Good morning, Mr Sumana.

How are you?

Some five years ago, in September 2003, you first spoke to an investigator in Kono. Do you remember that?

Yes.

And they came to visit you at an address in Kono District, didn't they?

Yes.

And help us, please, how was it that you had come to the attention of the investigators?

Well, they met me at a place where they built a house for my father. That was the place they met me.

Yes, but how did they know to come to you to ask you about your experiences during the war?

Well, at that time they went there and met us at home. They met my father. They said the victims of this war, they would like to talk to the victims of this war. At that time they met me there. So they asked me at that time and I explained to them what happened to me.

Yes, but from what you understand had someone said to these investigators, "Go and see the Sumana family. They might have something interesting to tell about the civil war in Sierra Leone." Is that what happened?

No, they didn't go to us directly. They went in our area wherein my father was the chairman, so they met us there and had some discussions with us.

Your father was chairman of what?

For the amputees.

Was that in Kono District?

Yes. Yes, where we were.

I'm going to come back to that in a moment but I just want to go back a little bit and clarify something. When you said earlier, and I'm looking, for those opposite, at page 2, line 14 on a 14 font, that they had built a house for your father. Who had built the house for your father?

There was an organisation that usually built houses for the amputees.

So your father was chairman of a group which represented the amputees. Is that right?

Yes.

And that investigator came to see your father and then decided to take an account from you. Is that right?

Well, when they went on that day they were two in number. So I was the first one that they asked.

Now were you working at the time that they came to see you?

Yes, I was working.

Doing what?

As a miner.

Who for?

At that time I was in the company.

So you were not working for your father at that time?

No, I was not working for my father at that time. I was working for a company.

In any event, from what you told us yesterday, I take it that given what had happened to your father it was important for you to work and bring in money to support your family?

Yes.

And no doubt times were hard?

Yes.

And were you told by the investigators when they came to see you that they would pay you?

No, they never said that to me.

But you have received money from them, haven't you?

Well, on that day I was not given any money. They only went and asked me.

But subsequently you did receive money, didn't you?

Not until the time they visited us again, they used to give us - give me money sometimes.

Now no doubt that money helped to look after your family?

No, it was not sufficient to help my family because I was not given sufficient money.

As far as you - do I understand your evidence correctly, as far as you're concerned 2,821,000 leones is not a lot of money?

Not at all.

It's not a lot of money?

It's not small money.

Well, do you appreciate that's what you've been paid by the investigators?

Well, in my own part that amount of money has not been given to me yet.

Well we may have to come back to that in a bit more detail, but in any event were you grateful to the Prosecutors for the money they gave you?

Well, I will not feel happy. What happened to me was what they asked me to explain. That was what I explained to them. I don't want it to be in my mind all the time. I did not explain that for me to be paid.

Okay. Now the person who interviewed you on that first occasion on 21 and 22 September 2003, do you recall that it was a white woman called Corinne Dufka?

Yes, it was a white woman.

And do you remember her name, Corinne Dufka?

Yes, that name was shown to me.

Have you seen her since September 2003?

No, I did not see her.

You haven't seen her since?

Since that day I never set eyes on her again.

In any event at that meeting in September 2003 apart from Corinne there was also an interpreter present, wasn't there?

Well, usually visit me there sometimes asking me.

There was also an interpreter present, wasn't there?

Yes, there was an interpreter who interpreted for me.

And you understood that the interpreter was there to ensure that you could properly explain yourself. You understood that, didn't you?

Yes, there was an interpreter.

And the interpreter was also there to ensure that you would properly understand the questions being put to you. You appreciated that, didn't you?

Yes, there was an interpreter.

Very well. You appreciated that the interpreter was there to ensure that you understood the questions and could explain yourself properly. You knew that, didn't you?

Yes, he was there.

And no doubt you appreciated that it was vitally important that you told the truth?

Yes, what happened to me that was what I explained, the events that took place.

And you knew that you had to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, didn't you?

Yes.

And do you say that you told only the truth to Corinne Dufka?

Yes.

Now at that time in September 2003 the events you were speaking to Ms Dufka about had happened, what, no more than a couple of years before, would you agree?

The events that took place in this war, that was what I explained.

And those events had only recently occurred at the time that you were being asked about them by Corinne Dufka, don't you agree?

Yes, the events that I saw and what happened to me, that was what I explained.

And those were terrible events, weren't they?

Yes.

Your Honours, let the witness repeat the last part of the answer.

Mr Witness, the interpreter asks that you repeat the last part of your answer. He did not hear it properly. You were asked, you started and you said "Yes". Did you say something else? Please repeat what else you said.

Repeat the question again. Let me understand.

Mr Griffiths.

What had happened to you was quite terrible, wasn't it?

Yes, very terrible.

And no doubt the scars and pain of that experience were still fresh in your mind?

Yes.

Because if we just put in a nutshell what had happened to you during that two years or so, you'd been captured, is that right?

Yes, I was captured.

You'd been forced to do domestic work for Major Wallace, is that right?

Yes, at that time they used to send me.

You were then recruited and forced to go to the training camp in Buedu, is that right?

Yes.

You'd then been beaten during the training by Monica, is that right?

Yes, they used to beat us.

You were then given a gun - your own gun - is that right?

Yes.

And you were then forced to fight for the rebels?

Yes.

You could not possibly forget any of those events, could you?

Yes, I cannot remember all the events. All that I could recall was what I explained.

But those events were so terrible they'd be impossible to forget, wouldn't they?

Not at all. Those that I can remember is what I explained.

And equally look at what happened to your family. Your brother had been killed, is that right?

Yes.

Your sister had been killed, is that right?

Yes.

Your younger brother Kai had been abducted, is that right?

Yes.

Your father had been amputated. That's right, isn't it?

