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

  • Witness, yesterday we had begun discussing the use of radio communications, do you recall that? Can you concentrate on that area again?

  • Now, I would like to get a few facts straight with you in terms of your evidence what you are saying. Is it right from what you are saying that you heard Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh speaking in English, in plain language, over the radio on occasions after 1992? Is that your evidence?

  • Yes, from 1996 - 1992 onwards.

  • [Overlapping speakers] occasions you heard these two individuals speaking in code with each other, is that your evidence?

  • Mr Cayley, are you on the English channel, I hope, because you are definitely overlapping with the witness?

  • Let me check. Can I be heard now? Am I on the right channel?

  • I suppose you are on the right channel. The problem is are you - do you have the right channel?

  • Well, I don't think I can - I can't set my microphone, can I, on the right channel? I can only set what I hear by choice.

  • Can you hear the translation?

  • Yes, I can hear what he is saying. Yes.

  • What the translator is saying? Not the witness, but the translator?

  • Yes, exactly. I can hear the translation of what he is saying.

  • Because if you overlap, like you did, we won't get the record.

  • I will check, Judge, to make sure:

  • Witness, can you hear me?

  • Yes, I am getting you clearly.

  • I think that is fine now, your Honour, thank you:

  • Did you hear these two individuals that we just mentioned speaking in code with each other? Is that your evidence?

  • Yes, some military words were coded. They used code words whilst they were talking together, Charles Taylor and Mr Sankoh. They had some military words that they did not just call like that. Like ammunition they don't just refer to it as "ammunition", they had a coded form of calling it, and there were some other words that they did not just call on the radio.

  • What was the code for ammunition?

  • Well, the short code for ammunition during their conversation were they used the first two words. They say "Alpha Mike".

  • They used the words "Alpha Mike" to describe ammunition and that was the code that was used, is that what you are saying?

  • Yes, during their conversation and as time went on they used to change it.

  • What did they change ammunition to? Because, you see, I don't think you are telling the truth about this, are you? Because frankly to encrypt the word "ammunition" into "AM" is rather obvious, isn't it, to anybody that is listening on a radio net that that is probably referring to ammunition, isn't it?

  • Not everybody would know that. As long as you are not a radio man you will not be able to understand that they are talking about ammunition and these were words that they changed at any time. They didn't use it every day. The coded form of ammunition was not a fixed thing that they used. They could change it at any time accordingly and sometimes they called numbers. That is not to say because I have said "Alpha Mike" then you will understand it to be ammunition. "Alpha Mike" will refer to so many things. It could be "I am", but the coded arrangements like if I say "I am" that is "AM" I am referring to a code and codes are arrangements between two people. It was not a general arrangement for everybody that went to the knowledge of everybody.

  • Did they speak in uncoded language? In plain English? You said they did. You said they did yesterday, yes?

  • What I said whilst they were speaking English they were big men. When they got to a military area, they will not say it loudly. They will use the coded form of the word depending on the code that we used at that moment.

  • How often did they speak in code on the radio in 1992? Did they speak more often in code than in English, plain English, or did they speak more often in plain English than in code?

  • They spoke both plain English and coded form. I am still repeating this. For example, if they discussed with regards ambush they will easily use - for instance, if they talk about ambush between Makeni or Freetown they will refer to a grid reference. For instance, if they say "Bravo 7" that means ambush and in the coded form. So, if I say "Grid reference 233 Bravo 7", you will not be able to understand as long as you are not a member of the society. If Mr Taylor told Sankoh, "Why can't you go and arrange Bravo 7, grid reference 2333", something like that for an example, Mr Sankoh will understand directly that he should set an ambush between Makeni and Freetown, but you who is not a member of that society will not be able to understand anything. So, the coded form of the words will come into the English and they will understand each other.

  • Can you encrypt this for us? Can you put this into code for me now, "The ammunition will arrive at Buedu on Thursday"? Encrypt that now into code.

  • Well, in that way except you give me chance to allow to arrange a code for myself. For instance, if ammunition came to Buedu on Thursday I will convert it into in my own knowledge I will say "232419632" and that will mean that ammunition is coming to Buedu on Thursday.

  • Would it interest you to know, witness, that we have spoken to a number of radio operators who never heard Charles Taylor speaking on the radio net with Foday Sankoh? Other RUF radio operators?

  • Well, I don't know. If you have spoken to any witness to give that statement, I cannot conclude that it is yes or no.

  • Well, I am putting it to you that you are lying and that you did not hear Foday Sankoh and Charles Taylor speaking either in English or in code on the radio during 1992, or any time thereafter?

  • Well I will also tell you that I am not lying, because I was a radio man and I used to monitor all the nets and all the activities and now I am telling you that it was from Liberia that Foday Sankoh entered with the war and so they had radio communications throughout.

  • Now you are well aware, are you not, that Foday Sankoh and Charles Taylor had a disagreement with each other in 1993, aren't you?

  • Not at all. Charles Taylor is a very close friend or brother to Foday Sankoh, every day Foday Sankoh used to tell us, and we heard them always say that they were friends and brothers.

  • That is not the question I put to you and so I will put it to you again. Are you aware that Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh had a serious falling out, or disagreement, in 1993? Are you aware of that?

  • I don't know about that and I will not say that it is true and I know that they never had problem. I don't know about that you are saying.

  • And are you aware that they did not communicate with each other again until the Lome peace agreement in 1999? Are you aware of that fact?

  • No, I am not aware of that fact. I know that they used to talk to each other until the Lome Peace Accord.

  • Now you state that all conversations were logged in a communications register, right?

  • Where are the logbooks which contain the conversations of Mr Sankoh and Mr Taylor? Where are those logbooks?

  • In fact, let me make it clear to you. We can - it is not all the logbooks that you will be able to get and not all the informations that you can get from the logbooks. Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh, the messages between them were written in a special logbook.

  • Ah, so for those conversations they didn't go into a normal logbook. They went into a special logbook, the conversations between Foday Sankoh and Charles Taylor. Is that what you are saying?

  • It is the message that I am referring to. The conversations were not written in logbook, but the messages that Sankoh sent to Taylor and the messages Sankoh received from Taylor they were entered in special logbooks. The radio operators entered them in special logbooks.

  • You said in your evidence yesterday that the logbooks for all of the communications in the RUF were kept forever. They were not destroyed. Do you recall that evidence?

  • Oh, yes. During the time of the RUF military operation these were books that we kept safely, but at the end of the war when everybody was worried to disarm some of the logbooks were burnt down and any message from Charles Taylor, or that went to Charles Taylor, this was a message that was transmitted into a different logbook. Besides the RUF in Sierra Leone, besides the messages that we got in Sierra Leone, that was how we used to keep the logbooks.

  • So, are you saying that these special logbooks were the logbooks that were burnt? The special logbooks containing the conversations of Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh, they were burnt?

  • Conversations on the radio is quite different from radio messages. Conversations I have always repeated that they were not things that were written in the logbook. These were things that they said and messages were things that they wrote in the logbooks.

  • Let me break it down and put it in very simple language for you. The conversations between Foday Sankoh and Charles Taylor, be they in plain language, be they in code, were they recorded in a special logbook? Is that your evidence?

  • The conversation besides the message were not things that were recorded in special logbook. It was only the messages that were recorded in special logbooks.

  • And the messages you are saying are messages that were sent by signallers, as opposed to Foday Sankoh or Charles Taylor?

  • I don't understand your question.

  • You are making a distinction between conversations and messages, yes?

  • Oh, yes, radio conversation in the RUF was different from radio messages.

  • And you are saying that the radio conversations between Foday Sankoh and Charles Taylor were never recorded in any kind of register?

  • Not - not at all. That cannot be recorded in any register. They were only radio messages.

  • The messages they were recorded? The radio messages between Sankoh and Taylor they were recorded and they were recorded in a special logbook, correct?

  • Where are those logbooks?

  • Well, these were things that we were not asked to keep.

  • You said in your evidence yesterday that all logbooks were kept, that they were maintained by the RUF, didn't you?

  • Yes, during the period of the RUF exercises we used to maintain all of them.

  • It is normal military practice, isn't it, to keep signals logbooks?

  • Yes, during the time the RUF was in action, but when the RUF lost power, or I can say when the RUF dissolved, all of those things most of them were destroyed. That is the logbooks.

  • So the logbooks pertaining to Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh, they were destroyed?

  • Yes, that is what I can say.

  • [Overlapping speakers] Witness, when were they destroyed?

  • Well, most of those logbooks got missing since 1996 when Foday Sankoh left Zogoda. When Kamajors came and attacked Zogoda most of those documents got missing, and then any time sometimes Kamajors or government forces attacked our positions we were unable to take the logbooks and we changed the codes automatically and we created new logbooks.

  • Now you have just said that they went missing, as opposed to being destroyed. Is it your evidence that those logbooks were destroyed, or did they go missing?

  • I am talking about two things. Sometimes they got missing during attacks and at the same time sometimes we destroyed them, most times whilst we were about to disarm, because at the time the RUF disarmed there was almost a problem about to occur in case of the communication equipment between communication commanders and so as a result most of the people who had those documents destroyed them.

  • Now, let us talk specifically about the logbooks pertaining to Mr Foday Sankoh and Mr Taylor. Did they go missing, or were they destroyed?

  • Well, during the attack they got missing.

  • What attack are we talking about?

  • I am talking about 1996 Kamajor attack on Zogoda.

  • So the logbooks pertaining to Sankoh and Taylor, the conversations that they had, now you are saying they weren't destroyed, but they went missing in 1996. Is that what you are saying?

  • Yes, I am not - only those areas that Sankoh and Taylor's messages were copied. Most of the RUF operational stations had those logbooks, but during the periods of attacks, or during the period of disarmament, we destroyed most of those documents.

  • Now, witness, you will notice in your evidence - and I am certainly noticing it - that you are switching this between saying that the documents went missing and that they were destroyed, and I am putting it to you that you are confused and you are lying about this issue because there were no logbooks, were there, pertaining to Mr Taylor and Mr Sankoh? There were no logbooks with messages in between those two individuals, were there?

  • No, there was a logbook in existence between Sankoh and Taylor.

  • Now you have just said in your evidence that all of the stations had these logbooks, yes?

  • All the radio stations?

  • And all of the stations recorded all of the messages, right?

  • So all of the stations would have received the messages pertaining to Sankoh and Taylor, correct?

  • Yes, because they all used to monitor the net.

