand the question that much.

  • I'll try again.

  • Mr Munyard, I accept indeed that you will have to put it again but that's two questions he hasn't quite understood. Mr Witness, are you having a problem with the interpretation?

  • Thank you. Mr Munyard, please proceed.

  • How was it that it took until the middle of June this year when you were being taken through all of your previous interviews that you only mentioned that diamonds were in mayonnaise jars in the middle of June and that you've never mentioned that in any of the previous 23 interviews?

  • Because I think it was in June that they asked me about diamond affairs and it was in June that they asked me about where I saw them put the diamond. And for the exact place in which they put the diamond, it was in June that they asked me that question.

  • Do you mean in June they asked you if the jars you had mentioned previously were mayonnaise jars?

  • Yes, the position of the diamond that I saw. It was in June that they asked me about it. They said where the diamonds were placed.

  • You mentioned diamonds a long time before June of 2008. You mentioned diamonds back in 2006, didn't you, in interviews then?

  • You never said they were in mayonnaise jars then, did you?

  • Yes, the first diamonds that I saw. The diamonds that I made mention about in 2006 I did not make mention of mayonnaise jars. They asked me about other diamonds that we got in Kono from the bank and that was the time I made mention of mayonnaise jars.

  • You didn't mention mayonnaise jars until the middle of June this year. I will be corrected if I'm wrong and I want to know why it is that in the middle of June this year you suddenly say that the jars the diamonds were in were mayonnaise jars?

  • Because I was talking about different diamonds and different occasions. I talked about different diamonds on different occasions and the ways I saw the diamonds. I spoke about the diamonds in Kono that I saw them in mayonnaise jars, they took them from Kono and they took them to Sam Bockarie in Kailahun District. I say diamonds with Eddie Kanneh in Foya placed in parcels. That was in Foya when we arrested Eddie Kanneh. When we arrested Eddie Kanneh in Foya we got the diamonds from him in Foya. I saw those in parcels, something like envelopes in Foya. And I spoke about diamonds from Kono that we got from the bank after we had broken into the bank. We got the diamonds, we placed them in mayonnaise jars and we took them to Sam Bockarie in Kailahun.

  • Mr Witness, do you understand that I am suggesting on the basis of all the interview notes that we've been supplied with that you never mentioned mayonnaise jars until the middle of June this year. Do you understand that?

  • I understood the question, but I think that was the time they asked me about the diamonds that we took from Kono and the place where we placed it. The time they did not ask me maybe I did not remember any longer.

  • I just want to be clear what it is you're claiming. Are you saying that before June of this year you told the Prosecution that you had seen diamonds in mayonnaise jars?

  • I don't recall exactly when I went for interview in June, but we spoke about diamonds, but I can't remember.

  • Did somebody ask you in June were the diamonds that you saw contained in mayonnaise jars?

  • I can remember telling the Prosecution about a mayonnaise jar, but I can't recall the exact time I talked about the mayonnaise jar.

  • Now go back to the question, please. Did somebody ask you in June were the diamonds that you saw in mayonnaise jars?

  • I don't remember any more.

  • You were interviewed in July of 2006, in fact the day after Independence Day when originally you claim to have been sitting at home all day and you mentioned diamonds in jars then, but you never mentioned mayonnaise jars, I suggest. Are you saying that you did?

  • I can remember that they interviewed me about diamonds, but I can't recall what the interview was about except if you can remind me.

  • Did you hear Moses Blah's evidence before this Court talking about mayonnaise jars? Did you pick that up on Focus on Africa, or anywhere else?

  • Has nobody ever said to you that Moses Blah gave evidence about diamonds in mayonnaise jars while you were waiting to come to give evidence in this very trial?

  • So you would maintain it's pure coincidence that he says it in April and you say it for the first time in June that the jars were mayonnaise jars, is that right?

  • I said I saw diamonds in jars. I saw mayonnaise jars. You are asking me about different types of jars. I saw them in mayonnaise jars. When you say jar, I just think it's something like a glass that has a cover. I saw diamonds in them, yes.

  • This telephone number that you claim to have given us - sorry that you've given us that you claim was Mr Taylor's cell phone number, you've made that up, haven't you?

  • I was saying truth about it.

  • Your Honours, could the witness kindly repeat the last bit of his answer.

  • Mr Witness, the interpreter asks that you repeat part of your answer. Please pick up where you said, "I was saying the truth about it", and continue from there.

  • I'm talking the truth and I used to communicate with him directly on that number, that particular number.

  • That number that you've given us bears no relation whatsoever to any telephone number of President Taylor, I suggest. What do you say about that?

  • I don't have anything else to say about that, but I know that that number has something to do with his telephone number.

  • Who gave you President Taylor's personal cell phone number?

  • His bodyguard. His bodyguard commander, Sea Breeze Senegalese.

  • Do you remember telling us in evidence that you had his number at the time, a direct number from him? Do you remember saying that?

  • I don't understand the question, please.

  • Do you remember telling us in evidence, "I had his number at the time, direct number from him"?

  • Yes, I had the direct number to his satellite phone. I had the direct number to his satellite phone at that time, but I said I had forgotten his satellite phone number. I only recalled his cell phone number on which we used to communicate, because most of the time I used to communicate on his satellite phone number too.

  • You did not have his number direct from him even on your own account, did you?