Yes.

Those kinds of things are not easily forgotten, are they?

Not at all.

Now on that occasion in September 2003 you were interviewed over two days, weren't you?

Yes, they went there twice.

Now I want to move on and deal with matters sequentially, please.

Okay.

And the first thing I want to deal with is your abduction, that is your capture, okay?

Okay.

Now, I want you to be aware right from the outset that the details I'm asking you about are very important and I would like you to try your best to help us. Will you do that?

Okay.

Question number one is in what month were you abducted?

Well, I cannot recall the month at that time.

Have you ever been able to recall the month in which you were abducted?

Well, at that time it was during the mango season. I cannot remember the exact month, but it was during the mango season.

Please listen very carefully to the question. Have you ever at any time been able to recall the month in which you were captured?

Well, the time I was captured by then we were all driven out of Koidu Town. Only the rebels stayed there at that time.

I'm going to try my question again. Have you, Komba Sumana, ever been able to remember the month in which you were captured?

That is what I'm saying. I said I cannot remember that month.

Mr Witness, the question is not whether you can remember the month now as we sit here today. The question is at any time in the past were you able to remember the month. Is that a --

That is precisely my question, Madam President.

Well, I used to remember. By then I was a little bit mature. I used to go to school at that time. Some events - I could remember some of the events.

So, what are you telling us then? That there was a time when you remembered the month, but you've forgotten now. Is that what you're telling us?

I did not say the time I was captured I knew that time. I said at that time I was a little bit matured. By then I was a school boy. Only that particular month I cannot remember, but then I used to remember some events.

Sorry, Mr Interpreter, did the witness say a little bit matured or immature?

A little bit matured.

I don't know if we're having an interpretation problem here. I'm going to try it once more:

Was there ever a time when you were in a position to say, "I was captured by the rebels in", for example, "January 2001"? Were you ever able to say that?

No.

It follows then, doesn't it, that you were never in a position to give anyone a specific date?

Not at all. I cannot remember.

Help me with this then. Forget about the month. In what year were you captured?

I cannot remember that year, but that was the time we were finally driven out of Koidu Town.

Let me ask a different question then and appreciate, Mr Sumana, there are very important reasons why I'm asking these questions. The question I want to ask you is this: How old were you when you were recruited and sent for training in Buedu?

Well, before we were driven out of Koidu Town my father used to tell me that I was 14 years old.

So what you're telling us then is when you were recruited and sent to Buedu for training, as far as you are aware, based on what your father has told you, you were 14 years old. Is that right?

Yes.

Very well. Mr Sumana, you did appreciate, didn't you, that when on the several occasions you spoke to investigators they were writing down what you were saying. You appreciated that, didn't you?

Well, we used to go there. What I explained was written down.

Why do you think they were writing down what you were telling them? Why do you think they were doing that?

Well, I thought that it was just a record.

A record of what you had supposedly truthfully told them. Is that right?

Yes.

And you knew that they were writing it down just as you were saying it. Is that right?

Yes.

When they had finished writing it down did they read it back to you and say, "Look, Komba, I want you to listen carefully to what I'm reading back to you because it's a record of what you told us"? Did they do that?

Yes. There came a time when they returned.

And they read it back to you?

Yes, they went and read it to me.

And you knew when they were reading it to you they were reading it to you so that you could check and correct anything that was wrong. You understood that, didn't you?

Yes, they read it.

Now help me with this: Can you read?

No, I can't.

Nonetheless, I do want a record of what you said on that initial occasion put up on the screen, please. I wonder, Madam Court Manager, with your assistance, I wonder if we could go first of all, please, behind divider 1. I hope those opposite have a copy of this bundle. Can we put, please, the first page on the screen.

Now, Mr Sumana, what this first page says is this: It gives your name, Komba Sumana; it gives the name of the interviewer Corinne Dufka; the date of the interview 21 and 2 September 2003 and where the interview took place. Now I want you to listen very carefully to what Corinne Dufka wrote down. She says this:

"Komba Sumana, 18 years, was interviewed by OTP investigator Corinne Dufka on September 21 and 22, 2003. The interview was conducted in Kono District with the assistance of translator Ishmael Daramy. The interview was conducted in both English and Krio. Komba was abducted by RUF rebels in 1998 and spent over two years with them. In the same week, in approximately February 1998, Komba and three of his brothers were abducted."

Now help us, please, you, the Komba Sumana who was never able to give a month when you were abducted, did you tell Corinne Dufka that you were in fact abducted in February 1998? Did you tell her that.

Well, in relation to that --

The passage that counsel read said approximately February 1998.

I'm perfectly capable of reading, Mr Koumjian, and I noticed that.

Your Honour, the question that counsel put to the question did not record the "approximately". He was asked whether he said February. That is in our submission unfair to the witness to read - to put inaccurately this initial paragraph written by Ms Dufka.

Mr Griffiths, please put "approximately" February 1998.

Very well:

Did you - let me put the question differently. Did you mention the name of a month of the year, whether it be approximately or otherwise, to Corinne Dufka?

Well, they asked me and I said I did not know the month.

So help me, please: How does the month February come to appear in the record made by Corinne Dufka, whether it be approximate or not? Can you help us?

Well, at the time that they asked me I said I did not know the month and they said when the month - when the war ended - they asked me if I knew when the war actually started and I said when the war ended my father and others used to sit to talk about when the war started, when - the month that it actually started.

I'm going to try once more. Can you help us as to how the word "February" appears in that first paragraph as being the month and the year in which you were captured when you told me earlier this morning that you've never been able to remember. How does it appear in that record?

Well, I did not know the year at the time they asked me.

Precisely. So can you tell us how Ms Corinne Dufka happened to write down the year 1998 and the month "February approximately"? Can you help us?