  • Now I don't know off the top of my head and my learned friend will correct me because I don't have the diagram in front of me, but I think you identified at least five radio stations on those two exhibits. Is that right?

  • Yes.

  • So, your evidence is that at all five of these radio stations that the logbooks pertaining to Sankoh and Taylor went missing. Is that your evidence?

  • Well, witness, I am putting it to you that that is utterly ridiculous and that you are lying about this issue?

  • Well, I am also standing strongly to say that I am not lying.

  • So, you expect this Court to seriously believe that at all of these separate radio stations the logbooks pertaining only to Sankoh and Taylor at five different radio stations all went missing during the war. Is that your evidence?

  • I am also making it clear to you that those five stations that were indicated on the map yesterday, those were not the times of Foday Sankoh. That was not the time for Foday Sankoh's administration. That was under the regime of Sam Bockarie.

  • During 1992, how many radio stations were there in Sierra Leone pertaining to the RUF?

  • During 1992 we had over 20 radio stations that dealt with the RUF issues. As we extended the RUF operations, that was how we had more radio stations.

  • So, your evidence is that at 20 different radio stations across Sierra Leone messages from Foday Sankoh and Charles Taylor were being recorded in 1992. Is that right?

  • Yes, it used to get missing and if --

  • No, pause there, witness. And you are saying that at those 20 radio stations there were 20 logbooks in which all of those messages were recorded. Is that right?

  • Your evidence is now before the Court that all 20 of those logbooks went missing at some stage during the war in which the messages from Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh were recorded. Is that right?

  • Yes, this is what I am trying to say. You see, sometimes when we used to pack the logbooks when we had attacks by the Kamajors we will not be able to take all of them. And then at the same time we will not be able to even collect all the codes that we had, except we went and changed the codes and we will go back and sit down and try to rewrite the messages about what Sankoh and Taylor said because they had got missing during the times of the attacks from Kamajors, or from the government troops, in Sierra Leone.

  • Witness, I am putting it to you for a final time and then I will move on. You are lying about this and this is why you are coming out with this nonsense about 20 books disappearing. It did not happen, did it, witness?

  • Well, I am also standing strong to say that it happened and I am still telling you that we were guerillas. We don't mostly keep documents to that level and sometimes we were attacked and we will do away with the documents and forget about that.

  • Now, witness, I am right in saying, aren't I, that no two people on the radio network would ever have the same code name, would they?

  • On a military radio network no two individuals communicating on that network would have the same code name, would they?

  • Well, it depends on the type of people that you deal with. The people they could have the same name, but if I am talking and the next person is talking he might call the commander "Father" and I can as well call him "Father" and then they will carry the same name, but I will understand and he also will understand what I mean.

  • So you and I could be on radio network together and you could be called "Father" and I could be called "Father". Is that what you are saying?

  • No. What I said I am a radio operator and if you are a radio operator and if you are working under the High Command, or you are working under Mr Taylor whilst I am working under Mr Sankoh, I will ask you for instance, "Where is the father?", and then you ask me, "Who wants to talk to him?", and then we will say, "The father wants to talk to him", and then you will know straight that Sankoh wants to talk to Taylor.

  • Now, witness, on a military communications network would it not create complete confusion if people had the same code names?

  • Not at all, because a code is an agreement or arrangement between two people. As far as that is the agreement you have taken, then it will not cause any problem.

  • Let us say, for example, we have five different radio stations and at four of the radio stations all of the radio operators call themselves Alpha and at the fifth radio station the radio operator calls himself Bravo, how does Bravo know which Alpha he is actually speaking to if four people all have the same code name? Do you follow me?

  • I didn't follow your statement well. Say it again.

  • Five radio stations - five separate radio stations - do you follow me?

  • At four of the radio stations the radio operators all call themselves by the same code, let us say Alpha, do you follow me?

  • At the fifth radio station the radio operator calls himself Bravo, do you follow me?

  • And all of the radio stations are in different places, do you follow me?

  • How does Bravo know which Alpha he is speaking to if there are four different Alphas?

  • Well, this example does not match with what I have been saying. I have not spoken about four or five people. I spoke about two people and two operators.

  • So, you are saying that it was normal for there to be two operators with the same code name within the RUF?

  • Now, you have stated in your evidence that Mr Taylor was known by which code name?

  • Mr Taylor we knew him as Ebony. We knew him as Father.

  • But you stated previously to the OTP that he was also known as Chief, right?

  • Oh, yes. One thing in using code names, or in guerilla operations, they will refer to you according to your area of exercise as a leader, and when I say "Chief" you will understand that I am referring to the Commander In Chief and if I say "Father" you will know that I am talking to Taylor.

  • Let me put to you for a moment the evidence of another Prosecution witness who has already given evidence, by the name of Abu Keita, and these were the questions that were put to him and then I have got some questions for you afterwards. And the evidence goes like this:

    "Q. Sometimes Bockarie would say they had spoken to 'The

    Chief', correct?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And 'The Chief' had a particular meaning at that time,

    did it not?"

  • Your Honours, can learned counsel please take this slowly?

  • "Q. And 'The Chief' had a particular meaning at that time,

    did it not?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Sometimes Bockarie would say they had spoken with 'The

    Director', true?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And 'The Director' had a particular meaning at that

    time, correct? Direct name?

    A. Yes, I mean Director.

    Q. Did the use of the word 'Director' mean Benjamin Yeaten

    when you were in Buedu?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And sometimes they would say they had spoken with

    somebody named 'Pa' or 'Papay', correct?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And those words also had a meaning regarding whom - to

    whom they referred, correct?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Can you tell the Court when you heard the phrase 'The

    Chief' whom you knew that to mean?

    A. Chief Benjamin Yeaten".

    Now, Abu Keita gave evidence that "The Chief" meant Ben Yeaten. Now it is a fact, isn't it, that "The Chief" was never - that Taylor was never referred to as "The Chief"? That is a fact, isn't it.

  • No, that is not the fact. The statement that you have just issued that was Abu Taylor's[sic] own statement, and you are now talking about 1991, 1992 up to 1996 and I told you that the code words used to change and some other person will carry the next name that some other person had carried before.

  • Are you aware that Benjamin Yeaten was referred to as "The Chief" on the radio net? Were you aware that Ben Yeaten was referred to as "The Chief" on the RUF radio net?

  • Well, Benjamin Yeaten I never knew him as "Chief" for the RUF.

  • Are you saying that you never heard Benjamin Yeaten referred to on the radio net as "The Chief"? Is that your evidence?

  • What I said I have never made mention of Benjamin Yeaten. I said if you bring me towards the Sam Bockarie issues, I told you that any time Sam Bockarie called from Liberia he will inform our stations about issues discussed.

  • Can you pause there, because I am not actually asking you about Sam Bockarie and I think that my question was quite straightforward. Are you saying that you never heard Benjamin Yeaten referred to on the RUF network as "The Chief"? Is that your evidence?

  • Yes, this time that we are talking about you are asking me questions, from 1996 that was Foday Sankoh's regime, I never heard somebody refer to Benjamin Yeaten as "Chief" on the radio. This is Foday Sankoh's regime that we are talking about.

  • You have just referred to 1996. I am not sure whether that was a misinterpretation. What year did you mean?

  • I said during this time that we are talking about I never in fact knew Benjamin Yeaten during this period that we are talking about as "Chief", "Subject", "Ebony" and etc.

  • And can you give us the period in years that you are speaking about?

  • Well, I will tell you that since 1996 up to 1997 that was the time Foday Sankoh went on peace talk to Abidjan.

  • And you are saying that during this period you never heard Benjamin Yeaten referred to as "The Chief" in 1996 and 1997? You never heard Ben Yeaten referred to as "The Chief" on the RUF network?

  • Yes.

  • And prior to that period?

  • May it please your Honours, I believe my learned friend may be misstating Keita's testimony in this context. The records as we have them indicates that Keita was referring to "The Chief" and in referring to "The Chief" in this case is not referring to Benjamin Yeaten as "The Chief".

  • [Microphone not activated] Have you got the dates of the evidence, Mr Bangura?

  • I will Look. And this was not on the radio, not by radio on a radio communication, as my learned friend seems to be suggesting to the witness.

  • Mr Cayley, we will try and find the - have you a date of the transcript to which you are referring?

  • I don't, because I have a draft transcript, but I certainly have here that:

    "Yeaten was speaking to Bockarie and Sesay over these

    radios.

    Q. Was what you heard correct?

    A. Yes.

    Q. So, they were speaking over the radio".

    Then it goes on from there with the transcript that I read out to you.

  • Well, the transcript appears to be in dispute and so let's get the transcript, if we can.

    Mr Bangura, can you identify a date so we can --

  • Look, I think this all should be going down on record and it does not appear as though LiveNote is recording anything at the moment.

  • Your Honour, there appears to be a problem with LiveNote. We will check it out.

  • Madam Court Attendant, is what has already been said been recorded somewhere so that it can be subsequently transcribed?

  • It should be, your Honour. It should be. I will confirm that, your Honour.

  • There are two questions that arise. We need to get this transcript and we also need to know when LiveNote will be rectified and record.

  • Your Honour, I am informed that the audio of that exists and it can be transcribed if it is not available, but I will check what the problem is.

  • Now, Mr Bangura, we are looking for dates. As you are challenging the Defence questions, can you refer us to appropriate dates and we will try and get the record?

  • Your Honour, we are just trying to get the actual portion of the transcript that this evidence relates to.

  • I have some notes of my own here, if it will help, where the witness, Abu Keita, referred to, "A satellite phone in a handbag. It was with Sam Bockarie and he told me it was given to him by Chief Benjamin Yeaten". That is not necessarily a conversation, but if it is of assistance it was on 22 January at around 10 o'clock.

  • Your Honours, the situation as we understand it, the evidence as we understand it, is that Bockarie would speak on the radio with Taylor and in subsequent discussion with Keita said that he had spoken to "The Chief" and those references to "The Chief" I believe is what my learned friend is making reference to here.

  • We still need the transcript, Mr Bangura.

  • I appreciate that, your Honour.

  • Your Honour, there was a technical problem, but it seems to have been rectified.

  • This looks like old - earlier questions earlier this morning that are now coming up again.

  • Your Honour, I do have a reference here. It is evidence of 24 January, pages 2134 to 2135.

  • Your Honour, the reason the old transcript is appearing is because the machines were restarted and so it all backed up, the old information, but it should be working shortly.