  • Objection, there's two different numbers that the witness has talked about. Perhaps it could be specified whether it's the cell, or satellite.

  • I've only asked about the cell phone number.

  • It is the witness who has referred to the satellite phone, Mr Munyard.

  • You said, "You did not have his number direct from him, even on your own account", and it could be either of those numbers really. He's now given us two accounts of where he got two different numbers.

  • I should state more clearly that he's given an account for each number.

  • Where did you get the satellite phone number of Mr Taylor from?

  • White Flower, at his residence.

  • Who did you get it from?

  • I got the satellite phone number directly from him. He wrote it on paper and gave it to me. He said I should be contacting him directly on his satellite phone number because I was having problems at the front line, and that was a Thuraya phone.

  • Did Mr Taylor - do you know if Mr Taylor's, President Taylor's, satellite phone number and cell phone number were even given to his cabinet ministers?

  • Maybe at that time his cabinet ministers were not - I don't know what to say. Maybe by then his cabinet ministers were - he did not take them seriously like those of us who were fighting for him. Maybe they had it or they did not have it I don't know, but I had it.

  • Absolute nonsense, I suggest. You did not have his cell phone number, or his satellite phone number.

  • Is there a question pending?

  • It starts with the words, "I suggest".

  • In my understanding of English - and I don't know what the witness's is - that doesn't necessarily mean it's a question. It's a statement.

  • Yes, it's a statement.

  • I will deal with it in another way:

  • Even if - and I don't accept that you did. Even if you got them, you certainly were not given them by him or with his permission. What do you say to that?

  • I don't understand the question you are asking me.

  • I suggest that he did not give you any number directly. Do you agree?

  • You are suggesting, but I am saying he gave me the number. You are suggesting and I am telling you that he gave me his number. You are suggesting. Maybe you are here to suggest about that.

  • You told us in evidence, do you remember now, about an incident involving somebody called Varney, Samuel Varney. Do you remember telling us about that?

  • Yes. Yes, I think.

  • That Samuel Varney, because of a personal dispute with Sam Bockarie, went on the radio, yes?

  • Then you told us that you were given an order from the President to get rid of Samuel Varney, yes?

  • I did not say I had direct orders from the President. The order was directly from Benjamin Yeaten to get rid of him, yes.

  • And are you saying that this was Benjamin Yeaten's idea and not that of the President?

  • I cannot suggest that, because President Taylor did say before that anything that comes from Benjamin Yeaten was from him. He said - and he too told me that, "Any order that comes from me is directly from the President", but the order was directly from Benjamin Yeaten.

  • Did Benjamin Yeaten ever say that he had discussed with the President that you should get rid of Samuel Varney?

  • Are you quite sure about that?

  • Yes, he did not tell me that.

  • Transcript for 24 June, please. Can I just confirm that your Honours have that on your screen and I'll take you to page 12637.

  • Madam Court Attendant, could that be put on the screen, please, or can you tell us which button we have to press?

  • [Microphone not activated].

  • You were asked a question on 24 June by Mr Koumjian and he said this at line 3:

    "So, Mr Witness, you explained to us about receiving the order from Yeaten and you said that was an order. First of all let me ask you, you said that was an order from the President. Why do you say that was an order from the President?"

    Your answer from your lips is as follows:

    "Benjamin Yeaten told me he had discussed that with the President to get rid of Samuel Varney because Samuel Varney was playing games with them."

    Now you're telling us something that totally contradicts that. Which, if either, of those two versions do you want the Court to accept?

  • I think this particular area was misunderstood. Benjamin Yeaten told me to get rid of Samuel Varney and they asked me whether the President was aware of it and I said, "I think the President was aware of it, because he had told us before that any order that came from Benjamin Yeaten was from him." And if Benjamin Yeaten sees something then he has seen it and if Benjamin Yeaten heard something then he had heard it, so I think he was aware of that and so that was why I put it that way.

  • Do you realise what it was you said to this Court on oath on 24 June? Are you aware that you told them, that's to say the judges sitting in front of you, that Benjamin Yeaten told you he had discussed that with the President?

  • I don't remember whether I said that.

  • So whose was the misunderstanding?

  • I cannot actually tell where the misunderstanding came from exactly.

  • And what was the name of the man who had gone on national radio and told the world that Sam Bockarie was living in Liberia? What was his name?

  • Samuel Varney. I don't know how to pronounce it another way. He was either a Gio or Mano man. I don't know how to pronounce it that much.

  • Tab 6, please. This is an interview on 30 August 2006, an interview incidentally which you claim to have a recollection of the precise questions you were asked during the interview, and I'd like you to look at the second page of it, please, page 22378, the first paragraph, the first line:

    "Bockarie then had an affair with the daughter of Samuel Vandy, the Deputy Army Chief of Staff. Vandy lived very close to Bockarie. Vandy got onto a Liberia commercial radio station."

    Then lower down:

    "Nothing happened to Vandy because he had belonged to Prince Johnson's faction, the Independent NPFL."

    Why were you calling him Vandy in 2006 and Varney in 2008?

  • I think that was from the people who wrote the thing, because everybody know him as Samuel Varney and not Vandy. I did not call him Vandy. Maybe it was the way they spelt it in the document, because I know him very well and so I cannot call him Vandy and I don't think there is any Mano man or Gio man called Vandy. I can't make such a mistake.