Well, at the time there was an interpreter who was interpreting. Whatever I said, he interpreted and she was writing.

Right. So help us then, please: Was it you who mentioned February and 1998?

Well, they asked me and when we sat together with my father and my father was explaining, that was the time that I knew that that was the time we ran away.

Was it Corinne Dufka who was doing the writing?

Yes, she was doing the writing.

So she must have been the one who wrote down the word "February" and the year "1998". She must have done that, mustn't she?

I can't say because they asked me about the year of the war when we ran away. They used to ask me about the year and I used to tell them that I did not know the year.

That's the point. So are you saying that Corinne Dufka made up the year 1998 and wrote that down? Is that what you're saying? Because if you didn't tell her, she must have made it up. So did she do that?

Well, at the time they asked me, and I said I can't tell the year. Then the interpreter who was there asked me when the war ended, if I can't remember any month or year at the time. Then I said maybe it could be, because the war ended and I asked my father and he told me the year. It was at that time that I told the year. I said that this was the year that my father said that we ran away, but I did not know whether they wrote it or did not write it.

Understand this, Mr Sumana: To be fair to you, I am not suggesting that you are lying, because let us go, please, to the fourth page behind that divider, which carries the ERN number 00000982, and you see in the second paragraph on that page you say, "I can't remember the month I was captured, but it was mango time. The time the mangoes are ripe." So that's what you were telling them, but when we come back to the first page magically someone has written February and 1998. Now, given that you couldn't have given that date, Corinne Dufka must have written that down, mustn't she?

Well, they used to ask me that and I used to say I did not know the month, but I used to remember and that was the time that I suggested and told them about.

Precisely. Because you didn't know the date and you told her plain and square, "I can't remember the month" and somehow she has written down "approximately February 1998". Now that date could not have come from you, could it?

Well, I said at the time that they asked me if I knew and I said when I asked my father that was what he told me.

But what I'm saying is because you weren't in a position to supply a month and year, she must have written that down and attributed it to you, mustn't she?

Well, at the time I said that was what my father said and that was what I told them. I did not know whether they wrote it or did not write it.

Let us go back to the first page again then. Bearing in mind of course MFI-1, your birth certificate, now your birth certificate gives your date of birth as 10 August 1984. Now let's go back to page 1, please. On page 1 it says, "Komba Sumana, 18 years". If you were born in August 1984, when you were being interviewed in September 2003, you had just passed your 19th birthday. Now help us: Can you help us as to how it comes about that Corinne Dufka has written your age down here as 18?

Well, at the time that they asked me about my year, it was at the time that I told them my age. They did not ask me what my age was when I was captured. At the time they asked me about my age and that was when I told them my age.

That's not what I'm asking about. You see, at the time you were being interviewed by Corinne Dufka it was a month and some days after your 19th birthday, but she has written down on this page that you were 18 at the time of the interview. Can you help us as to how that comes about?

I did not understand.

Let me try again. On your birth certificate, Mr Sumana, your date of birth is given as 10 August 1984. Do you follow that?

Yes, what my father told me after the war.

But in any event, in September 2003, when you were speaking to Corinne Dufka, you would have been 19 years old, but she has written on this record that you were 18 at the time. Can you help us as to how that came about?

Yes. She asked me what my age was at the time that they met me and asked me my age. That was the time that I told them my age.

So are you saying that you told her that you were 18?

Yes, because at the time they met me and asked me I told them I was 18. They did not ask me what my age was when I was captured. They only asked me what my age was and that was the age I told them.

But, you see, can you help us as to why you said, "My name's Komba Sumana and I'm 18 years old" when really you should have been saying, "My name is Komba Sumana and I'm 19 years old, Ms Dufka." Can you help us as to why you said 18 and not 19?

Well, at the time I had not taken my paper. My father had not given me my birth certificate so it was my voter ID card that I had. So the age that was on that ID card was the one that I gave to them.

Very well. I'm happy to accept that answer because it's easy to become confused as to how old you are, but can we put it this way: That you're not in a position to say how old you were at the time you were recruited and sent to Buedu to the training camp. You can't really tell us how old you were, can you?

I did not understand.

Can you tell us accurately how old you were when you were sent to the training camp in Buedu?

Well, I said my father used to explain to me at the time we had not run away. The first paper that he had taken, he said I was 14 years. That was what he used to tell me at the time we were in Koidu.

You see, Mr Sumana, the point I'm making is this: If when you were 19 years old you could make a mistake about your age and say you were 18, is it possible that you made a mistake about your age and you were actually 15 and not 14 at the time you were abducted? Is it possible you made another mistake there?

Your Honours, can counsel please ask his question again.

I have not understood the question.

Very well:

We know that in September 2003, when you were speaking to Corinne Dufka, you made a mistake about your age. You told her that you were 18 when you were in fact 19. Do you agree?

That is what I am saying. At the time the war was over and they came and asked me. It was at the time that I told them that age because I didn't have my actual paper. So the ID card that I had and the age that it had was what I told them.

But you agree now that it was a mistake?

Yes, because it was my father who took our birth certificates and he didn't hand them over to us. He was the one who kept them. At the time that I went to register the age that was on my ID card was what I told them about.

The point I'm making is this: If you could make a mistake about your age then, is it possible that you made a mistake about your age at the time you were captured?

Well, as to my age I did not know, but the way my father used to tell them, that was what I remembered and when they asked me I told them that that was what my father said and that that was my age.

But you did not know; that's right, isn't it?

When the war was over I was the one who told them my age because before that my father had taken the papers and had not handed them over to us.

Very well. Let's move on.

Are you moving on to another aspect, Mr Griffiths?

Yes, I am.

I would like to clarify one thing.

Mr Witness, when you had this interview on 21 and 22 September 2003, how many people were there when you were talking to Ms Dufka?