  • Madam Court Attendant, if you can assist us further. Is it possible to get --

  • So, when are we going to get the current transcription? We can't follow.

  • Your Honour, the machine is being restarted. It should happen shortly.

  • Your Honours, I believe the service has been restored.

  • Counsel, we now have some transcripts. Maybe it would assist both counsel if we got extra copies and passed one to each of the counsel and then we will deal with this objection. It would appear the objection has not been recorded on LiveNote and so I will note there has been an objection. Mr Bangura, if you would repeat the gist of your objection for purposes of record, please.

  • Your Honour, the basis of the objection is that counsel was misstating the evidence when he attributed certain statements made by Keita, who was a witness in this Court, as saying that he referred to Benjamin Yeaten as "Chief". The position is that he was misstating the record.

  • It appears to me that even what Mr Cayley said with regards to this issue is not recorded. It has just disappeared.

  • Yes, I am going to ask - now that Mr Bangura has stated his objection for the purpose of the record I will ask Mr Cayley to record his reply again for purposes of record.

  • Not the reply. The whole issue is not recorded.

  • The questions that were put by Mr Cayley to the witness for the last seven minutes are missing.

  • Madam Court Attendant, again we would request if you can check what has happened to that missing dialogue.

  • Your Honour, if it would assist the Court those minutes will be available on the final transcript, because the system has been restarted and I think the technicians have done their utmost best.

  • Do you want me to respond? Sorry, your Honour, do you want me to respond?

  • If you could just briefly respond again, Mr Cayley.

  • The evidence, as I read it in the transcript, is that Abu Keita was asked about radio communications between Bockarie and Yeaten, and my learned friend, Mr Anyah, put to him the issue of these code names and he was asked the question. So I mean in essence he was not on the radio himself, but he heard these conversations and it was put to him and I mean I will read to you so that there is no misunderstanding exactly what was said:

    "Q. I meant 'Director'. Did the use of the word

    'Director' mean Benjamin Yeaten when you were in Buedu?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And sometimes they would say they had spoken with

    somebody named 'Pa', or 'Papay', correct?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And those words also had a meaning regarding to whom

    they referred?

    A. Correct, yes.

    Q. Can you tell the Court when you heard the phrase 'The

    Chief' whom you knew that to mean?

    A. Chief Benjamin Yeaten".

    So, to me it is clear here at least that in conversations between Bockarie and Yeaten that Yeaten was referred to as "The Chief" on the radio network.

  • Well, Mr Bangura, why do you say that Mr Cayley has misstated the evidence?

  • Your Honours, the position is that counsel was putting to the witness that Keita, who was a witness in this Court, had on a radio communication referred to Yeaten as "Chief" and that is not the position here. Your Honours, if we go back to page 2134, starting from line 6, where it reads where the witness answers "Yes", and then the question which follows is:

    "Q. And on some other occasions you knew that they had

    been speaking with somebody from Monrovia because of what

    either Bockarie or Sesay told you, correct?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Sometimes Bockarie would say they had spoken to 'The

    Chief', correct?

    A. Yes".

    The position is that he, Keita, was talking about what Bockarie had discussed on the radio and had told him, and that was the issue that the witness was questioned on and that was the basis on which he was questioned about who he knew was referred to as "Chief" and he said "Yeaten". It is a different situation from the way counsel was putting it to the witness as though Keita himself had on the radio been speaking and referring to Yeaten as "Chief". Thank you, your Honours.

  • Mr Cayley, it appears to the Bench that this is a dispute about context, rather than what was actually recorded by and attributed to the witness, Abu Keita, so if you could reword your question to avoid any misunderstanding.

  • Your Honour, I think the objection has successfully done away with the cross-examination here and so I will actually move on. Thank you:

  • Witness, you will recall in your evidence on Monday you said that in 1994 Mr Sankoh and Mr Taylor had a conversation where Mr Taylor was giving military advice to Foday Sankoh. Do you recall that evidence?

  • Repeat your question.

  • On Monday, when you commenced your evidence, you said that in 1994 Mr Taylor - Charles Taylor - was giving Foday Sankoh military advice. Do you recall that evidence? I will quote it to you so that you can recall it. You said that:

    "Charles Taylor advised Mr Sankoh, 'You should stop attacking'. He said, 'You should use guerilla tactics at this point so you will be able to gain from the government troops'. He said, 'You should make sure you set an ambush and secondly you should avoid towns', and indeed that was how it happened".

    Do you recall that evidence?

  • Now Foday Sankoh was a professional soldier, wasn't he?

  • And you know that Charles Taylor is by profession an economist? You know that, don't you?

  • Well, I don't know Charles Taylor's profession as an economist. I don't know.

  • You know that Charles Taylor is not a professional soldier, don't you, witness?

  • I don't know whether Charles Taylor is a professional soldier. I don't know about that.

  • Charles Taylor never served in the army, did he?

  • I don't know whether Charles Taylor ever served in the military.

  • Foday Sankoh -- [overlapping speakers]

  • Before he only served as a military man during the war as a gun carrier during the war that I know about, but that he joined any national army I don't know.

  • But Foday Sankoh had done service in the army, hadn't he, before this war?

  • Yes, Foday Sankoh was a Sierra Leone army Corporal before the war.

  • Is your evidence that Charles Taylor was a military adviser to Foday Sankoh?

  • Yes, that is my evidence and it is possible.

  • Could we please get out Prosecution exhibit MFI-21, which I think is part of the [Redacted].

  • I think a name has been mentioned and it will have to be redacted. Mr Cayley, we are in open session and you are to avoid.

  • I apologise, your Honours.

  • For purposes of persons in the public gallery, the name that has just been mentioned is not to be repeated.

  • I will refer to it as I think it is witness 371. It is actually this diagram. It is MFI-17. It does not have the name of the witness marked on it in any way. Can I just check the document to make sure it has not been marked by the witness in any way? Yes, that is fine. Thank you.

  • Your Honour, just before my learned friend moves on with this, can we just clarify that that piece of evidence will be cut from the tape?

  • I have already ordered it be redacted. The order is being drafted as you speak, Mr Bangura.

  • My apologies, your Honour. It was a slip, I am sorry.

  • Mr Cayley, that will be MFI-21, not 17.

  • I am sorry, I apologise. It is MFI-17. I apologise, your Honour. You are quite right:

  • Now, witness, can you take a look at this document, please. Do you see that in front of you?

  • [Microphone not activated] Yes, I am seeing it.

  • Your Honour, could the witness put on his mic, please?

  • [Microphone not activated]

  • I have checked it, your Honour, but I mean you are welcome to take a look at it if you wish.

  • [Microphone not activated]

  • Now, this is the NPFL command structure in 1990/1991 and you see Charles Taylor and do you see there that the military advisers included Foday Sankoh and Dr Manneh? Do you see that? Do you need your spectacles? Can you see?

  • Your Honour, may --

  • I have seen. I have seen. Military adviser I have seen.

  • We actually are disadvantaged that we don't have a copy of this document at the moment. If there is a copy around that --

  • It is on the screen, Mr Bangura.

  • We may want to take a closer look at it.

  • It is a Prosecution exhibit, your Honour.

  • It is, as I understand it, marked for identification at the moment. We don't have it. I don't have it handy actually.

  • It is on the screen and you will have to work as we are all working here, Mr Bangura.

  • All right. I will go along with that.

  • I mean, if they want I can give them a Defence copy. I can work off the screen.

  • Justice Sebutinde has a spare copy. Her own copy.

  • Now, witness, you can see here that the Prosecution, through this witness 371, are representing that Foday Sankoh was a military adviser to Charles Taylor. Do you see that?

  • [Microphone not activated] I have seen it on the paper.

  • Your Honours, the witness's mic is still not on.

  • Can you turn your mic on?

  • Yes, I am seeing it on the paper. I see Foday Sankoh as adviser and another, Dr Manneh.

  • Now it would make sense, wouldn't it, that Sankoh during this time period would be giving military advice to Charles Taylor because he was a professional soldier, correct?

  • Well this diagram is indicating about Liberia, not Sierra Leone, so I cannot say that this is correct, or that Foday Sankoh was adviser to Charles Taylor.

  • So, you believe this diagram incorrectly represents the situation in 1991. Is that what you are saying?

  • This diagram in front of you does not correctly represent the situation in 1990 and 1991 in Liberia. Is that your evidence?

  • Mr Cayley, I thought the witness said, "I cannot say".

  • I don't know about this diagram, because there is no indication about RUF.

  • Witness, would you not accept that it would seem very odd indeed for a man like Mr Taylor, with no military experience at all, giving military advice to a professional soldier?

  • Say again.

  • Would you accept that it would seem very odd indeed for a man with no military experience like Mr Taylor giving military advice to a professional soldier like Foday Sankoh?

  • Well this can happen, because if Mr Taylor never had military advice he wouldn't have brought war into Liberia and he wouldn't have involved Mr Sankoh. This can happen. This man could be a civilian today, but then having more experience in having one or two years' training getting more experience than an old man who had been in the military.

  • And how long had Foday Sankoh been in the military for?

  • Well, this is a story that I cannot narrate how long he was in the military. If you ask me how long Foday Sankoh was in Sierra Leone fighting as an RUF, maybe I would be able to tell you that.

  • But it would be right, wouldn't it, that Foday Sankoh had done more than five years' service in the Sierra Leonean army, hadn't he?

  • Well, I said that I don't know. Whether he served a year, one month or one year, I don't know.

  • Well I am putting it to you, witness, that that conversation between Foday Sankoh and Charles Taylor, with Charles Taylor giving Foday Sankoh military advice, it never took place. It is untrue, isn't it, that statement that you made?

  • Well I am also defending that it is true and this diagram that you are showing to me, where it is written Foday Sankoh as military adviser, this was the NPFL action time.

  • Now, let us move on and let us move on to your evidence that you gave on 5 February. Now, you stated in your evidence that all messages on the net should be monitored by the operator and written down even if not addressed to his commander. Do you recall that evidence?

  • Yes.

  • That is right, isn't it?

  • And messages were written down in a logbook, weren't they?

  • And you said on Tuesday, contrary to your evidence today, that logbooks were kept forever. Do you want me to read that evidence back to you from my notes?

  • You were asked a question by Mr Bangura:

    "Q. Witness, you mentioned that when the message is received it is first noted. It is first written down in the rough book and when you say rough book what do you mean?"