  • Have you ever met someone called Lisa Vandy, a woman of Sierra Leonean extraction?

  • No, I don't remember.

  • Back to Samuel Vandy. In the numerous, numerous corrections you have made to your interviews over the years you have never corrected that one when it was read back to you, have you?

  • I said Samuel Varney. Maybe they understood it to be Vandy, but I said Samuel Varney. I know him and I know him very well and I know his name very well, so I cannot call him Vandy. I call him Varney, Samuel Varney. I cannot call him Vandy. Maybe that was the way they thought they could spell it, but I did not give a pronunciation like that.

  • And do you agree that in that interview in August of 2006 you never said that Benjamin Yeaten had discussed with the President and the President ordered that Vandy be attacked in order to get rid of him?

  • I can't remember saying something like that exactly.

  • I'd now like the witness to be shown - well, in the classic way what was in front of me just a few moments ago has now disappeared. Would your Honours give me just a moment? It is the last matter I want to deal with. Ah, I think I've found it. Could he be shown, please, Prosecution exhibit 0000012. It's a photograph and I can't now remember if he has been shown it before. It can be put on the screen. I will just --

  • Excuse me, your Honours, it's an ERN number. That's not an exhibit number. I don't know if counsel has the - he indicated the Prosecution exhibit as an exhibit number.

  • I'm very sorry, yes, my learned friend is quite right. I'm calling it an exhibit when in fact it's not yet. Well it may have been exhibited, but I'll put it in simply on the basis that it's a Prosecution document, a photograph with the number P and then 0000012.

  • In the current bundle so we can also ask Madam Court Attendant to assist us in checking?

  • Madam President, it was supplied to us as part of the Prosecution bundle.

  • I don't think that's correct. I could be wrong, but I don't believe that that was listed as a Prosecution exhibit. It was provided to the Defence as part of the proofing note, attached to a proofing note, the last proofing note.

  • My learned friend may well be right.

  • In any event, if your Honours can live with it on the screen I have no problem with it being exhibited and put on the screen. It's not in your bundles.

  • It is.

  • It is? Okay. It's in the Defence bundles?

  • Mr Munyard, I have P0000012 at tab 17 of the Defence bundle. Is that what we're talking about?

  • Your Honour is absolutely right and I'm afraid that I had assumed that it had also been put forward as part of the Prosecution bundle. So we are now able all to look at this document. Thank you:

  • Mr Witness, have a look at that photograph, please. Who is that?

  • Sam Bockarie.

  • And have you been shown that photograph before?

  • I can't remember again that I have been shown this photograph before. I can't remember.

  • Tab 17, please, paragraph 40 on the very last page, 101094. In June of this year during your proofing or prepping sessions you were shown on a computer screen this photograph, asked if you recognised the person and you said it was Sam Bockarie and the photograph was taken during the autopsy of the body purported to be Sam Bockarie and depicts the face of Sam Bockarie. Do you remember seeing the photograph as recently as June?

  • Yes, yes, I remember now.

  • And there's no M16 bullet wound in his forehead, is there?

  • Objection, calls for an expert conclusion. Your Honours, this photograph depicts part of the face.

  • Mr Koumjian, let the witness answer because you are now suggesting to him how he cannot or why he cannot. I suggest that you are suggesting to him what to say. Let the witness answer, if he's able to answer this question. Give him a chance. Mr Munyard, please put your question again.

  • There is no M16 bullet wound in his forehead, is there?

  • The picture is black and white. I'm seeing a series of spots. I cannot see bullet mark there, or whether I'm seeing bullet mark there. I have not seen it and so I cannot be able to identify that on this photograph right now.

  • I have no further questions of this witness.

  • Thank you, Mr Munyard. Mr Koumjian, re-examination?

  • Thank you, your Honours:

  • Good morning, Mr Witness. I know you've been testifying a long time and I think you're very close to finishing. I would ask you to please listen to my questions and just answer the question, but very slowly and clearly with pauses like I am doing now so that the judges understand your answers.

    I want to begin by asking you that there were some questions in your cross-examination about when you became a bodyguard of Sam Bockarie - excuse me, of Benjamin Yeaten. Excuse me, Mr Witness. That was my mistake, my slip. The questions were about when you became a bodyguard of Benjamin Yeaten. Did you meet Benjamin Yeaten at the same time, the same year, or before or after you began to work for him?

  • He can't have met him after he began to work for him.

  • Point taken. The witness can answer the question, I believe.

  • I met Benjamin Yeaten before in 1998 and after that I returned and I later became bodyguard to him in 1999.

  • So just to remind us, when you say you met him in 1998, very briefly can you tell us where did you meet him?

  • I met him at the Presidential farm in Gbarnga, Bong County.

  • And very briefly did you - when you returned to Sierra Leone, did you take anything with you?

  • Ammunition.

  • I want to go and ask you about something in yesterday's transcript, page 14788. That's 27 August. Give me a moment to find it. I have, I believe, the wrong page. One moment, your Honours, I apologise. If we could go to tab 9 - excuse me, 14749. Let me first try that. I have a note to refer to that page.

  • Your Honours, the transcript can be viewed by pressing PC1 on the panel.

  • Thank you, Madam Court Attendant.