I have not understood.

You said the interpreter was there, Ms Dufka was there, you were there. Was anyone else there?

When they were taking my statement?

Yes.

Those who were there, the woman and the interpreter, they were the ones with whom I was sitting at the house.

Just three of you?

Yes.

Thank you for allowing me to clarify that.

Let me move on to another topic. Let's go back to the first page of that interview in September 2003, please. Second paragraph:

"In 1997 during the AFRC time my family and I were living in the Tankoro neighbourhood of Koidu Town. During that time the RUF and SLA juntas were working together. My family and I lived among them. Before this time my father was a chiefdom policeman. During the AFRC time things weren't too bad, although sometimes the rebels forced us to get water or beat rice for them."

Pause there. That's what Ms Dufka has written down. Did you tell her that?

Yes.

So it's right, is it, that things were not too bad during the AFRC times?

Well, things were difficult at the time.

Let's read the full passage so we get the sense of it:

"During the AFRC time things weren't too bad, although sometimes the rebels forced us to get water or beat rice for them. I'm not really sure who was in charge of Koidu during the AFRC days. I was just 13 or 14 then. Then around February 1998 the harassment got much worse. The rebels started looting, breaking into houses and even raping women. This was around the time the AFRC were kicked out of Freetown by ECOMOG."

Do you remember saying all of that to Corinne Dufka?

Yes, I explained to her.

So just so that we understand, initially after the AFRC took over things weren't too bad, but they suddenly got worse when ECOMOG intervened and kicked them out of Freetown. Is that right?

Yes. When they went there initially things were not that hard. It came to a time when the things became really difficult for people.

And things became really difficult for people because after ECOMOG intervened food became scarce, didn't it?

Your Honours, can he repeat his answer. It's not clear.

Mr Witness, the interpreter has not heard you clearly and asks that you repeat your answer.

I said it was not like that. The question that they asked me was what I answered.

Well, let's try again then. Initially when the AFRC took over things weren't too bad, were they?

Yes, the week that they entered there.

But then when ECOMOG kicked them out of Freetown things got worse. Is that right?

Yes, at the time we were in Koidu when we heard that ECOMOG had dislodged them.

Because at that time food became really scarce, didn't it?

Yes.

And just so that everyone appreciates that you're not saying this for the first time, can we go, please, behind divider 2 and the first page, paragraphs 7 and 8:

"When ECOMOG drove the rebels out of Freetown the distinction between the SLAs and the rebels became confused as they were mixed up together. The situation became very tense as there was no commercial activity any more. The food was scarce and people were leaving the town."

That's right, isn't it?

Yes.

Now, let's move on to another topic. Is it right that it was some time after the ECOMOG intervention that you were captured?

Well, at the time they had not captured me yet.

But it was some months after the ECOMOG intervention that you were captured, is that right?

Yes, we had left Koidu. We were no longer there.

But you cannot help us --

Is that really answering?

No, it's not.

Does he understand what the ECOMOG intervention is?

Well, let me try:

Let's go back to that page that I just showed you, please. Now, according to this record you told someone on 22 September 2004 that ECOMOG drove the rebels out of Freetown. Now, just pause now. Do you actually remember that happening?

Yes, I can remember.

Where were you when it happened?

Well, we were in Tankoro at the time.

And would it be right that it was some months after that happened that you were captured?

Yes, some months passed.

But you can't help us as to how many months had passed?

No, because we were not in town. We were just in the bushes moving about.

In any event you were captured by three rebels, is that right?

Yes.

And they spoke Liberian English, is that right?

Yes.

One was called Wuya?

Yes.

One was called Opong?

Yes.

One was called Alie?

Yes.

And all three of them were former ULIMO fighters who had joined the STF, is that right?

Yes.

They took you to Kissi Town?

Yes.

Kissi Town was one of three rebel bases in that area?

Yes.

You've given us the details of those yesterday and I won't trouble you today to provide them again, but in any event the man who was immediately in charge of you was one Major Wallace?

Yes.

He was part Liberian?

Yes.

He too was former ULIMO who had joined the STF?

Yes.

Next point. The next topic I want to ask you about is training. After your capture you worked for several weeks as a domestic for Major Wallace and his wife, didn't you?

Yes.

Fetching water?

Yes.

Husking rice?

Yes.

Cleaning for them?

Yes.

Doing their laundry?

Yes.

During that time you were not a combatant, were you?

No.

For how long, can you help us in terms of months, were you employed as a domestic for Major Wallace and his wife?

It was not up to a month, but it took weeks. It took three weeks at the time that we were there.

So you were employed as a domestic by them for several weeks, were you?

Yes, at the time that I was with them there.

And it was after several weeks that a meeting was called by General Issa of all the civilians who had been captured and who were living in the three camps?

Yes.

At that large meeting, where hundreds of civilians were present, a screening process took place conducted by Morris Kallon. Is that right?

Yes.

Now, back in September 2003 you spoke to Corinne Dufka about this. Could we go behind divider 1, please, and can we look at the fifth page. There's a handwritten number 5 in the bottom right-hand corner and it bears the ERN number 00000983. Can we look, please, at the very last paragraph on that page, "The meeting took place on a Monday in what I think was probably April 1998." Now, help me. Did you tell Corinne Dufka that this meeting of all the captured civilians took place in April 1998? Did you tell her that?

Yes, I said maybe at the time.

How did you know?

Well at the time it was the time for mangoes, mangoes had started ripening, so that was why I made that suggestion and told them.

So did you tell her mango time, or did you tell her April?

Well I said I used to look at the mangoes, the time that they were ripening, and I suggested to them that it could be this time.

Did you tell her mango time, or did you mention the word "April"?

Yes, I said that.