    Then this is your answer:

    "A. Well, I said rough book. It is on the paper or on exercise book when you get an encoded message. That book we will even burn at any time, but when we transfer it from rough book the book into which it is transferred is what we call logbook. That is a document we will keep forever".

    Is that true, that statement?

  • Yes, but in case you kept this document and government troops or Kamajors attacked you, you definitely will have to lose it, and during the time of disarmament we never used to keep those things. Some people destroyed them by burning.

  • Let us move on, witness, because we have dealt with that issue now. Now Bockarie had a satellite telephone, didn't he, in 1998/1999? You said that on Tuesday. Do you recall that evidence?

  • Yes, I said it.

  • And whenever he received a message on that telephone that message would be transmitted to all RUF stations, wouldn't it?

  • And all the movement between Sam Bockarie and Charles Taylor, those movements were also transmitted over the RUF stations, weren't they?

  • You amongst yourselves, the radio operators, you did not hide anything from each other, did you?

  • And --

  • Yes you did hide or, no, you didn't hide? What does the "yes" mean?

  • Witness, I am sorry, my question was not a very good one. Amongst the radio operators nothing was hidden from each other? You did not hide anything from each other, did you, in terms of communications?

  • Yes, we never used to hide anything from each other in terms of communication.

  • And messages from Sam Bockarie about mining diamonds in order to secure supplies from Charles Taylor were almost continuous, weren't they, on the radio net? That is your evidence, isn't it?

  • Yes, that is my evidence.

  • And that was from 1990 when? What was the period? 1995 through to disarmament?

  • It was from 1998.

  • Through to disarmament?

  • Could the witness please be shown tab 25 and I will just find out what the MFI number is.

  • In the bundle of evidence for this particular witness. The OTP evidence, your Honour.

  • I don't have an MFI number for it. I wonder if my learned friend can help me?

  • [Microphone not activated]

  • Yes, do you know what the MFI number is?

  • We have only two pages, which was MFI-P42 and P43.

  • Yes, that is correct. The two pages, yes. This was the problem that I raised. I would like to refer to the rest of the document now. I think the Court Manager has gone to actually get the document.

  • Madam Court Attendant, we need your assistance to get a marked for identification document. Can you give us the number again, please, Mr Cayley.

  • Yes, it is as Judge Sebutinde stated, your Honour. It is only two pages which are MFI-42, that is ERN number 8738, and MFI-43 which is 8764. Actually, let me just ask him some questions about the whole document to start with and then in fact the first page that I want to look at is 8732:

  • Witness, this logbook is one of those that was not destroyed or went missing, correct? Witness, do you hear me?

  • Yes, yes, I am getting you clear.

  • This logbook is one of those that did not go missing or get destroyed, right?

  • Yes, this is one of the logbooks.

  • Do you know which station this logbook relates to?

  • This is from Buedu, Sam Bockarie's radio station.

  • And this message book will contain all of the information that we have just referred to, wouldn't it? It would contain all the messages about mining in order to get supplies from Charles Taylor, wouldn't it?

  • I said it in my statement. You asked me a question and I said most of the messages were by categories. There were messages for the RUF logbook and there were messages that were there for Sam Bockarie, Foday Sankoh, or Charles Taylor. These were separate books, but this was a logbook from Sam Bockarie's radio station.

  • And you have stated that the messages from Sam Bockarie about mining diamonds in order to get supplies from Charles Taylor were continuous and this message book will at least refer to some of those messages, wouldn't it?

  • Yes, this message book will refer to some of the messages from the RUF, but I don't know if it is - they are in here because I haven't gone through the message book.

  • Let's go through it and have a look, and it is quite easy to do with this particular book because as you know Sam Bockarie gives his letter of resignation at the end of 1999 and so what I want to do is to travel through that section of the message book with you and see if indeed this continuous stream of messages about mining diamonds for Charles Taylor are contained in the book. Shall we do that together, yes?

  • Yes, let's check through and then if - when you look at the date of this message this logbook is even from 1991, not even at the start of 1998. This was late 1991 - I mean, 1999 - the one that I am having now, according to the dates above the messages.

  • And 1999 comes after 1998, doesn't it?

  • The year 1999 comes after 1998, doesn't it?

  • This is 1999. It is not even 1998 and this is late 1999 logbook.

  • You stated in your evidence earlier that the messages about mining and Charles Taylor commenced in 1998. That is what you said earlier today, didn't you?

  • And this logbook is from 1999, isn't it?

  • Yes, I want you to say that this is from late 1999.

  • Well we will give a date to each of the messages, witness. Now can you please first of all turn to page 8732, that is the last four digits of the ERN number, and there is a message on this page: [This document was not supplied]

    "To - Concord

    Info - Smile

    From - SSS

    Subject - suggestion.

    Sir, I suggest that the first thing you are to inform the leader is that the materials captured from the Guineans should be the first thing to hand over. According to information the AK rounds is more than 50 boxes, more than 35 boxes of RPG bombs and more than 35 boxes of grenades with many weapons".

    Now that particular message refers to capturing arms and ammunition from Guineans, doesn't it?

  • Yes.

  • It is dated 14 October 1999, correct?

  • Yes, it is correct.

  • Now, let's turn to 8735. And what I am doing here, witness, is limiting the messages that we look at to supplies only, but my learned friend across the well is welcome to cover any ground with you on re-examination on the other messages. So, that is how I am selecting messages. Now, this message is dated 21 October 1999, it is to Smile from Colonel Nya, who you have mentioned, and this message (and I will only read part of it):

  • [This document was not supplied]

    "Sir, I am in possession of one Land Cruiser which planted with one codan set. Same was not commandeered by me but a bodyguard commander of Superman.

    Equally so, Superman is also in possession of 2 NGO vehicles, one Land Cruiser in which he has planted BMG and one other from Catholic mission presently controlled by his secretary".

    The message then goes on the deal with the handing over of the vehicles, but you would agree with me that this particular message concerns in essence the possession of motor vehicles by the RUF that appeared to have been commandeered from NGOs, yes?

  • Yes, this message concerns that property.

  • Now let us go to 8739, top of the page: [This document was not supplied]

    "To - Black Moses

    From - Survival

    28/10/1999

    Sir, we are totally lack of food. Soldiers are grumbling. Sir, I suggest that if the food can proceed to Rogbane Junction I will make it possible to collect it to my point".

    Let us now go to 8741. Are you on 8741, witness? Do you see that?

  • The message at the bottom of the page: [This document was not supplied]

    "To - Smile

    From - Gaffa.

    Sub - Respond.

    Date - 2/11/19 ..." --

  • Please hold on.

  • Do you have it, witness?

  • "To - Smile

    From - Gaffa

    Sub - Respond

    Sir, your instruction was well received and content well understood. I am now awaiting Colonel ..." --

  • Your Honours, can learned counsel slow down please.

  • "I am now awaiting Colonel Isaac, who is now en route from Kamabai ..." [K-A-M-A-B-A-I] "... so as to move very fast to the mentioned location where we will be picked up for your location.

    Sir, on the issue of the NGO's looted vehicles I want to make it very clear to you that I never commandeered any".

    Then he goes on to explain what happened and I won't read the rest of it and that message is from 2 November 1999.

    If you could go over the page, witness, to 8742, message at the bottom of the page dated 4 November 1999: [This document was not supplied]

    "To - Smile

    From - Survival

    Subject - Infos

    Sir, I have received Colonel Eagle and others, but Superman refused to hand over the material. I issued them during the incursion at Lunsar. It includes 14 RPG bombs and 7 boxes of AK rounds. Sir, accept for your info".

    Now we are going to go well ahead to 8754, top of the page dated 25 November 1999: [This document was not supplied]

    "To - Smile

    From - Log

    Sir, be informed that I have received series of messages from various call signs in respect of food, drugs, salt and [indiscernible] shortage and I have completely run out of fund.

    Sir, with regards to this your assistance is highly needed".

    And then if we can go to 8764 and that is MFI-43 and that is the letter of resignation from Sam Bockarie, correct?

  • Yes.

  • Now, this is a radio logbook - a period of a radio logbook that I have been through - that covers the time between 23 September 1999 and 19 December 1999, correct?

  • Yes.

  • And it refers to the provision of ammunition and food within the RUF, doesn't it?

  • The messages that we have just read out some of them refer to the provision of ammunition and the provision of food, or a request for food and a request for ammunition. They concern the subject - let me start again. Some of the messages that I read out the subject matter was ammunition and in other ones the subject matter is food. Is that correct?

  • And none of these messages refer to Charles Taylor, do they? None of them refer to Charles Taylor providing ammunition over this period, do they?

  • Yes, in this message logbook there is not - the ones that we have read there is none that talks about Charles Taylor.

  • Now, witness, I have been through this logbook, we don't have time to do it, and there aren't any messages in there that refer to Charles Taylor. Witness, you are lying, aren't you, when you say that Charles Taylor and Sam Bockarie were in communication with each other concerning the provision of ammunition by Charles Taylor to Sam Bockarie and the RUF? You are lying, aren't you?

  • Well, I am also defending that I am not telling a lie. If you are talking about this message it is not a lie, because the date on the message at that time there was no fighting and in my testimony before when Foday Sankoh was released that was the time those messages were coming out. At that time there was no fighting and I said the time Foday Sankoh was released he was in Freetown with UN. At that time the diamonds that Issa was collecting he used to take them straight to Freetown, Gibril Massaquoi used to do that, so at this time Charles Taylor was not concerned during this time.

  • There are no messages within this logbook concerning the supply of diamonds from the RUF to Charles Taylor, are there, witness, of the ones that we have read?

  • I have not gone through all the messages in this book and this is not the only logbook for Sam Bockarie.

  • So, you are saying that messages between Charles Taylor and Sam Bockarie are contained in another logbook. Is that your evidence now?

  • Yes, I would say so.

  • And which logbook would that be, witness?

  • Well, I will tell you that one station would have one or two logbooks. It depends on the messages they received. Charles Taylor's messages were separate messages and they were kept in different logbooks.

  • You are lying on this issue and you know you are lying and now you are making this account up, aren't you, about a separate logbook for Charles Taylor and Sam Bockarie's communications?

  • No, that is not correct.

  • Now, witness, you stated yesterday - and I have a note of this - that from 1993 the overland supply route from Liberia into Sierra Leone was blocked. That is correct, isn't it?

  • Yes, it was blocked.

  • And it was blocked by ULIMO forces, wasn't it?