  • You were asked the following question. You were asked about something in the notes, the handwritten notes, that were taken of an interview that you had, and the question was, "They were introduced to them here", quoting from the handwritten notes, and then you were asked, "Well 'them' refers to Jungle and Sampson Weah, doesn't it?", and you said, "Yes, Benjamin Yeaten also."

    Now if we can look at tab 9 to the typed version of those notes in the Defence bundle tab 9, page 26462. It is page 7 with the ERN ending 26462 and if that could be perhaps just to be safe not put on the screen. The fifth full paragraph down I'm going to read out loud to you, Mr Witness. Please read along. It states:

    "That the group spent the night in Gbarnga and the next day they were introduced to Benjamin Yeaten, also present was 'Jungle' and Sampson Weah."

    Is that what you told the Prosecution in the interview, the investigators? Do you want me to read it again?

  • Yes, yes, yes.

  • It says the group that you were in "spent the night in Gbarnga and the next day they were introduced to Benjamin Yeaten. Also present was" - that's grammatically incorrect, but don't worry about that. "Also present was Jungle and Sampson Weah".

  • No, it was not that that I told the Prosecution. I told the Prosecution that the very day we got to Gbarnga was the day we met Benjamin Yeaten, Jungle, Sampson Weah and somebody who came from President Taylor, and they did introduction to us and after which they left together with Eddie Kanneh for Monrovia and we slept on the farm.

  • And my question for you is that time that you're talking about, was that the first time you met Benjamin Yeaten, or had you met him before?

  • It was the first time I met him.

  • Thank you. You also talked yesterday about the Fitti-Fatta mission. Can you remind us what was the Fitti-Fatta mission?

  • Your Honours, could the witness speak up a bit and clearly.

  • Mr Witness, the interpreters need you to speak more loudly and more slowly, so please do that.

  • The Fitti-Fatta mission - the Fitti-Fatta mission was to go and take over Kono, Koidu Town.

  • So, sir, on page 14788 of yesterday's transcript, beginning line 23, you gave the following answer. You said:

    "Yes, I told them that before the Kono invasion I was in Liberia, but the first invasion, Fitti-Fatta, I was in Liberia and I returned to carry out a mission in Sierra Leone".

    This was your answer and my question for you, Mr Witness, is was there any relationship between your mission and what you brought back to Sierra Leone?

  • Yes.

  • Your mission to Liberia and the Fitti-Fatta mission?

  • Can you explain that?

  • Yes. After we had gone to Liberia and from Gbarnga we brought ammunition to Buedu and from Buedu Sam Bockarie received the ammunition and he gave us a large quantity of ammunition, because we had a huge quantity for us to take it to Kono to Denis Mingo, Superman, at Superman Ground. After that, that was the same ammunition that we used to undertake the Fitti-Fatta mission to capture Koidu Town in Kono.

  • Thank you. Now I'd like the witness, please, to be shown exhibit D-9 again. Sir, this is a document that you were asked some questions about yesterday afternoon and you indicated that you hadn't seen it before, so just to help you make sure you understand it I'd like the first page just to be shown to you briefly. Can you see at the top is written "Revolutionary United Front of Sierra Leone Defence Headquarters" and it says it's "To -- The Leader of the Revolution. From -- Major General Sam Bockarie". I want to ask you a little bit about some contents of that document that you weren't asked about before and I'd like to start on page 11, at the bottom of that page. It has the ERN number ending 9668. So the very last sentence on the second line from the top begins - Mr Witness, I'm going to read it. If you need me to stop, or slow down, let me know. In this report it says:

    "As mentioned earlier in my report, four mechanised battalions of the Nigerian army were raised at Kono resulting in the capture of a wide assortment of arms and ammunition as well as armoured cars. War-tanks were also captured and burnt.

    We successfully took the war from Kailahun to Freetown, putting military pressure on the SLPP Government and the International Community to effect your release.

    Huge amounts of arms and ammunitions were also captured by Brigadier Issa from the Guineans including a 40 Barrel Missile and its bombs."

    First, Mr Witness, I want to ask you about this bit by bit and tell us whether the information - whether you know if it's correct, or incorrect, or you don't know, okay? It says first that "four mechanised battalions of the Nigerian army were raised at Kono". Is that true?

  • Yes.

  • What does it mean "raised"?

  • They pushed them out of Kono and the RUF took over Kono.

  • It says that this resulted in the capture of a wide assortment of arms and ammunition. Is that true?

  • And then in this report from Sam Bockarie it says, "We successfully took the war from Kailahun to Freetown." Do you understand what Sam Bockarie is talking about here?

  • I know what he exactly means, because the RUF headquarters was in Kailahun. I understand that side of it. Because the RUF headquarters was in Kailahun and any planning about the war or anything about the war starts from Kailahun, so that was why he said he took the war from Kailahun to Freetown.

  • And when he said to Freetown, can you tell us what did he mean about taking the war to Freetown?

  • Yes, we were fighting until we entered Freetown.

  • Thank you. It goes on to say, "Huge amounts of arms and ammunition were also captured by Brigadier Issa from Guineans including a 40 Barrel Missile and its bombs." Do you understand what Sam Bockarie is referring to here?

  • Can you explain that to us?