How did you know it was April?

I used to look at the mango times at the time.

Mr Witness, exactly what did you say? You were given two choices by counsel. Which one?

I said the reason I showed those times that time was that I used to look at the mangoes and that was why I told them that time.

Mr Witness, listen to the question you were asked please. The question was as follows, "Did you tell her mango time, or did you mention the word 'April'?" That is the exact question.

I told them about the mango time. I said the time the mangoes were ripening.

So it follows, doesn't it, that Corinne Dufka, as with "approximately February 1998", must also have written in "April" because you didn't tell her that? All you said was "mango time", wouldn't you agree?

Well, they asked me. I said it was the mango time. They said if I actually knew the time and I said that probably it was in April.

I see. So, you did mention April?

Yes, it was at that time that I mentioned it.

Right. So help me, please. When is mango time?

Well, the mangoes start ripening - I do not know the year, but they ripen at any time.

Well, I'm completely baffled now and I'm sure it's my fault. What month of the year, or months, do mangoes ripen? Help us, please, because I've never lived in Sierra Leone.

I can't tell the month.

So, if you can't tell the month you wouldn't have been able to say "April". So, help me. Where does the word "April" come from? It can't have come from you and so it must have come from her, don't you agree?

Well, they asked me. Then I explained to them.

Mr Sumana, let's just take things very, very slowly because it may well be my fault. You don't know the month that mangoes ripen. So you're sitting in front of Corinne and you say to her it was about mango time, and even though that's what you said to her somehow the record of what you said reads "April". So it must mean that you said "mango", she wrote "April". Don't you agree?

Because the way they asked me, they said when was it, and I showed them the time and they said it was the year and that's the year I showed them, that probably that was the year; the time that I showed them the year.

I'm not interested in years, I'm interested in a month. April. And I'll try once more. You said "mango", she said wrote "April". That's what happened, isn't it?

I did not understand.

You weren't able to give a month, so you, trying the best you could, said mango time. She has written April. It means, doesn't it, that the word "April" came from her and not from you. Don't you agree?

I said something about April.

Very well. Let's move on. Can we go back, please, to that page we were looking at, 983. Last paragraph:

"The meeting took place on a Monday in what I think was probably April 1998. They gathered all of us in the bush in a coffee farm under the cover of the trees. They held the meeting there so the ECOMOG Alpha Jets couldn't bomb us. The RUF were afraid of ECOMOG soldiers who at that time were based in Kokuima. The meeting lasted for about two hours. There were many rebel big men there. General Issa, Morris Kallon, General Bropleh, Superman, Colonel Banya, Lieutenant Blood and one named Five-Five. I was told there are two commander Five-Fives, the one with us was the RUF Five-Five. Then there is one who was with the SLA. However, I'm not really sure if the Five-Five they referred to was the same or not."

Do you remember telling Ms Dufka all of that?

Well, what I explained, I did not name all of the commanders. They asked me about the commanders. Some commanders I named and I said they were not there and later she asked me and I told her where they were.

Was General Issa at that meeting?

Yes, he was there.

Was Morris Kallon at that meeting?

Yes.

Was General Bropleh at that meeting?

He was not there.

Was Superman at that meeting?

Superman did not go there. We left him in Kissi Town.

Was Colonel Banya at that meeting?

I did not see him there.

Was Lieutenant Blood at that meeting?

Yes, he was there.

Now the person who has written this down, just so that you understand, claims that you told her that General Bropleh and Superman were there, but you're now telling us that they weren't in fact there. Is that right?

Yes, they were not there. They were in - they were in this town --

Kissi Town. They were in Kissi Town, you tell us.

They were in Kurubonla at the time.

So can you help us how it is that Corinne Dufka is here saying that you told her that they were present at that meeting?

Well, at the time they asked me I did not name all of them. Those whom I named, those were the four people and there was one woman who was doing the interpretation at the time.

So are you telling us that you never said to anyone that General Bropleh and Superman were at that meeting?

I did not say so. It was later that I told them that Bropleh and the others were in Kurubonla, that was where we met them.

But can you explain how it is that you didn't say they were there, but she claims that you told her that? Can you help us with that?

Well, at the time they asked me I could name Bropleh, but I said they were not there. I said they were not there. Those who were at the meeting were those I named at the time.

In any event, you were thereafter selected and sent for training, weren't you?

Yes.

And the person in charge of training was a woman called Monica?

Yes.

She was a colonel, wasn't she?

Yes.

And her surname was Pearson, wasn't it? Monica Pearson. Colonel Monica Pearson. Do you remember now?

No, they said Colonel Monica. That was what they called her.

But in any event, Colonel Monica was mean, wasn't she?

Your Honours, can the learned counsel repeat his question slowly.

Colonel Monica was mean, wasn't she?

Your Honours, the interpreter will certainly have problems interpreting "mean". If learned counsel can simplify it for the interpreter.

Colonel Monica was a nasty piece of work, wasn't she?

Yes.

Now there was a reason why I used the word "mean". Let's go to the next page please, 6 of 10, bearing the reference 00000984. Let's start with the second to last line:

"Most the training however was done with sticks they pretended were guns. We never received any training about how to treat or not treat civilians. Monica was mean. She and the others would beat us if we didn't perform well enough."

Your Honour, I could wait for counsel to complete his question but, since the interpreters have already indicated they cannot translate that word, I'm wondering how the witness will be able to understand the question.

Perhaps when the interpreters hear it in context they might be able to interpret it and if they have a problem they can let us know.

Counsel has also given the interpreters an equivalent meaning of "nasty piece of work", which they were able to interpret.

And that was a fair description of Monica, wasn't it? She was a wicked individual, wasn't she?

Yes.

Now there's one other matter that I want you to help us with in that regard. You say that this training camp was in Buedu, don't you?