  • Yes, it was the ULIMO forces who blocked the road.

  • And that supply route was still blocked until at least March of 1997, wasn't it?

  • Yes, from 1997 the route was not cleared.

  • And how far into 1997, in your recollection, was the route blocked?

  • Well during 1997 ULIMO occupied the border, but it got to a point when after Mr Taylor had become President they were not there any more.

  • So, in August 1997 is it your evidence that the route opened up again? The overland route from Liberia into Sierra Leone?

  • I cannot state any date or time that the road was opened from Liberia to Sierra Leone.

  • But to the best of your recollection it was when Charles Taylor become President of Liberia, is that right?

  • If the witness please could be shown MFI-38, which is the salute report document, tab 24 I think for this witness, although it has already been exhibited in respect of 371. Could you please give it to the witness actually to take a look at:

  • Witness, have you seen this document before?

  • Yes, I have seen it.

  • When was the first time that you saw this document?

  • Please allow me to go through it.

  • Take all the time that you need, witness. Witness, can I make a suggestion and I will certainly let you read the relevant pages in full so that I am not accused of taking things out of context. Do you want to look at the signature at the back of the document and see if you recognise that? It is on the last page, witness. Is that Sam Bockarie's signature?

  • Yes.

  • When was the first time that you saw this document?

  • I saw this at the [Redacted].

  • Also that reference to that trial - I am sorry, Mr Bangura.

  • Your Honour, I was going to address the issue.

  • The reference by the witness to a previous trial is to be redacted, and again I address the people in the public gallery that that is not to be recorded or repeated.

  • I apologise for that, your Honour.

  • It was inadvertent. I thought that Mr Bangura had showed it to him, but clearly not:

  • So, witness, without referring to the time that you actually saw this document, you have seen it before?

  • It is signed by Sam Bockarie?

  • Yes, Sam Bockarie signed this document.

  • Now, I want to briefly refresh your memory on some issues that you spoke about yesterday before we actually look at the document and I want you to direct your mind to the episode in Kono, do you recall that, in terms of this is the time - it is 1998 and you have come back from Freetown? Do you recall that time? This is when you gave evidence to the effect that Charles Taylor instructed Sam Bockarie to take the Kono diamond mining area and he provided weapons for that particular attack. Do you recall that evidence?

  • Yes.

  • Now in your evidence, when you gave evidence on this I think it was yesterday, it may have been the day before, my learned friend can correct me, you stated that Sam Bockarie gave specific instructions that the Kono mining diamond area should be secured, right?

  • Yes, that is correct. To secure Kono mining area from Sam Bockarie.

  • And that Charles Taylor had given the order to do that and had provided weapons for that purpose, is that right? Weapons and ammunition?

  • Yes, that is correct that Charles Taylor did that.

  • Let's have a look at this document again, if it can be put on the ELMO screen, and I will read to you from about halfway down the page. If it could be moved up. (Sorry, it is 9662, Madam Court Manager. I apologise). Let me read it:

    "Back at headquarters I renewed my contact with ULIMO and tried to secure materials from them. It was out of these materials that I gave Superman a good quantity to attack and capture Kono. This move I thought would pressure the government into abandoning their mock trial against you and provide us with the ground necessary to move the war and the movement forward.

    Superman used the materials to attack Kono and was able to control parts of Koidu Town. Though they were able to raise the ammo dump, they then concentrated on looting and later withdrew leaving the enemy to reoccupy the town. Even prior to that, all instructions to maintain the ground were not implemented".

    Now, witness, you see here what is happening. Sam Bockarie is saying that the weapons for that attack on Kono in 1998 came from ULIMO. You see that, don't you?

  • I have seen it written.

  • Now you were lying, weren't you, when you said that it was Charles Taylor who provided the weapons for this attack? Weren't you?

  • I did not tell a lie. Charles Taylor supplied those weapons for that attack.

  • So, is your evidence that Sam Bockarie is lying in a report to Foday Sankoh in 1999 about who provided the weapons for the attack on Kono? Is that your evidence? Did you hear the question, witness, that I put to you?

  • Is it your evidence that Sam Bockarie is lying about the identity of the people who provided the weapons for the attack on Kono? Is that your evidence?

  • So you are saying that Sam Bockarie in a report to Foday Sankoh is lying when he says that ULIMO provided those weapons. Is that what your evidence is?

  • That is the evidence I am giving. ULIMO did not give weapons to Sam Bockarie to attack Kono.

  • Now, witness, let's have a look at another issue. Now this is about the time coming up to the attack on Freetown, and you recall that with that particular attack you also said that Sam Bockarie came back from Liberia and said that Charles Taylor had ordered an attack to take place into Sierra Leone and that he had provided the weapons for that attack going towards Freetown. Do you recall that evidence? I can refresh your memory as to what you said.

  • Go ahead, sir.

  • What you said was:

    "When Sam Bockarie returned from Liberia, he sent a general message saying that the mission that was planned he has brought the materials. Rosos got their own arms and ammunition for this message that we had gone to Buedu to plan. What happened was that ours arrived in Kono, after which Kono was supposed to take them to Koinadugu, but after the arrival ..." --

  • Your Honours, I am asking counsel to go slowly.

  • "What happened was that ours arrived in Kono, after which Kono was supposed to have taken them to Koinadugu, but after the arrival of the ammunition in Koinadugu which was designed for Koinadugu and Rosos it was at a time that a serious problem erupted between Superman and SMG Musa".

    Do you remember that evidence, witness?

  • Now if you would just give me a moment, your Honour, please:

  • Now, referring to the same attack you gave this evidence and this is Superman giving instructions about the Freetown attack. Question from Mr Bangura:

    "Q. Did Sam Bockarie discuss any other matters?

    A. Yes, he also told Superman that he should go and join

    SAJ Musa in Koinadugu District for a fast and smooth

    operation because SAJ Musa was not so good at jungle

    operations. That was also discussed and ammunition was

    given to plan for the location. In fact there was a

    message to that effect that he had gone and got

    instructions from Mr Taylor in Liberia", referring to

    Sam Bockarie.

    There is then a question put by my learned friend, Mr Bangura:

    "This proposed move for Superman to join SAJ Musa in

    Koinadugu, was it part of the plan that had been discussed

    in Buedu by Sam Bockarie?"

    Then your answer (and this is important, witness, so listen carefully):

    "Yes, I had said this earlier that it was a plan for SAJ

    Musa and Superman to join together and that they were

    responsible for Kabala and Makeni and that was part of the

    plan".

    Now that is your evidence, isn't it, that you gave on this subject?

  • Yes.

  • Let us take a look at the document again on the same page and I will read to you from the paragraph:

    "With the captured materials from Kono, Superman went to the Kabala axis to join SAJ Musa. I instructed him to send some materials to which he agreed. Later he refused to dispatch the materials and refused to grant permission to the receiving offer to return to me".

    Now the report is referring, isn't it, to the materials that Superman never delivered to who he should have delivered it to, isn't it? It tracks your evidence, doesn't it?

  • But the difference - the difference, witness - is that unlike your evidence Sam Bockarie is saying that the weapons that were being used were weapons that had been captured in Kono. Do you see that?

  • Yes, that is what the letter says.

  • He doesn't say, does he, "Oh, we were following up on a plan from Charles Taylor to attack Freetown and Charles Taylor has given us all this arms and ammunition", does he?

  • No, this document does not follow any plan of such.

  • So you were lying, weren't you, when you gave evidence and when you said that the arms and ammunition for this particular mission came from Charles Taylor? You were lying about that, weren't you?

  • I am not telling a lie.

  • And you were lying about the fact that Charles Taylor was the one that came up with the plan to attack Freetown, weren't you?

  • It is not a lie. He came up with the plan to attack Freetown.

  • Very well. Now we have been over this a little bit before, but let us go over it again. Now, you said that Sam Bockarie regularly stated over the radio network that he was going to Sierra Leone to collect arms and ammunition from Charles Taylor.

  • Are you sure it was Sierra Leone, Mr Cayley?

  • I am sorry, from Liberia. I apologise, your Honour. A slip:

  • Let me repeat the question for you, witness. You stated in your evidence, didn't you, that Sam Bockarie regularly transmitted over the radio network that he was going to Liberia to collect arms and ammunition from Charles Taylor, didn't you?

  • Can the witness be shown the bundle, please, that I put together of the Prosecution statements, and if your Honours we could go to tab 12, please:

  • Now, witness, these are interview notes that were taken on 30 October 2006 from you. Do you recall this interview?

  • Now, I am going to read from the bottom of the page where it begins "KAMARA" and I guess that is referring to you, isn't it?

  • Yes.

  • "KAMARA knows that arms and ammunition came from Liberia because that was their supply route. He also knows it because he heard Sam BOCKARIE tell Denis MINGO ... to wait for the arms and ammunition coming from Liberia. Troops took a vehicle from Buedu to Foya to collect the arms and ammunition. KAMARA doesn't know exactly who sent the arms and ammunition. He cannot recall Sam BOCKARIE saying anyone in particular. He says they all know the arms were coming from Charles TAYLOR".

    Did you say that, witness, on 30 October 2006?

  • Yes, I said that all of us knew that any arms or ammunition that came from Liberia it was from Charles Taylor.

  • But you also said, didn't you, witness, that you didn't exactly know who was actually sending those arms and ammunition, didn't you? Witness, you said, didn't you, in this interview, that you did not know exactly who sent the arms and ammunition? Witness, can you hear me?

  • Yes, I can hear you clearly.

  • You said, didn't you, during this interview, that you did not know exactly who sent the arms and ammunition? Are you going to answer this question, witness?

  • Mr Witness, did you understand the question?

  • Let him repeat the question.

  • You have the document that counsel is referring to in front of you. You are able to read what is written there?

  • Well, it is the last part of that and the beginning of 24973.

    Please put your question again, Mr Cayley.

  • Thank you, Madam President:

  • Witness, in this interview --

  • Let me know when you have read the statement, witness. It is the top paragraph, 4973, the first six lines. Do you have it?

  • Yes, I have seen it now. I have seen it.

  • You read English well, don't you?

  • You have read it witness, yes?

  • Yes, I have read the first paragraph. Yes, I have read it.

  • You said on 30 October of 2006 that you didn't know exactly who sent the arms and ammunition, referring to arms and ammunition coming from Liberia? You said that, didn't you?

  • And it is a fact, isn't it, that in essence you assumed that anything that was coming from Liberia was coming from Charles Taylor, didn't you?