  • Yes. When we moved from Makeni, Lunsar, up to Waterloo, we met the Guinean forces in Waterloo. We tried to attack them from - to push them out of Waterloo for us to go to Freetown. So the Guineans troops forced their way to retreat towards Gberi Junction, and that was the same route we took and because Issa Sesay and Superman were there, but he was not on the front line so I did not make mention of him there. We captured the 40 barrel missile between - we captured the 40 barrel missile between Waterloo, Masiaka to Lunsar, together with the bombs, and he was the one who was supposed to give the report on this. That was why they mentioned his name because he was in command at that time, but Rambo was the front line commander who captured the missile and the bombs.

  • Thank you. Just so we're clear, when you say, "He was supposed to give the report on this", who do you mean?

  • He was the highest authority. He was the one who reported when we captured everything and it was - they were by stages. It will go to Issa Sesay and from Issa Sesay it will go to Sam Bockarie. That was why Sam Bockarie captured Issa Sesay's name here, but by then actually Rambo was the front line commander at the time we captured the missile and the bombs.

  • Thank you. Now let's go to page 6, please, with the ERN number 9663. Starting at the very bottom of the page at the last sentence, I will read slowly. If you don't understand, or want me to repeat, please say so. I'm beginning where it says, "When Rambo captured Makeni".

    "When Rambo captured Makeni, I convinced Brigadier Issa on set to call on Superman to join in operations in order to ensure that the objectives of the RUF were placed in priority."

    Turning the page:

    "As usual Brigadier Issa was supportive and I called Superman on set and instructed him to join in the operations. I told Superman that I had forgiven him and that the past was behind us and that we were all brothers in arms."

    Do you recall - do you have any knowledge of the information that I've just read?

  • Yes.

  • Can you please explain?

  • Yes. After we had come from the Binkolo area, Superman and his group who came from the Binkolo area, Brigadier Issa Sesay and Rambo of the RUF they came from the Kono area, Superman's group was the first to attack Makeni Teko barracks, but we did not succeed and so we retreated back to Binkolo. Rambo and Issa Sesay's group that entered from Magburaka they took over Makeni Town whilst ECOMOG still occupied the barracks, and because I was at the back in the radio room they received call from Sam Bockarie to call Superman in the radio room. When he called him, I was there. When Sam Bockarie was talking he was talking aloud and he said --

  • Your Honours, that last bit is not clear to the interpreter.

  • Mr Witness, the interpreter is not clear on the last part of your answer. Please pick up where you have said, "when Sam Bockarie was talking he was talking aloud and he said ..." Please continue from there.

  • I was there in Binkolo when Sam Bockarie called Superman on the radio set. He was talking aloud on the radio set. He was telling Superman that they should put the past behind them and they should go and join Rambo in Makeni Town and take over Teko barracks so that the RUF would be properly structured again. That was what he said when I was there and Superman did it.

  • Mr Witness, reading the next sentence, the very next sentence says, "Superman accepted the call and vowed to give his fullest cooperation." Do you have any knowledge about whether Superman and Sam Bockarie had such a conversation?

  • Yes, Superman he accepted. He cooperated with him, yes.

  • I want to go now to the last paragraph --

  • Well, before my learned friend moves off, it would be quite improper to put that in as if it was the whole story. You only have to read the following paragraphs down to the gap just over halfway down the page to see that everything that Superman agreed to do he then completely did not cooperate with. For my learned friend to try to take part of a passage as if that was the whole story is quite improper.

  • Your Honours, this document is in evidence with its full contents. This objection is argument. Reading selected passages from this document is exactly what the Defence did in their direct examination, excluding this important information about Superman and Sam Bockarie communicating and agreeing to cooperate. The whole document is before the Court in evidence. There's no necessity for me to read the whole document now, any more than there was for the Defence when they presented passages to the witness.

  • What I presented was an accurate reflection. What this is doing is plucking out one tiny fragment and putting it over as if it accurately reflects the flavour of what's on that page. It is an inaccurate reflection of the contents of the whole of that page.

  • [Trial Chamber conferred]

  • We uphold the objection. The Court is obliged to determine the truth and therefore needs to have the whole story before them. Please put the rest, Mr Koumjian.

  • Very well. Do your Honours want me to read the entire document?

  • Not the entire document, but as has been pointed out and as I have read there is the preliminary part which you put to the witness and which he agreed, there is then subsequent events which shows that that person reneged on something they had undertaken to do and that is the entire picture. It's not the entire document, Mr Koumjian. It's about three or four paragraphs down.

  • Well, perhaps your Honours can point out which you would like read into evidence. This is not what I've selected, so --

  • Mr Koumjian, perhaps for your guidance I might say this. You are re-examining the witness, your witness, on issues that might have arisen in cross-examination. You are not cross-examining your witness and you are not further examining in-chief and raising new issues with your witness. Now that should really narrow down your ambit of examining this witness - re-examining this witness. If an issue did not arise in cross-examination and you do not need to clarify then that is not an issue for re-examination, but if you think that you want to lead further evidence that was not touched in cross-examination then you are opening examination-in-chief. That should be able to guide you, Mr Koumjian, as to how far you can ask and what you need ask. Even if the document is already in evidence, that doesn't give you a licence to re-open examination-in-chief regarding that document. That is how I understand re-examination.

  • Your Honours, this document I didn't present in-chief, you will recall. This only was raised in Defence, where selected portions indicating conflicts were read to the witness and portions that indicated cooperation were not read to the witness.

  • This is a document in evidence already, isn't it?