Yes.

And that was where you were trained by the wicked Monica?

Yes.

The reason why I'm asking you, you see, is this: At or about that time the wicked Monica was working in a training camp in Bunumbu, not Buedu. Now help me: Was the camp in Buedu or was the camp in Bunumbu?

Well, she was in Buedu. That was what they used to say. We were in the bush. We did not go to Buedu.

Now I have very good reason for making that suggestion to you, because we know that in 1994 Monica was training at Camp Matru Jong in Sierra Rutile, and for everybody's benefit the reference is transcript page 4826, line 22 to 23. Also in 1994 she was a trainer at Camp Lion in Zogoda on the Kenema Highway, reference page 4851, line 24 to 25. In 1998 she was at Camp Lion in Bunumbu, reference page 4867, lines 16 to 18. Then in early 1999 she was in Yengema in Koidu, on the Koidu Highway, reference page 4916, line 16.

What I'm suggesting to you, you see, is that she never worked in a camp in Buedu. Now, was the camp in Buedu or wasn't it?

Well, that was where we were trained and she was the one who trained us there. There was a camp there where she trained us.

Are you sure you went to a training camp in Buedu where a female Liberian, Monica, trained you? Are you sure?

Yes.

Because what I'm suggesting is that that Monica was nowhere near Buedu training recruits; she was in Bunumbu which is about 14 miles from Buedu. Now I want to be as fair to you as I can. Is it possible you made a mistake and the camp was in Bunumbu and not Buedu?

Well, we were trained in Buedu and that was where I saw her.

Were you really trained?

Yes, at the time.

And according to you you were trained in a camp in Buedu by Monica, Colonel Monica?

Yes, she trained me.

Now yesterday you told us that at your passing out parade you were given a gun, yes?

Yes, they gave me a gun.

This was your own gun?

Yes, they gave me there.

What type of a gun was it?

It was an AK.

And everyone knows how the military operate. When they gave you that gun, did they take down the serial number to say AK-47 serial number so and so has been given to Komba? Did they write down the serial number?

No, they did not tell me about number and I did not see them writing it down.

But in any event would it be fair to say that nothing like this had ever been done to you before, being given a gun, your own gun?

I was given a gun.

At the passing out parade, following the training for two months?

Yes, when we finished.

And just so that we fully understand the situation, this was the occasion when you're all passing out and so you're gathered on a parade ground, is that right?

Yes, it was at that time that they brought the guns, at our passing out.

And a truck turned up?

Yes.

Driven by some men wearing red military caps?

Yes.

How many of them?

Well, at the time I saw three of them on board the truck.

And they unloaded the truck, did they?

Yes.

Wearing their - just help us with the description of this men. They were wearing red military hats, is that right?

Yes, a military cap, a red one. That was what they were wearing.

And they were wearing something around their necks?

Yes.

What was it?

A green muffler.

And were they wearing uniforms as well?

Yes.

What colour uniforms?

Well, the uniform - the colour of the uniform was black and green mixed, a combat colour.

So it was like a camouflage colour?

Yes, that was what it was like.

Were they wearing boots? Army boots?

Yes.

And you have told us there were three of them, they unloaded the truck and was it one of them who handed you your own gun?

No, not the three of them. There were some people who were selected from the lines and they off-loaded these things.

So was it the three men in the red hats who unloaded the truck?

Not the three people. Those of us who were in the lines, they selected some people among us and those were the people who off-loaded the truck. They were just standing aside.

Very well.

Yes.

Did you have cause to speak to any of them?

No, I was not able.

So who physically handed you, Komba Sumana, his gun?

Well the person who gave me was Monica, because she was the one who took them at the time all the others were standing by.

So we have this mental picture, do we, of you standing there - were you standing to attention?

Yes, we were just standing in the line.

And then Monica, that woman who had beaten you for two months, came up and handed you your own AK-47. Is that right?

Yes, they came through the queue and they were giving each and every one of us our own guns.

Now given what you'd experienced at the hands of Monica, that's not an event you were likely to forget, is it?

No, I can't forget that.

Help us, please. Can we go behind divider 2 and can we go to page 6, please. 6, bottom right-hand corner, ERN number at the top 00035350. Now just so that we all know what we're looking at here, we're looking at proofing notes from 5 October 2004. Paragraph 49:

"The weapons we received after the pass out parade were new weapons. Before receiving the weapons we were tested and only those who could shoot received weapons. I did not receive any weapon because I could not shoot."

Did you say that to an investigator?

Well, what I explained was that they did not give me a gun that was large.

No, no, no, I don't care how big the gun was. Do you appreciate that there's a huge difference between, "Monica gave me my own AK", and, "I did not receive a weapon because I could not shoot"? There's a big difference between those two things, isn't there?

There is a difference, but they gave me a gun at the time.

So can you help us, please, as to why in October 2004 you told the investigators, "I did not receive any weapon because I could not shoot"? Can you help us as to why you told them that?

Well, at the time that they asked me I told them that I was given a gun.

But according to them, Mr Sumana, in October 2004 they came back to you and were asking you again and you told them, "I did not receive any weapon because I could not shoot". Now, why did you tell them that?

Well, at the time when they took my statement down they went back. What I did not explain they read to me. What I explained --

Your Honours, can he kindly repeat his answer slowly.

Yes, Mr Witness, you are speaking too quickly for the interpreters, who must understand what you're saying. Please repeat your answer and speak more slowly and pick up where you have said, "What I explained --" Continue from there.

I said what I used to explain was what they wrote, but there came a time when they went again with these papers and they read them to me. The mistakes that they made - the mistakes that the interpreter used to make in relation to those I did not say I used to say, "I did not say that". At the time that they went back to read them to me that was what I used to do.

