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

  • Thank you. Ms Hollis, please continue, with cross-examination.

  • Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, before I continue with questions of this witness, yesterday I had referred the Court to the testimony of Gibril Massaquoi in the case of Brima et al and had distributed those documents. And I would ask that those documents be marked for identification, because I do not believe I asked that yesterday. Those were documents of 7 October 2005 and the pages that were referred to yesterday were pages 110 and 111.

  • I believe it is one document?

  • So this is the transcript out of the case Brima et al and the transcript is of 7 October 2005 and the pages are 110, 111, 112 --

  • Madam President, I had referred to pages 110 and 111 only, so I would ask those two pages be marked for identification.

  • Normally we take the last page as well to show us which witness it is.

  • So I'll do that again. The pages that are going to be marked are 110, 111 and 104, funny enough. I don't know why 104 comes before 110.

  • That may be identifying the witness.

  • Yes. Okay. Those are the pages. They will be marked MFI-10.

  • Thank you, Madam President.

  • Good morning, Mr Witness.

  • Good morning, Ms Hollis.

  • Yesterday we were talking about Charles Taylor's ownership of White Flower and it's correct, is it not, that in 1998 Charles Taylor owned White Flower?

  • I don't know. In 1998 what I know is that White Flower was under construction by Charles Taylor.

  • Mr Witness, if Charles Taylor told this Court that he had bought White Flower in the beginning of 1997, you would not dispute that, would you?

  • I don't know when he bought White Flower, so I would not have any comments to make on that. I don't know.

  • Now, you're testimony that White Flower was under construction when you went to Benjamin Yeaten's house and that Charles Taylor moved into White Flower in January of 1999, that's new information from you after 12 May this year, correct?

  • I don't know, but I believe I gave that testimony before - I mean, during - during the first time I met the Defence counsel.

  • Well, that information does not appear in summaries 3, 4 or 5, so are you saying the Defence simply omitted that from those summaries?

  • That's the summary, it is not a detailed report that I gave. So in the detailed report it should be mentioned.

  • So you're saying that the Defence omitted to put that in the summary?

  • I am saying that I gave the full story and that is a summary report.

  • Were you informed about what was happening at White Flower before President Taylor moved in there officially?

  • I heard that White Flower was under construction by President Taylor.

  • Were you getting any briefings about daily activities at White Flower during 1998?

  • So you would not know if Charles Taylor held meetings at White Flower before he moved in officially. You wouldn't know that, would you?

  • I was not there. Whether he held meetings, I don't know. But what I know is that White Flower was under construction in 1998 before he moved there.

  • And in regard to his moving there, what you know is that he officially took residence there in January of 1999. Isn't that correct?

  • What I know was that White Flower was under construction in 1998 and what I saw at last was that President Taylor moved there in January for his birthday celebration. So whether he had been there before unofficially, I don't know.

  • Mr Witness, you have told the judges about Benjamin Yeaten providing ammunition to Sam Bockarie and that he had obtained this ammunition from different places in Liberia. You remember telling the judges that?

  • Yes, I remember telling the judges that he got the ammunition from those counties or those areas that I had named in Liberia.

  • And you named several counties and indicated that those counties had been controlled by the LPC prior to 1997, correct?

  • Yes, LPC and then ULIMO-K.

  • Now, are you telling the Court that LPC and ULIMO-K did not disarm during the 1995 disarmament?

  • I am not telling the Court that they did not disarm. What I said and what I know is that he sent people to those areas to buy ammunition. But what I told the Court was that those areas were controlled by LPC and then ULIMO-K.

  • Mr Witness, the NPFL didn't disarm during the 1995 disarmament, did it?

  • The NPFL disarm --

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

  • Mr Witness, can you please repeat what you said. The interpreter didn't catch it.

  • What I said was that in 1995, I know that the NPFL disarmed, including myself, I disarmed as NPFL personnel. I disarmed in 1995 in Gbarnga to ECOMOG.

  • In fact, Mr Witness, the NPFL turned in weapons that were not functional, or old weapons. Isn't that right?

  • Those weapons that were turned over were weapons that were functioning. Every weapon that the NPFL had, that they used during the war, those weapons were turned over, functioning weapons.

  • And the NPFL hid weapons, didn't it?

  • To my knowledge, the NPFL did not hide any weapons.

  • In fact, Mr Witness, this 1995 disarmament was really a fiasco, wasn't it?

  • It was not a joke. It was something serious. It was reality. It was real.

  • In fact, there was no disarmament in 1995, was there?

  • There was disarmament in 1995 and followed by the elections.

  • And even the United Nations privately admitted that their programme of disarmament was a very big disappointment. Isn't that right?