  • You see, this is what I mean. That even if the Defence referred to it in cross-examination, which they were entitled to do, right, if a matter was not raised that you think you need clarification on I don't believe that you can open examination-in-chief on an established document. That should guide you on the straight and narrow, so to speak, as to what you may ask, what you may not ask, and certainly you cannot take things out of context.

  • Absolutely. The entire document is before your Honours and I presume your Honours - of course, it's in evidence. I can read any parts of it. The entire document is in evidence. If you would like me to read further portions just please indicate to me those portions, or what I could do is read the rest of the document.

  • Mr Koumjian, if you look at the second paragraph of the page that you referred to, the one ending 9664, you will see part of a sentence, "Superman took the opportunity of diverting captured materials for his own use", and then further down on paragraph 3 or paragraph 4, "Superman continued to refuse." These are the points which contradict I might say, or call in question maybe would be a better way of putting it, the commitment in the first paragraph. Those are the points I have in mind.

  • Mr Witness, I'm going to continue to read selected portions of this document, because the entire document is 13 pages, I believe, excuse me 14 pages, so these portions I have been asked to read to you are that:

    "Whilst the Late Rambo was busy checking captured material for proper accountability, Superman took the opportunity of diverting captured materials for his own use.

    Brigadier Issa who had taken supervised the Makeni and had given instructions for the barracks to be put under full military control whilst he was informed of the fact that Superman had illegally taken materials from the barracks and was in possession of these materials. When approached on the issue, Superman claimed that I, General Mosquito and Brigadier Issa were using Rambo against him with the aim of destroying him. Brigadier Issa insisted that the materials be handed over as Superman had not only misused large amounts of ammo in his failed attempt to capture Kono but had also refused to give account of materials captured during [sic] the Koidu Town ammo dump."

    Excuse me, let me go back a bit because I made a mistake reading:

    "... give account of materials captured when the Koidu Town ammo dump of ECOMOG was captured.

    Superman continued to refuse and Brigadier Issa accompanied by Brigadier Kallon entered his house and arrested all materials found. He invited Superman to the headquarters in Makeni so as to make plans for moving the operation to Lunsar. Superman asked to enter his bedroom to prepare for the move and took that opportunity to escape. Superman later returned and again was allowed to join the operation."

    So asking you about that last sentence, Mr Witness, was Superman - no, sorry, I withdraw the question. I'm going to go on and with your Honours' permission I'm skipping to the last paragraph on page 7:

    "Meanwhile the troops that entered Freetown had been cut off from the rear and were being encircled leaving them no way out. I was able to coordinate their operations over set and got them to combine their forces and bulldoze from the side accessing them to the mountains through which they took a bypass to join our troops at Benguema and Waterloo as JOI" - spelt J-O-I - "was occupied by ECOMOG. This is how the troops that entered Freetown were able to retreat. Still they sustained heavy casualties including Steve Bio, the SLPP Chairman Manakpaka and many others."

    Just one more paragraph, sir:

    "On learning that Gibril Massaquoi had been rescued from prison and had joined in the operation, I contacted him 'on set' and gave him advice and encouragement for smooth operations."

    Now, Mr Witness, were you - do you have any knowledge of these communications by Superman to these forces in Freetown, or those - well, sorry, let me ask you another question. First, can you tell us what does this mean - sorry, just a part of the sentence of what I read I want to read back and ask you - make sure you understand it and can explain it to us. It says at the bottom of page 7, three lines up, "Got them to combine their forces and bulldoze from the side accessing them to the mountains through which they took a bypass to join our troops at Benguema and Waterloo."

    What does it mean to bulldoze?

  • The understanding I had about bulldoze, when we use bulldoze in the RUF or anywhere we were fighting, when we had obstacles in front of us and if it's a strong obstacle it is to force our way to pass through them. That was what I meant by bulldoze, to go through the obstacles that were in front of you. That was what was meant by bulldoze. At the time he was talking about bulldozing our brothers that were in Freetown had obstacles behind them, so I think they bulldozed their way and went up Peninsula to get to us in Waterloo.

  • I think I'm finished with this document.

  • Well, Mr Koumjian, I think you've missed the point of the objection. What we want to hear is what did the witness mean by telling us that Superman cooperated with Mosquito in view of what follows from the passage you first quoted to him.

  • Did you understand the question, Mr Witness? The question is that given - you said - I read a part of this report to you and you said that Superman agreed to cooperate and I believe - and then I also read parts where Sam Bockarie is complaining about Superman's behaviour afterwards. Can you give us any comments on that?

  • Yes. When Superman and Sam Bockarie were having the dispute about the weapons that we captured from Kabala, they hadn't good communication between them from Kabala all the way to Binkolo. When we got to Binkolo we received a radio call from Sam Bockarie from Kailahun telling Superman that they should leave all the past behind them and join hands together to get Makeni - to join Rambo in Makeni to get to the barracks and control RUF in a proper manner. What I meant by Superman cooperated, indeed Superman went to Makeni and joined Rambo to attack Makeni Teko barracks and the attack was successful. Superman - also later, when we were having problems, Superman joined Rambo and Komba Gbundema and we advanced on Lunsar under the same command of Sam Bockarie to Waterloo, so that's what I meant that Superman cooperated with Sam Bockarie at the time after that communication.

  • Was there subsequent conflicts between them?

  • Yes, after that. After that something happened between them again.