This is the second time - no, no, no, this is the third time in fact that you were meeting with them and according to them on this occasion you tell them that you didn't in fact get a weapon because you couldn't shoot. Now according to what you're telling us today that is a lie, isn't it?

Well, I did not come here to tell lies. I can't take an oath to tell lies.

No, but what is here written on this page where it says, "I did not receive any weapon at the pass out", that's a lie, isn't it?

They gave me a gun. I told them that.

Try my question, please. What is written down here that you didn't receive a weapon, that is a lie, isn't it?

Objection, your Honours. I believe the witness has answered the question, because he said he told the investigators that. He cannot comment on - other than to say whether he told the investigators, or did not tell the investigators.

Counsel is entitled to put the question in the form he's putting it, Mr Koumjian. I allow the question.

I'm grateful, Madam President:

Let us just take this slowly. Yesterday you told us on oath that you received a gun. According to this record in October 2004 this document says, "I did not receive a gun". Now that must be a lie, mustn't it?

Well, what I explained to them was that I received a gun. They wrote this and I did not - I don't know how to write.

But this must be a lie, mustn't it?

Well, what I explained to them I thought that was what they were writing.

No, no, no. Do you agree with me that it's a total contradiction? One is "I got a gun" and the other is "I didn't get a gun". Do you agree with that? They're totally different?

Well, they went and asked me. There was an interpreter present. They asked me and I said, "I received a gun".

Let me try my question again. Do you agree that "I received a gun" and "I did not get a gun" are complete opposites? Do you agree?

Yes, what I agreed to was that I received a gun and that they gave me a gun.

So the opposite of receiving a gun, "I didn't get a gun", that must be a lie, mustn't it?

What I said was that they gave me a gun.

I'm going to try once more. The opposite of getting a gun is not getting a gun, so the latter must be a lie, mustn't it?

Your Honour, I believe the question is unfair to the witness. He has answered what he has told the investigators. To ask - counsel is trying to get him to say this was a lie. He said he never said it. The wording may be that these are different things, contradictory. I think we all know that. Obviously, it is contradictory. It doesn't serve your Honours any purpose in understanding that. The witness has said he never told the investigators he did not get a gun.

Mr Griffiths, you've heard the objection.

Madam President, I think I'm entitled to ask the question because the writer of this record is attributing to this witness these words. This is his opportunity on oath to either accept or refute the suggestion. For my part, I really can't understand the logical basis for my learned friend's objection.

I will allow the question. Please proceed.

Thank you, Madam President. I'll try once more:

You told us yesterday that you were given a gun on pass out, didn't you?

Yes.

According to this record you were supposed to have told people in 2004 that you didn't get a gun. Now that must be a lie, mustn't it?

Which one must be a lie?

The second one, "I did not get a gun", that must be a lie, mustn't it?

I received a gun. I don't know whether it's the interpreter made this mistake, because at the time that they asked me I used to explain in Kono, so I told them that I was given a gun.

So can you help us as to how it comes about that in this record you're supposed to have told them that you didn't? Can you help us with that?

Well, I can't help, because when they asked me what I've said was what I've explained.

Now, to be fair to you, the fact of the matter is initially you told the investigators something completely different. Can we go, please, behind divider 1. Can we look at handwritten number 7 of 10, ERN number 00000985. Second paragraph:

"After our training was complete they held a pass out parade which was like a graduation. Both Issa and Mosquito were there. Mosquito picked one young man named Alie, who was an abductee from Kono, to be our battalion commander. Alie was a Mende and very fit and active. At the pass out Mosquito told us that now that we were soldiers we were going to go with Issa to Kono and attack ECOMOG. He said that when we reach Kono, Issa was going to call him, Mosquito, on the radio set to tell him that we'd arrived safely. Before the pass out I saw a truck drive up and from inside the truck the RUF rebels took out many, many guns. Then during the pass out we, the new recruits, were given our guns. Some were new, some were old. I got an old AK. Before this I never saw any guns coming into Kailahun from anywhere so I don't know where the guns came from."

Now this is what you told Corinne Dufka in September 2003, and we know that in October 2004 you said something completely different. Can we just put the two accounts up side-by-side, please. So can we have page 7 from behind divider 1, and can we also have at the same time page 6 from behind divider 2. Let's put them side-by-side, if that's possible. So what we see then is this: In September 2003 you get a gun, in October 2004 you don't. In September 2003 the guns were some new, some were old. In October 2004 they're new weapons. Can you please help us, which of those two accounts do you want us to accept? September 2003 or October 2004? Which one do you want us to take as the truth?

Well, I said they trained us and they gave me a gun there.

But which of these two accounts? In September 2003 you get a gun and it's old. In October 2004 you don't get a gun and they're all new. All I'm simply asking is: Which of those two accounts do you want us in this Court to accept, please?

Your Honour, asked and answered. This witness has stated, I don't know how many times, that he did not make this statement attributed in the 2004 statement. It's the same question. It's simply badgering the witness over and over again with the same question.

We're on to another aspect. We're on to old and new weapons now.

This question I believe is whether he received a weapon or not. He did say in his testimony he received an old weapon. If your Honour's referring to the old and new, that point I don't believe was put in this long question. The end of the question was whether he received a gun or not. Perhaps then the question is a compound question.

The question I asked, Madam President, which of these two accounts in September 2003 you get a gun and it's old, in October 2004 you don't get a gun and they're all new. Different point altogether.

Yes, I'm allowing the question. I consider it is a different point.

So can you help us? Were the guns all new or were there some old, some new? Can you help us?

New ones and old ones.

Now you notice, don't you, that in - can we put up, please, September 2003's account. Now this is the first time you're speaking to the investigators. What you told them was this: "I don't know where the guns came from." Do you remember telling them that?