  • No, I did not just assume. I knew that any supply that came from Liberia it was from Charles Taylor, and during this period Charles Taylor sent this particular ammunition for Denis Mingo.

  • Let us be clear, witness. You said in this interview, obviously when asked specifically who was sending the arms and ammunition from Liberia, you didn't know, did you?

  • This I knew. I knew who sent those ammunition.

  • If you knew, why did you tell the Office of the Prosecutor that you didn't exactly know who sent the ammunition? Why?

  • Your answer, Mr Witness?

  • From according to this statement, that is not what I told the Prosecution.

  • Do you want me to read the sentence again for you, witness, if it is not clear?

  • Yes, read it again.

  • "KAMARA doesn't know exactly who sent the arms and ammunition. He cannot recall Sam BOCKARIE saying anyone in particular". You said that, didn't you?

  • I cannot remember much of this really, this statement. I cannot remember much of this that I said Sam Bockarie never told anybody who he took this ammunition from. I cannot recall saying this.

  • Your recollection fades, doesn't it, when the questions get difficult to answer?

  • No.

  • Now, witness, you were never present, were you, when Sam Bockarie was supposedly meeting with Charles Taylor? You were never present personally in Liberia, were you?

  • No, I was not in Liberia.

  • So in terms of your own experience, in terms of your own physical presence, you cannot say whether Sam Bockarie and Charles Taylor ever met at all, can you?

  • I was not in Liberia, but radio messages proved that Sam Bockarie and Charles used to meet.

  • That was not the question I asked you and I will put the question to you again. You cannot say truthfully, can you, that Charles Taylor and Sam Bockarie ever met, because you were never there, were you?

  • I was not there when they met, but I knew that they met, but I was not there in person when Charles Taylor and Bockarie met together.

  • Let's move on and I want to now discuss with you - (if I could just have a moment, your Honour, to put this file back). Thank you. Witness, I want to refresh your memory about some evidence that you gave on Tuesday, the day before yesterday, and this concerns Magburaka. This was when you were based at Makeni. Do you recall that evidence?

  • Yes.

  • Let me just read it to refresh your memory so that you can focus your mind:

    "They constructed an airstrip two or three miles off Magburaka. That is where the plane landed at night and dropped the arms and ammunition at one time I was given order together with Mr Alpha. Mr Alpha was an administrator in Makeni under the RUF. Both of us moved with his Land Rover and, according to the order which came from Issa Sesay, he said the RUF who were based in Makeni they should go and receive their own ammunition at the Magburaka airstrip. Very early in the morning, at about 5 to 6 a.m., we went there with the Land Rover and when we got there we saw different vehicles from various areas, Kenema, Freetown, Bo, who came to collect their own ammunition. But this plane landed at night. It was at night that it landed. When it took off, we reached there. We just met that all the arms and ammunition were in boxes and they were distributed by groups. As we got there we went straight towards our own ammunition, we loaded them into the Land Rover and then we moved. And this happened not just one time, but myself I only went there once to collect ammunition".

    Is that right?

  • Yes.

  • And am I right in saying that that event took place towards the end of 1997? Can you recall?

  • Yes, this event was happening around the end of 1997.

  • And this was an arms shipment from Charles Taylor, right?

  • I don't know, because I didn't know if these arms at this time were coming from Charles Taylor.

  • You don't know, do you, where this arms shipment came from?

  • I didn't know. I didn't know where that arms shipment came from.

  • This is the only arms shipment which you personally experienced, didn't you? The arrival of arms, it is the only one that you personally experienced? In other words, what I am saying is this is the only one where you were present at or around the time the arms and ammunition were delivered, right?

  • Yes, it was the only time that I went to collect arms and ammunition. When I saw the airfield when we went to collect arms from Makeni, that was the only time I went there.

  • And the only time that you were ever involved in the collection of arms and ammunition you have no clue, do you, who supplied those arms and ammunition?

  • At that time, yes, I didn't know who supplied that particular set of ammunitions. I didn't know.

  • Very well, let's move on. I want to now address with you the issue of the bank.

    (Actually, your Honour, this will go on a while. I can go on until 11.30 or we can take an early break, but it is a new subject area. Whatever you wish, your Honour.

  • I think in the circumstances, Mr Cayley, I think it would be neat to break now. We will take the 30 minute break and resume at 10.55.

  • Thank you, your Honour.

  • Madam Court Attendant, please - did I get that time wrong? 11.55 should I have said? Yes.

  • [Break taken at 11.25 a.m.]

  • [Upon resuming at 11.55 a.m.]

  • I note Mr Koumjian has left your Bar, Mr Bangura.

  • Indeed, your Honour.

  • Thank you. If there's no other matters, Mr Cayley please proceed.

  • Thank you, your Honour.

  • Witness, I'd like to move to a new area now and I'd like you to direct your mind, please, to the robbery that took place at the Commercial Bank in Koidu Town. Do you recall that event?

  • Yes, I can remember.

  • And I think your evidence on Tuesday was that Sam Bockarie had come to an arrangement with Mr Taylor to destroy the bank in Koidu and take the money from the bank. That's right, isn't it?

  • Yes.

  • And your evidence was, I think, based on my note, that Sam Bockarie issued orders to Superman to destroy the bank and take the money that was inside. Right?

  • Yes, that was what Sam Bockarie said.

  • And I think you then explained to the judges that you saw a big cup - after the breaking in to the bank you saw a big cup which had diamonds and money within it. Yes?

  • Yes, that was what I said.

  • And that cup was in Superman's possession at the time that you saw it. Right?

  • Mr Cayley, there was only diamonds in the cup, not diamonds and money.

  • I apologise, your Honour. Can I just clarify that with the witness:

  • There were only diamonds in the cup, correct, witness?

  • Yes, you're correct, only diamonds were in the cup.

  • Did you see money as well, cash?

  • Yes, I saw money in a bag, in a plastic bag.

  • So the diamonds were in the cup and the money was in a bag?

  • Yes. The diamond was in a cup and the Sierra Leone currency was in a travelling bag and the other currency was in a plastic bag.

  • Thank you, your Honour, for the correction:

  • Now, Witness, what I'd like to do now is to go into closed session and I'll make an application and I'll explain to you why. Your Honours, can we go into closed session, please, and I can explain to you why once we've gone into closed session?

  • Could we do the application in a private session so --

  • So the voices aren't heard.

  • Can that be implemented, Madam Court Attendant?

  • Your Honours, while this is being dealt with I was just wondering whether my learned friend intends to continue for the rest of his cross-examination in closed session or does he have a considerable chunk of it to be dealt with, so that all that could be --

  • [At this point in the proceedings, a portion of the transcript, pages 3357 to 3391, was extracted and sealed under separate cover, as the proceeding was heard in private session.]

  • [Open session]

  • [Upon resuming at 2.28 p.m.]

  • Just before I deal with the open private session business, I just note changes of appearances. Mr Santora is here, is that correct, Mr Bangura? No, Mr Werner.

  • Your Honours, Alain Werner joins the Prosecution.

  • And we welcome back Mr Terry Munyard, your Honour.

  • Thank you, Mr Cayley. Now, I understand that the private session questions are now complete and we can safely revert to open session and I understand that has been implemented.

  • That is correct, your Honour.

  • Very well. We are ready to proceed. I did say that I would record publicly that, in accordance with the rules, we had to go into private session for the purposes of security of the witness and I put that on public record.

    Please proceed, Mr Cayley.

  • May it please the Court:

  • Witness, when did the disarmament process commence for you in Sierra Leone?

  • The disarmament process that I can remember was in 2001.

  • And I am right in saying that the requirement for you within that disarmament process was to hand over your weapons and ammunition to representatives of the international community, is that right?

  • Yes.

  • And did you hand over all your weapons and ammunition, you personally?

  • Yes, the one I had I handed it over to the people who disarmed us.

  • And it is fair to say that during that time period all of the RUF handed over their weapons, right? Their weapons and ammunition, right?

  • Yes, the RUF who were in Sierra Leone handed over their weapons.

  • So by the time the disarmament process was completed nobody within the RUF had any weapons or ammunition, right?

  • No. In Sierra Leone, yes, but we had RUF groups in Liberia.

  • But within Sierra Leone itself, at the end of the disarmament process none of the RUF members had any weapons or ammunition, right?

  • Now you are aware, aren't you, that the same process of disarmament went on in 1996, aren't you?

  • You are aware, aren't you, that the same process that you have just described, this same disarmament process, went on in Liberia in 1996, didn't it?

  • Yes, I heard it over the radio, but I was not there then.

  • And you are aware that the NPFL forces of Mr Taylor were required to disarm, the LPC was required to disarm and the LDC were required to disarm. You know that, don't you?

  • Say again?

  • You are aware that during the disarmament process in Liberia the LPC were required to disarm, the LDC were required to disarm and the NPFL were required to disarm, weren't they?

  • Well that was what I learnt, but I was not there for their disarmament.

  • But you learnt that in essence the armed forces that had been present in Liberia had been disarmed in 1996, right?

  • And you see as a result of that disarmament process, Mr Taylor and the NPFL they didn't have any weapons, did they?

  • I didn't know if they had weapons.

  • But you would accept, wouldn't you, that if they disarmed, as you have agreed, as you did in Sierra Leone, the NPFL and Mr Taylor wouldn't have any weapons if they had handed them all to the international community, would they? It is logical, isn't it?

  • No, I cannot conclude like that, because I know in Sierra Leone we disarmed, but for Liberia I don't know about them. I don't know if they disarmed completely and so I cannot tell you that they disarmed. I heard over the BBC that they were disarming in Liberia, but I didn't know if Mr Taylor's men disarmed completely.

  • Because the point is this. Mr Taylor and the NPFL had disarmed and if they had disarmed Mr Taylor would not have any weapons to send to the RUF, would he, after 1996, if he didn't have any weapons of his own, would he?

  • That is why I told you that I don't know if Mr Taylor's men disarmed completely, I don't know about that, and Mr Taylor never came out in the open and said that he disarmed to ECOMOG. I don't know.

  • I want to ask you a few questions about evidence that you gave yesterday concerning the UN peacekeepers and I want you to direct your mind to May of 2000. Can you do that for me?

  • Yes, I will do that for you.

  • To recap on your evidence, I think I am right in saying that you stated to the Court that in May of 2000 the RUF arrested and detained a number of UN peacekeepers in Sierra Leone. Is that right?