  • I did not hear that.

  • Now, Mr Witness, you have told the Court that Daniel Chea was the Minister of Defence after Charles Taylor was elected President, correct?

  • And Charles Taylor has indicated to this Court that during the NPFL time Daniel Chea at some point was also the Minister of Defence. You would not dispute that, would you, Mr Witness?

  • And Charles Taylor has also told this Court that it was Daniel Chea who was really involved with the disarmament. You wouldn't dispute that, would you, Mr Witness?

  • If he said that, then that was his testimony.

  • So, Mr Witness, let's hear what Daniel Chea had to say about the 1995 disarmament.

    Madam President, at this point I would like to play a clip of a portion of a video interview of Daniel Chea, which was conducted by Jessie Deeter on 25 November 2004. The entire video was disclosed to the Defence 25th of March of this year.

    Portions of that video were published on the PBS Frontline World website and parts of that written transcript on the PBS Frontline World website have been admitted as P-453. The clip that I wish to play is the part of the video relating to the 1995 disarmament. It is not new material in the sense that it is simply the video version of the written portion of P-453, which talks about this disarmament.

    So at this time, I would ask that that clip be played. And we also have a transcript of this clip and I would ask that that be distributed.

  • Yes, Mr Anyah.

  • Madam President, I have an objection regarding this clip. I will ask for a moment to pull up Prosecution exhibit P-453, which we are told is the written version of what appears on this audio or videotape. The basis for my objection is your Honours' decision from 30 November 2009, that is the decision dealing with fresh evidence.

    And let me state my objection more appropriately. If I understood learned counsel opposite correctly, we are told that this is a clip of Daniel Chea dealing with the disarmament in Liberia in 1995. That's what we are told. We are also told that it is the video portion of an exhibit already admitted before the Court.

    The difficulty is, irrespective of those assertions, this is still a new form of evidence before the Court. It comes in a tangibly different form; it comes in the form of a video. I haven't watched this video before to know if anything in it exceeds the scope of contents of Prosecution exhibit P-453.

    But let's look at the context in which this video is being brought before the Court. The first observation; if the video is identical to P-453, then a question arises, why P-453, the text, is not being put to the witness? Why do we now need another form of the same information, in the nature of a video, to be - a video/audio - to be put to the witness. They could easily just put what is already admitted as P-453 to the witness.

    Second of all, let's look at the questions leading up to the proposal that this video be watched. The witness is not being sought to be discredited in any way. There is no dispute between counsel and the witness as to Daniel Chea's position. The witness has not contradicted counsel's proposition that Daniel Chea was defence minister. Indeed, the question, as I have it on line number 11, my LiveNote, using a 14 point font, was that - well, my line 12 on page 11:

    "Q. And Mr Charles Taylor has also told this Court that it

    was Daniel Chea who was really involved in this

    disarmament. You wouldn't dispute that, would you,

    Mr Witness?

    A. If he said that, then that was his testimony."

    Now, where is the contradiction there that warrants impeaching this witness? But let's say, for the sake of it, that there is something that counsel could use in this audio to impeach the witness. The next question that begs for an answer is: Is this audio something that goes to proof of the guilt of the accused?

    It is fresh evidence, that's no question, because it was not admitted during the Prosecution's case in chief, irrespective of whether or not they possessed it.

    The next question is: Does it go to the guilt of the accused? I propose yes; the disarmament process is part and parcel with the Rule 93 assertions in this case - evidence of a consistent pattern of conduct occurring in Liberia that the Prosecution wishes to use vis-a-vis the conflict in Sierra Leone. It goes beyond the scope of this witness's testimony.

    This witness and I, when I examined the witness in chief, there was no issues about disarmament, at least not to this degree. Whether or not the NPFL disarmed was something that I believe, if memory serves me right, the witness mentioned in passing that there was disarmament in Liberia. It was not an area of inquiry from the Defence.

    So now we have a new audio being provided. I think it's a video, I'm not sure what it is. We are told it was disclosed. I have no reason to doubt that, that it was disclosed in March of this year; but the fact is, there's nothing to impeach the witness about vis-a-vis credibility, and the information goes to proof of the conduct of the accused and relates to his guilt. And so I object to it because the Prosecution has an onus on the basis of your decision, they have to show that it is in the interests of justice and it does not violate the fair trial rights of the accused. They haven't met that burden.

  • Ms Hollis, the transcript before us has two clips, that's clip 2 and clip 3. Are you saying you are going to play two clips? Three clips actually. There's clip 1, 2 and 3.

  • You are going to play three clips?

  • First of all we're going to play clip number 1 which deals with disarmament. And then, depending upon answers from this witness, we may play clips 2 and 3.