  • Your Honours, I don't propose to pursue my objection, but all I would invite the Court to do is for it simply to make a note of the section on page 9664 that my learned friend did not read out because that puts the Makeni and the following operations into a more complete context and indeed for the Court to make a note to read the whole of page 9665.

  • Obviously the whole document is before us, Mr Munyard. It is already an exhibit.

  • A couple of other matters to deal with in open session, Mr Witness. Yesterday, and I'm referring to the transcript page 14758, you were asked the following question by Defence counsel. I'm on line 5, "Superman had no choice but to take direct instructions from Sam Bockarie, did he?", and you said, "Yes". What did you mean by that?

  • When I said he had no choice, I think Sam Bockarie was his commander at the time and he was not under any different faction. He was under RUF at the time. He had no choice but to take orders. Whether you were willing or not, you had to take orders because your boss is your boss. Your boss is always right, so he had no choice except to take orders from Sam Bockarie. And I think that was the order that they took, that your boss is your boss. You had no choice. Whatever your boss did to you, he is the boss and the boss is always right in the RUF. So he just had to take orders. He had no choice.

  • Yesterday on page 14802 you talked about Senegalese, Sea Breeze. You've mentioned him before, but first is this one person or more than one person?

  • They had Senegalese Sea Breeze, bodyguard commander for former President Taylor. Then they had Senegalese of the Special Forces, ordinary Special Forces. Two people. We had two Senegalese. One Senegalese Sea Breeze, bodyguard commander to President Taylor, and Senegalese Sea Breeze - and the ordinary Senegalese, Special Forces.

  • Just so we're all clear, you said you got the number - the cell phone number of Charles Taylor from someone. Which of these people did you mean?

  • Senegalese Sea Breeze, bodyguard commander to former President Taylor.

  • And just to be clear, did you ever call that number?

  • Who did you speak to when you called that phone number?

  • I talked to the President.

  • A name was mentioned and I just ask you if you know a person referred to as Jungle Jim?

  • Just so there's no confusion, can you explain who is Jungle Jim?

  • Who is or was Jungle Jim?

  • Jungle Jim was the chief diamond broker for President Taylor based at Lofa Bridge.

  • Do you know his real name?

  • I used to know his real name, but I've forgotten presently. I knew his real name.

  • Just so we're clear, is Jungle Jim the same person as Jungle, Daniel Tamba?

  • No. They had Jungle, Daniel Tamba, then they had Jungle Jim.

  • A figure was mentioned of 400 million. My question for you, Mr Witness, is in approximately the year 2003 do you know approximately what the value in US dollars is of 400 million Liberian dollars? Excuse me, 200 million Liberian dollars, sorry. Can you tell me the value in US dollars of 200 million Liberian dollars?

  • I can't tell now.

  • Your Honours, can he please repeat the last bit.

  • Mr Witness, please repeat part of your answer. The interpreter cannot hear you clearly. You said, "I cannot tell now." Finish that sentence.

  • I cannot tell now the equivalent of 200,000 Liberian dollar in US dollars. I can't tell now, except I use a machine.

  • Mr Witness, I understand that. Mr Witness, do you remember in the year 2003 how many Liberian dollars you would get for one US dollar approximately?

  • At that time the war was on the rate used to drop. It used to fluctuate, sometimes 45, 50, 52, 51, and so the rate was not steady at the time. Sometimes it can rise up to 60 and sometimes it will drop, so I can't estimate right now.

  • Mr Koumjian, I don't wish to be pedantic, but the witness said, "At the time the war was on the rate used to drop", and you referred to 2003. Is it not a recognised fact that the war was over then?

  • It depends on which war you're talking about.

  • Or what war are we talking about?

  • Thank you, your Honour:

  • Mr Witness, I'm asking specifically about the year 2003 and just we're not sure whether your answer applies to that when you said during the war, or other periods. During 2003, in that time let me say 2002 to 2003, do you recall the approximate value of one US dollar in Liberian dollars approximately?

  • That's exactly what I'm talking about because in 2003 we had two seasons, the war season and the peace season, so I just estimated on the war season. At the time the rate was 50, 52, 45, 60, the rate for US dollars to Liberian dollars.

  • Thank you. Do you know any person named Liberian Mosquito?

  • Well, I don't know where this arose out of cross-examination.

  • Yes, it did, and I'm trying to do it without leading the witness. If your Honours give me a little bit of leeway I can do it, or I could argue it now, but I think in my next few questions it will become more obvious.

  • I am not saying it didn't. I don't remember that's all.

  • The name did not come up as far as I recall, but it's not because of the name. I'm coming to the point in the next question, or the next few questions.

  • Mr Munyard, are you withdrawing your objection, or what is the situation?

  • I'm waiting to find out what the question is, but at the moment if my learned friend agrees with me that I didn't mention that name then I don't think it's proper that that should be pursued.

  • I don't recall it being mentioned in cross-examination either, Mr Koumjian, so you will have to approach it from - if it's a matter that arose in cross-examination you will have to approach it in a different way.

  • That name did not come up. My point arose in the closed session and so I'll deal with it when I go to closed session.

  • Well, I'm very concerned now that my learned friend has in effect led the witness by presenting him with a name for the purposes of re-examination; a name which was not brought up in cross-examination. It amounts to a leading question and we will have to argue it.