  • And you stated that Issa Sesay was asked by Mr Taylor to hand over those UN peacekeepers to him in Monrovia. Do you recall that evidence?

  • Yes, I recall the evidence.

  • And you explained how these UN peacekeepers were stripped naked and eventually taken to Foya, do you recall that?

  • Yes, that is what I said.

  • And I think you then explained that a helicopter came from Monrovia and you say it dropped off ammunition, then picked up the UN peacekeepers and returned to Monrovia. Do you recall that evidence?

  • Yes, I recall the evidence and it is true.

  • Now, witness, were you aware that the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr Kofi Annan, personally requested Mr Taylor to intervene in the arrest of these UN peacekeepers? Were you aware of that?

  • No, I was not aware of that.

  • Were you aware that Mr Taylor personally worked with ECOWAS to secure the release of these UN peacekeepers? Were you aware of that fact?

  • Were you aware that Mr Taylor worked personally with ECOWAS in order to secure the release of these individuals?

  • No, I was not aware personally that Mr Taylor worked with other authorities for the release of the UN. I didn't know about that.

  • And you were not aware, were you, either that resulting from international requests Mr Taylor sent a former Foreign Minister, Mr Cooper, a former Foreign Minister of Liberia, to Freetown to negotiate the release of these UN peacekeepers? You were not aware of that fact either, were you?

  • And I think finally on this point you were not aware either, were you, that the helicopter that was sent to pick up these individuals in Foya was a UN helicopter? You were not aware of that fact, were you?

  • No, it was not a UN helicopter. I was not aware that it was a UN helicopter. It was Mr Taylor's helicopter that they used to collect those people.

  • Witness, you are lying when you say that. It was a UN helicopter and it didn't contain ammunition, did it?

  • I am not telling lies. It was Charles Taylor's helicopter that came and received those people from Foya.

  • Now, finally, if the witness could be shown the bundle again:

  • Just a final question on the UN peacekeepers. Can you tell the Court where you were when the men in Foya - the UN peacekeepers - were picked up by the helicopter? Where were you at the time?

  • I was not in Foya. I was in Makeni.

  • So you were very far away, weren't you, from the site where these UN peacekeepers were picked up from?

  • Yes, I was far from them where they were taken to, that was Foya, but all the information that led to their release I had it in my file.

  • You personally did not witness the helicopter coming to Foya and picking up these UN peacekeepers, did you?

  • No, I was not there.

  • But there was a message to the effect that the helicopter had come to Foya to receive them. To receive the UN peacekeeping force.

  • If you could please turn to tab 20. Now, witness, when you get to the document I will explain to you what it is. Now, if you could turn to page 4 of 12 you will see the numbers in the bottom right-hand corner. Now, what this document is is it is a record of all of the payments made to you by the Office of the Prosecutor. Do you understand that?

  • I have not seen it clearly.

  • Well, let me just explain to you what it is. It is a record of all of the payments that have been made to you by the Office of the Prosecutor?

  • I am seeing the document.

  • It is a record of all of the payments made to you by the OTP. Do you understand what I am saying?

  • This is not a payment to me. It is transportation that I am seeing, or other things that I would use to come. It was not a payment made to me directly.

  • I don't dispute that at all, the money you were paid for transport and subsistence while you were giving statements. I am not disputing that, witness. Do you understand? I accept that. Do you hear me, witness?

  • Yes, I heard that. Go over the question. What is this?

  • Can you look at paragraph 15, number 15?

  • "... January 26, 2006 ... Accommodation, meals, assistance, and top up card for the next two days that this witness is assisting us", and you were paid 100,000 leones. Now, on this day you were not giving a statement to the OTP. Can you explain what you were doing to assist the OTP on that day?

  • I can't remember this date and so I can't recall what I was doing that I did not give statement on this day. I can't remember now.

  • Next one down, 16:

    "Accommodation, meals, repairs to motor vehicle and to top up phone card for two days that this witness is assisting us".

    On February 3, 2006, you are not giving a statement, Mr Witness, and I don't believe you were prepping for any evidence that you were going to give. Do you know what this particular payment was for?

  • Yes, I know, because where I was it is far from Freetown and so if I came to Freetown, if I moved with a vehicle to come to Freetown, or if I used my personal motorcycle, if anything was wrong with it they will take the responsibility, feeding and other things for me.

  • But the first time you gave a statement to the OTP in 2006 was in October. Did it take you from February to October of 2006 to travel to Freetown from where you live?

  • Are you talking from this document?

  • From this document.

  • Which part of this document?

  • 16. You were paid 250,000 leones on February 3, 2006. Do you see that?

  • Yes, I see.

  • From my understanding - and I can be corrected on this if I am wrong - there was no statement taken in 2006 until October of that year, so why did the OTP make this payment to you in February? What were you doing with the OTP in February?

  • Most of these payments I cannot say I remember the dates or times that I came to Freetown, but I used to come to Freetown frequently. Any time I was called I would come and they were responsible for my transport fare, feeding and other things. So I don't know the dates and times that they took statements from me and so I cannot confirm this to you, whether this time they failed to take statement from me or not, I don't know.

  • Let us look at paragraph 17, the next page, a payment made on 6 February 2006 of 500,000 leones, "50,000 [leones] to cover meals and transport. 450,000 [leones] to cover source information in assisting locating witness for Prosecutors Office". Do you you recall which witness you were finding on behalf of the Prosecutor's Office on this occasion?

  • Well, I can remember --

  • Your Honours, just before the witness answers the question, I don't know what answer he may give, but I am just concerned about him giving an answer which may reveal a name of a witness that is protected. That is my concern.

  • When you give your answer, Mr Witness, whatever it will be, do not name any other people.

  • Your Honour, there is actually a solution I can offer to the Prosecution which was what was done at the ICTY for years in this situation. If we just give him a piece of paper and he writes the name down and then he can show it to us.

  • If you need to mention a name, Mr witness, we will get some paper and have you write it.

  • Could you write down, please, witness, the name of the witness you were finding on behalf of the OTP? Don't mention the name. Don't mention the name. Can you write it down?

  • Before ever I can write this name, I don't know if they were looking for a witness. They asked me if I knew this person and I said, yes, I could find the person and I could locate the person, where the person was, but I didn't know whether the person was a witness.

  • Did you locate this person for the OTP?

  • This person, I located this person over a week. I could not locate this person, but I could recall the name.

  • So you looked for him but you couldn't find him, or her?

  • No, I couldn't see the person because this person they said he - the person was elsewhere and that was out of the country.

  • If you can write it down for us that would be helpful, thank you. (Thank you, Madam President). Now, witness, the next entry at 18, 7 February 2006, "1 night accommodation plus transport and meal to subject whilst assisting us with investigational matters". Now the investigational matters that you were helping the OTP with, was that concerning locating this person whose name you have written on the piece of paper?

  • What did you say? I did not get that clearly.

  • The payment at 18, do you see that? 50,000 leones, accommodation, transport and meal, do you see that?

  • Yes.

  • Paid to you on 7 February 2006 and I am trying to help you here. Was this money paid to you at the time - the investigational matters that this refers to, are we talking simply about trying to locate this person whose name you have written on the piece of paper?

  • This one, I cannot recall this one. This figure, no, I cannot recall. I did not come to Freetown only once and so most of the times I cannot recall now.

  • So, you do not recall what investigational matter you were assisting the OTP with at the time?

  • Yes, I can recall that.

  • What was the matter? Can you tell us what the investigational matter was on this date, 7 February?

  • Well, this 7 February I cannot recall what I was doing with OTP this 7 February.

  • Let us go to 20. Do you see 20? It is at the bottom of the page.

  • Here again you were given payment for three nights' accommodation, three days meal, transport and three days top up card, again assisting with an investigational matter. Again you were not giving a statement to the OTP on this day, as far as I know from the statements that have been disclosed to me, so can you explain to the Court what you were doing with the OTP in April 2006 in order to be paid 150,000 leones?

  • This is not a payment. You yourself have mentioned accommodation, feeding, transport. I don't think I will refer to this as payment for me, no.

  • What I am asking you is what were you doing at this time? I don't dispute what the payments were made for, but what I am asking is what were you doing because you were not giving a statement to anybody on this day? If you can't recall, we can move on. Do you not recall?

  • If we could now, please, go to paragraph 37 and that is on page 10 of 12, Wednesday 10 October 2007, "Top up card and repairs to small generator 30,000 plus 30,000", 60,000 leones. What is the generator that was repaired for you? Is that your generator?

  • Well, yes, it was the generator I was using where I was in Freetown.

  • Why did the OTP need to give you money to repair it?

  • They used to call me and when they called me if I had anything that needed repair at home they will send a mechanic to go and repair the generator at home, so they will give the money and I will give the money to the mechanic to do the work.

  • Again you were not giving a statement on this date, or anywhere near this date. Was that a regular practice that the OTP would come and repair household items where you were staying in Freetown?

  • All the times when they did that they would not just call me to give me money. They will call me to take a statement from me, they will call and ask me if I know this person, if I can show where this person is. Sometimes if I am sick I will be in the hospital, or I will be at the OTP giving them statements. They will not just invite me and give me money because they wanted to give me money.

  • And if you go to the final page you can see the total amount paid to you, the very final page. I think you need to turn - do you see that? It is just one entry, do you see it? Do you have that witness, yes?

  • And I think the OTP alone has paid you 2,615,025 leones in 41 payments. Does that sound right to you?

  • And I think aside from this sum - and I unfortunately don't have the figures with me - you have also been paid expenses for your transport and accommodation by the Victims and Witnesses Unit, haven't you?

  • Yes, they have been taking care of me. If I was sick they will take care of me, they will feed and accommodate me.

  • May I just turn my back on the Court, your Honour, for a moment? Thank you. I don't have any further questions for the witness, thank you, your Honour.

  • Thank you, Mr Cayley. Mr Bangura, re-examination?

  • Yes, your Honour, there will be a few questions in re-examination.

  • Just before you start, Mr Bangura, we have this name. This was adduced by you, Mr Cayley. It will be kept under seal and recorded?

  • Yes, your Honour. I think, yes.

  • You have seen the name, have you, Mr Bangura?

  • The Prosecution have seen the name, your Honour.

  • Is it a - I think we all recognise the name, but is this a person who requires protection from the Prosecution?

  • In that case this will be kept under seal, Madam Court Attendant. Will we put it in as a defence exhibit, Mr Cayley?