Yes.

However, today you tell us the truck carrying the guns was driven by three Liberians, Charles Taylor's soldiers. That's what he said yesterday, Madam President.

Yesterday, because you mentioned today. I don't recall hearing it today.

Yesterday you told us that the men wearing the red military hats were Charles Taylor's soldiers. So help us: Why in September 2003 did you tell the investigators, "I don't know where the guns came from"?

Well, at the time that they asked me I said I saw vehicles but I did not know where the vehicles had come from. So there came a time when they asked me again. They asked whether the vehicles that came, what they were like and I said that they were Liberian people because they were speaking Liberian English. They asked me how I knew. I said because the way they were speaking English, the way they were speaking. So they used to ask me those questions and at that time I explained.

In fact, Mr Witness, the very first time you mentioned Charles Taylor was 27 September this year, five years after you'd first spoken to the OTP. Look behind divider 7, please. Proofing on 27 September 2008.

"When asked if he ever heard the name Charles Taylor when he was with the rebels the witness said that Liberian soldiers came to the training camp and he was told they were Charles Taylor's soldiers. They were in uniforms and wearing red hats. These same soldiers came with the weapons that were handed out at the end of training."

27 September, a couple of weeks ago, here in The Hague. Ten days ago. So help me with this: Ten days ago when you arrived here in The Hague who did you meet with and tell this to?

Well, when I came here my lawyer was here and he asked me. We used to meet.

Who is that lawyer? Is he in court?

He is here in court. He was the one I explained to when I came here.

Which lawyer in court is the one you spoke to and mentioned for the first time in five years Charles Taylor? Point him out to us, please. Which lawyer is it?

He is here.

Which one? Is it the one without hair or the one with hair?

The one without hair is the one I explained to.

So you spoke to Mr Koumjian on 27 September of this year and miraculously remembered for the first time in five years that it was Charles Taylor's soldiers who had brought the guns. Is that right?

Yes, he was the one I explained to.

Help me, please: What question did Mr Koumjian put to you which elicited the answer Charles Taylor's soldiers wore red hats? What did he ask you, that man over there?

Well, he asked me when we were in Buedu - when they brought the guns whom did I actually see, and I said I saw soldiers dressed and he asked me how they were dressed and I explained to him how they were dressed. So he asked me again how were they speaking and I said they were speaking Liberian English. Then he asked me how I knew. He said, "Do you know where they came from"? Then I told him that I just saw them coming in the vehicles from the end of - from the town end. Then he said - he asked me if I actually knew where the soldiers had come from. Then I told him that one of my friends was there, those whom we met there, the one who was standing close to me. It was at the time that I asked him. Then I told him - I asked him which soldiers these were. This, my friend, told me that they were Charles Taylor's soldiers. So that was how he asked me and I explained to him.

Mr Sumana, if, as you're now telling us, a truck arrives carrying weapons and it's driven by Charles Taylor's soldiers, wouldn't it be logical for someone to think these arms come from Charles Taylor? Do you think that would be logical?

Well, I asked my friend because they were the ones we met there. That was what he told me. I asked him where these soldiers had come from, these soldiers who are dressed like this, and he said they were Charles Taylor's soldiers.

Try my question now. Don't you think it would be pretty simple logic that if a truck full of arms arrives driven by Charles Taylor's soldiers that it's a pretty fair assumption that the arms must have come from Mr Taylor. Don't you agree?

I did not understand it properly. You are explaining it very fast and you are interpreting it to me very fast.

Okay. My fault. There you are, Mr Sumana, you're standing on a parade ground in Buedu, yes?

Yes.

It's passing out day.

Yes.

We are supposed to get our guns today, yes?

I did not understand that.

We are to get our guns today on pass out day, aren't we?

Yes.

A truck arrives, yes?

Yes.

This truck is loaded with AK-47s, whether they're old or they're new, but it's loaded with guns, yes?

Yes.

That truck is being driven by one of Charles Taylor's soldiers and there are two more Charles Taylor soldiers in the truck, yes?

Yes.

Me, standing on that parade ground, would think those arms have come from Charles Taylor, don't you agree?

Objection. What Mr Griffiths would think standing on the parade ground, I think that it's irrelevant and speculative.

Obviously, Mr Griffiths, you will have to ask the witness what he thought.

So there you are, Mr Sumana, thank you, Mr Koumjian, standing on the parade ground thinking - sit down - those arms must have come from Charles Taylor, mustn't they?

Excuse me, Mr Griffiths. Mr Koumjian.

I have a question, your Honour. In all of my practice in various jurisdictions the rule was that counsel should address the Bench and not address opposing counsel; is that the rule in this Chamber, please?

That has been the rule in this Chamber.

Surely standing there on that parade ground, Mr Sumana, you thought those arms must have come from Charles Taylor. Didn't you think that?

Well, I did not think that way. I asked. Those whom I met there were the ones I asked. They explained to me. I was not the one who just stood there and suggested that it had come from there. I asked.

So help us, please: Having been told why did you tell the investigators in September 2003 that you didn't know where the arms came from? Why did you tell them that?

Well, the way they asked me the question was the way I answered it.

Don't you agree, based on what you were told, you should have said, "I think those arms came from Charles Taylor, because they were - the people who drove the truck were Charles Taylor's soldiers." That's what you should have told them, don't you agree?

I used to tell - I told them, but they asked me and I told them that I saw soldiers who were dressed. So the way they asked me the question when I came here was the way I answered it here. The way I was asked was the way I answered it.

Mr Griffiths, unfortunately we are out of time, and I will have to adjourn court for the mid-morning break. Mr Witness, it's now 11.30 and we take our half hour break at this time. We will be resuming court at 12 o'clock. Please adjourn court until 12.

Mr Griffiths, please proceed.