  • The question does not suggest an answer. It's a yes or no. It's the point I haven't gotten to yet and, your Honours, I can't pursue --

  • Your Honours, can learned counsel please raise his voice.

  • Thank you. I can't pursue this further in open session and so I will pass this for now:

  • Mr Witness, you've spoken about militias in Liberia. Can you explain to us the relationships between the militias and the AFL, the Armed Forces of Liberia?

  • Yes. It was the militia and the relationship between the militia and the AFL was close, because at the time the AFL, the national army, the Armed Forces of Liberia, was not too strong, and secondly some commanders from the AFL, the national army, like Christopher Varmoh, Liberian Mosquito, he was one of the battalion commanders in the 6th Battalion in Lofa County. At the same time he was one of the chiefs of staff for the militia forces, army division. Like the late Stanley, he was battalion commander 7th Battalion Lofa County. He was one of the chiefs of staff for the militia forces. So they had a cordial relationship between them.

  • Do you know how old Christopher Varmoh was let's just say in relation to you? Was he older, or younger, and how much if you know?

  • He's older than me.

  • I am sorry, your Honours, but I do object to this now because we are now exploring the very person whose name or nickname was led to the witness by my learned friend and I want to argue this if my learned friend insists on pursuing it because I don't think that he has approached the matter in a proper evidential way because of his leading question.

  • Your Honours, if I could just briefly respond, I think that the --

  • Would you also clarify where it arises from cross-examination for my purposes, please.

  • That was in closed session and so I will have to deal with that in closed session. My point comes out of the closed session, not the name.

  • We will go briefly into private session, Madam Court Attendant, please. For purposes of --

  • Actually I can just indicate, your Honour, that the rest of my questions I can do in private session. There are several areas that I need to cover all arising out of the closed session cross-examination.

  • If it helps, I don't mind my learned friend moving on to anything else that he wants to deal with in open session and then we'll deal with all of the closed session including the argument in one fell swoop if that is of assistance.

  • Yes, and I think I've covered all that I can in open session and so I'm ready to just move to the closed session portions.

  • Very well. For those members of the public and for purposes of broadcast, we are now going into a brief private session because questions may affect the security of the witness. Madam Court Attendant, please implement that.

  • [At this point in the proceedings, a portion of the transcript, pages 14843 to 14853, was extracted and sealed under separate cover, as the proceeding was heard in private session.]

  • [Open session]

  • Your Honour, we are in open session.

  • All right. Just for purposes of record in open session, counsel for the Prosecution has completed his re-examination of the witness. Mr Koumjian, please proceed.

  • Thank you. Your Honours, there's two exhibits marked for identification, both of them confidential. I really only have an interest in the first one. I move that into evidence. The second one arose during the Defence. I have no objection if the Defence wants it, but if it is not put into evidence I ask it be destroyed. If it is, I ask that both be marked "Confidential". Thank you.

  • Mr Munyard, you've heard the application and the tender.

  • I completely agree with my learned friend that the first item marked for identification should be exhibited confidentially and, given that the witness did produce another confidential document in the course of his evidence, I think it's only right that that should be exhibited. Whatever weight the Court wishes to attach to it is a matter for the Court, but I think that there may be an issue that arises later. It's out of an abundance of caution that I think it should be exhibited.

  • Very well. The first is a one-page document written by the witness with a certain number on it. It becomes a Prosecution exhibit, I think P-154. Madam Court Attendant, could you assist me please?

  • Your Honour, P-165.

  • P-165, yes, and that is to be a confidential document under seal.

  • [Exhibit P-165 admitted]

    The second is a Defence exhibit. It is a one-page document with writing by the witness. It will be Defence exhibit D --

  • D-56, your Honour.

  • Thank you, I'm most grateful, and it also will be confidential and under seal. Sorry, the last one is confidential only.

  • [Exhibit D-56 admitted]

    It's just been correctly pointed out to me that the first should only be confidential also, so both are confidential, Madam Court Attendant.

  • Can I just ask, sorry to express my ignorance, I don't quite understand the difference between under seal and not under seal. I can ask the legal officers later. Thank you.

  • Mr Witness, that is the end of your evidence and you're now free to leave the Court. We thank you for coming to court on two occasions to give your evidence and we wish you a safe journey back. I want you to remain where you are until the curtains are lowered to allow you to leave the courtroom.

  • I thank you too.

  • Your Honours, given the changeover would your Honours consider breaking now because there's also a little bit of organisational matters in changing the witnesses?

  • I think that's a very practical suggestion, Mr Koumjian. We will take the mid-morning break and we will resume court at 11.50. Please adjourn court until 11.50.

  • [Break taken at 11.20 a.m.]

  • [Upon resuming at 11.50 a.m.]

  • Before I remind the witness of his oath, I note some changes of appearance.

  • Thank you, counsel and your Honours. Joining the Prosecution is Brenda J Hollis and also Ruth Mary Hackler and Nicholas Koumjian. Thank you.

  • Thank you, Mr Koumjian.

  • Representation on the Defence bench is as this morning, save that Mr Munyard is not with us until this afternoon.

  • Mr Witness, we welcome you back to the Court. I remind you that before the short break you took the oath to tell the truth. The oath is binding upon you still and you must answer all questions truthfully, do you understand?

  • Mr Griffiths, please proceed.

  • I'm grateful, your Honour.