  • Yes, your Honour, I think that is fine. Perhaps, respectfully, might I suggest that we put it in an envelope, seal we the envelope and just give it an exhibit number and then it can just remain on the Court file.

  • Your Honour, I am confirming the Defence exhibit number. Your Honour, it will be Defence exhibit D-2.

  • [Exhibit D-2 admitted]

  • One piece of paper with handwriting D-2, Defence exhibit, to be kept confidentially under seal.

    I am sorry, Mr Bangura. I interrupted you.

  • Mr Witness, good afternoon again.

  • Good afternoon, sir.

  • Now, in answer to questions from counsel for the Defence you did say that the logbooks which were kept by the RUF were destroyed at the end of the war. Is that correct? Or at least some of the logbooks were destroyed at the end of the war, is that correct?

  • Yes, that is what I said.

  • Your Honour, I think that is a slight mischaracterisation of the evidence. I think when you take it in its totality he actually first of all said some were missing, then he said they were destroyed and then he said they were missing again. I think it would be safe to say destroyed and missing would be a fairer way of actually presenting the evidence.

  • I will not quarrel with that, your Honour:

  • You said that some of the logbooks were destroyed and some missing in the course of the - some were destroyed before the end of the war - some were missing before the end of the war and some were destroyed at the end of the war, is that correct? Was that not your answer?

  • Yes.

  • Now, let us focus on the ones which were destroyed. Why were they destroyed at the end of the war?

  • Well first of all let me start with the ones that were destroyed before the war, or in 1996. When the government troops attacked us some of the logbooks got lost, particularly in Zogoda, and those that remained with us during the time of disarmament the RUF was panicked. In fact, we got the information that if they saw people with any RUF document that person would be in trouble. As a result, most of us destroyed some of our logbooks.

  • Now, you said you were panicked and as a result you destroyed the logbooks. Why were you panicked?

  • Well, according to what we heard they said they had disarmed already and so if they saw any document that was RUF document they will arrest the person who had that document, so that made most of us in the RUF to be panicked and so we started destroying all the logs that we had. As for me personally, I destroyed mine.

  • Now when you said earlier in your testimony in which counsel asked you questions, you said that logbooks were kept and I believe you said forever, what did you mean?

  • It was not forever. I put it in my statement that during the time of our operation we kept these documents for reference, but when we were attacked at times the Kamajors, or government troops, would take it away. Whatever we used we used to keep them, but it got to a point where we could not keep them any longer. Some of us could not keep them any longer up to around this time.

  • Now, counsel asked you questions about diamonds that were taken from Johnny Paul Koroma and which you stated were lost by Issa Sesay. Do you remember that?

  • Yes, I can remember.

  • Now simply what was your - you were not there when all of this happened, correct?

  • I was not there when all of this happened.

  • What was your source of knowledge about these events?

  • Well, when this diamond issue came up Sam Bockarie wrote a message to all RUF stations, that is one, and even when we went to the meeting at Buedu I knew from them and when the delegation came from Buedu to come to Kono I knew about that as well.

  • Thank you. Now, counsel asked you questions about the fighting in Freetown and amongst some of the points that came up was the fact that before the fighters entered Freetown while they were at Waterloo Sam Bockarie had advised them not to enter Freetown. Is that correct?

  • Yes.

  • And you gave the reason why he said you should not enter Freetown, is that correct?

  • Yes, I gave a reason for that.

  • And you stated that the reason was because your manpower was not sufficient to enter Freetown at the time, is that correct?

  • Did Sam Bockarie discuss any plans that he had about addressing the manpower situation before you could enter Freetown?

  • No, after the radio conversation Gullit never had to contact Sam Bockarie again except when we entered Freetown. It was only when we entered Freetown. That was the time he was talking about manpower situation for them to reinforce the troops in Freetown from Waterloo.

  • Thank you. Now, you did say also that one of the reasons why you moved was because ECOMOG was running after you and your firepower had reduced. Is that correct?

  • Yes, I said that.

  • Now, what do you mean by when you said ECOMOG was running after you?

  • Well, the ECOMOG had more equipment than us. They had armoured tanks, jets and other mortar bombs and so they had heavier firepower than us. So, they chased us and attacked our position. That was the reason why we pulled out of Freetown.

  • Now once you were in Freetown, did Gullit take orders from anybody?

  • Yes. Gullit took orders from somebody, who was Sam Bockarie.

  • Thank you. Now in answering questions about disarmament of RUF forces, you stated a short while ago that apart from the - you said that the RUF forces were disarmed at a certain point in Sierra Leone. Is that correct?

  • Yes.

  • And do you recall when that was?

  • Any particular month?

  • No, I can't recall the month again.

  • You also mentioned that you agreed with counsel that all the RUF in Sierra Leone after the disarmament no longer had weapons, is that not so?

  • Yes. Inside Sierra Leone I knew RUF never had weapons, no RUF had weapons again after disarmament, but I told the lawyer that some of the RUF had crossed into Liberia.

  • Now, can you explain what you mean when you say that some RUF in Liberia did have weapons? I know you said they crossed in Liberia, but can you explain that?

  • Yes. During the time when we were giving our weapons to the UN, part of these weapons were taken to Liberia by the RUF High Command, together with manpower, and according to what he told us he said, "Mr Taylor said at any time you were talking about peace you should prepare yourself for war". Therefore he said some manpower and some arms should cross over to Liberia to be on standby, because he also had troops that were attacking him day in day out and so they decided to take all the light weapons across to Liberia and manpower. Later Superman and a good number of - or most of all his bodyguards and other fighters were sent to Liberia. That was how RUF managed to get some gunmen in Liberia, but I cannot show the figure.

  • Thank you. That will be all for the witness, your Honours.

  • Thank you, Mr Bangura. We have no questions of the witness. Mr Witness, that is the end of your evidence. We thank you for coming to the Court and giving your evidence today and you are now at liberty to leave the Court. I will ask the Court Attendant to assist you to leave.

  • Your Honours, may I make the point that some documents were identified, or introduced?

  • Oh, indeed. You are quite right. Please remain, Mr Witness.

  • The Prosecution will now move the Court to have these documents marked for identification to be admitted.

  • I apologise. I overlooked that. Yes, please proceed, Mr Bangura.

  • Your Honours, for tidiness, just before I make the application to have the first two of the documents admitted, there are the first two extracts from a book which was not itself introduced in evidence by the Prosecution, but Defence counsel in his cross-examination did introduce the book as a whole and, unless I am wrong, it is my understanding that he intends to have the book admitted in evidence which the Prosecution does not object to. I don't know how your Honours would want us to proceed in light of that situation, because --

  • You have marked two pages in particular yourself.

  • [Microphone not activated] to have those as Prosecution exhibits?

  • The two pages, yes, your Honour.

  • That is MFI-42 and 43, I think.

  • No objection, your Honour.

  • MFI-42, which is one page.

  • MFI-42 is one page, your Honour, and MFI-43 is also one page.

  • Yes, they are being tendered as Prosecution exhibits, Madam Court Attendant. Could you remind me --

  • Your Honour, the last number was - the number would be P-49.

  • MFI-42 will become P-49 and MFI-43 will be P-50.

  • [Exhibit P-49 admitted]

  • [Exhibit P-50 admitted]

  • Your Honours, may I respectfully ask that the document marked MFI-44, which is a UNICEF exercise book, be tendered in evidence.

  • No objection, your Honour.

  • That is MFI-44, one exercise book, will become exhibit P-51.

  • [Exhibit P-51 admitted]

  • Your Honours, the next document is a map which was marked MFI-45, a map marked or entitled "AFRC/RUF Primary Radio Locations Mid-1998". May I ask that that document be admitted?

  • No objection, your Honour.

  • MFI-45 a one page map headed "AFRC/RUF Primary Radio Locations Mid-1998" becomes P-52.

  • [Exhibit P-52 admitted]

  • And finally, your Honour, the second of those two maps, which is marked MFI-46 and is entitled "AFRC/RUF Primary Radio Locations January 1999", may I ask that that document be admitted?

  • No objection, your Honour.

  • MFI-46, a one page map "AFRC/RUF Primary Radio Locations January 1999", becomes P-54. No, P-53. P-53.

  • [Exhibit P-53 admitted]

  • Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, the Prosecution has no other issues in relation to this witness's testimony.

  • Thank you, Mr Bangura.

    Mr Cayley, you did put some documents in.

  • Yes, your Honour. First of all, we would like the message book exhibited in the Court record in its entirety. That is - I don't know how long it is, but it is a document which begins with ERN numbers 8727 and ends - it doesn't seem to have ERN numbers at the back. Ah, it seems to end with 8000, although there are three more pages attached at the back which don't appear to have ERN numbers on them. Ah, it ends with 8908 as the final ERN number on the back sheet. So, it is 8727 to 8908 and so we would like that exhibited.

    In respect of the other documents that I used, your Honour, I think it is probably simpler if I wait for Mr Griffiths to return, because those were documents which were actually used with Witness 371 and I think I will probably confuse the record if I end up exhibiting them with this witness.

  • Yes, indeed. Mr Bangura, you have heard the application by the Defence to exhibit this document.

  • Your Honour, the Prosecution does not object to the document going in.

  • Thank you. A document, a green covered collection of pages with a green backing numbered from 8727 to 8908, will become exhibit D-3.

  • [Exhibit D-3 admitted]

  • That is all matters relating to this witness?

  • Yes, your Honour, thank you.

  • Can I safely release the witness now? Yes. Mr Witness, we thank you again for your evidence and time and you are now free to leave the Court.

    Yes, Mr Bangura?

  • Your Honours, the Prosecution's next witness - I am not calling the witness as yet, but just intimating to the Court - is TF1-548.

  • And what language will the witness use, Mr Bangura?

  • Your Honours, may I - your Honours, the witness will testify in Gambian Mandingo.

  • I will just check if there is an interpreter for Gambian Mandingo in the booth.

  • Your Honour, I am informed that the interpreters would need to be sworn in before we can commence the testimony of this witness.

  • Your Honours, may I say that this witness will be led by my colleague, Alain Werner. Your Honours, may I respectfully ask the leave of the Court for myself and Mr Christopher Santora that we take our exit at this time?

  • Very well, Mr Bangura. That is quite in order.

  • Thank you, your Honours.

  • [Interpreters sworn]

  • Thank you, gentlemen. You are welcome to the Court.

  • Good afternoon,