  • So for now you want the judges to look at clip 1 only?

  • That's correct, Madam President.

  • So what is your response to the submissions by the Defence?

  • Thank you, Madam President.

  • At least in relation to clip 1, Ms Hollis?

  • Thank you. This is the same material your Honours have admitted in --

  • Sorry, I think the witness's headphones weren't working.

  • Thank you, Madam President.

    Madam President, this is the same material, in substance, that your Honours have admitted in P-453. This is being used to impeach the testimony of this witness. This witness has not only just recently, this morning, disputed whether the NPFL disarmed, whether the disarmament was a fiasco, disputed that there was no disarmament; but also, in the witness's testimony in chief, the witness indicated that Benjamin Yeaten obtained ammunition, supposedly in secret, and supposedly only from ULIMO-K and LPC areas of the country.

    In fact, on the 24th, at page 47013, this witness did say that NPFL had disarmed and Jungle Fire dissolved. So this matter did come up in direct examination in relation to the source of the ammunition that Benjamin Yeaten provided to Sam Bockarie in 1998. And this witness has indicated, as I mentioned this morning, that his testimony is the NPFL in fact did disarm, that the disarmament was not a fiasco, and that there was a disarmament.

    So, number one, in substance, it is not fresh evidence. If your Honours consider it fresh evidence, it is fresh evidence that, in substance, is the same as the written version of this information that was provided in an edited interview, which is now P-453.

    Why are we showing the video? Because the video, at the beginning, identifies the person - the person himself identifies himself as Daniel Chea. So it is the video of him giving this information, as opposed to the written form of him giving this information.

    We believe we have a right to put this video on; that, to the extent you consider the mode being fresh evidence, because the substance is not - it is fresh evidence that your Honours have already determined is appropriate to be used - and so we believe that we have a right to do this and we would ask that your Honours allow us to play this clip.

  • Ms Hollis, before you sit down. Could you point us to the paragraph in exhibit P-453 where you say that the gist of that interview is the same as the material on the clip.

  • Certainly.

  • May I be of assistance?

  • If I may be of assistance, I have the relevant portion to direct counsel to.

  • I believe it's page 4.

  • And at page 4, if we are at page 4 of this document, and if we count up from the bottom, the fourth paragraph up where it talks about when UNMIL first arrived.

  • Please allow the judges to study this material first.

    We've looked at the transcript of the proposed clip 1, and we do agree that it's a verbatim reproduction of the paragraph - one of the paragraphs on page 1 of exhibit P-453, it is a verbatim reproduction of that paragraph. And we are of the view that there is nothing to be gained of hearing this clip, which is an exact verbatim reproduction of that excerpt; and that, instead, it is quite possible for the Prosecution to simply read that paragraph, or put the paragraph to the witness, in order to impeach his earlier testimony.

    And so we refuse the use of clip 1.

  • Madam President, may I simply remind the Bench that when the transcript, the written transcript was used in the cross-examination of Charles Taylor, he questioned that this was actually Daniel Chea. At the time the Prosecution did not have this clip, this video, and it took us some time to get it. So, in that regard, we believe that the clip would have some additional evidentiary value for your Honours.

  • Well, unfortunately, that was the time to have brought this clip up, to impeach Mr Taylor. But this witness has not denied that Mr Chea is the one who said all of this. So it's not this witness's testimony that's in the balance, it's Mr Taylor's. And, in any event, as with any witness and any exhibit, all of these matters go to weight.

  • Which would make the clip relevant, in our view, Madam President.

  • In any event, we've ruled that the clip will not be used. So please proceed.

  • Mr Witness, let's see what Daniel Chea said about disarmament, and I'm referring to page 4 of P-453:

    "When UNMIL first arrived in this country, they told us that they were here to disarm an estimated 40,000 people. I told them to be prepared to disarm twice that number. The reason is very simple. The disarmament of 1995 was a fiasco. There was no disarmament. It was a haphazard attempt. Unofficially, they, the United Nations, will tell you that their own programme was a big disappointment and I think they learned a lot of lessons and this time around I think they came quite prepared."

    So, Mr Witness, Daniel Chea said that there was no disarmament, it was a fiasco, a haphazard attempt, and even unofficially, the United Nations said that their own programme was a big disappointment.

    Now, Mr Witness, who would be in a better position to know about the quality of this 1995 disarmament, you or Daniel Chea?

  • For me, as an individual, and as an element of the NPFL, I knew about my own house, that is, within the NPFL. I believe that the NPFL fully disarmed to the peacekeepers, and the peacekeepers were satisfied with the disarmament, and that was why they allowed the elections to go on. So, if he went on to say that the disarmament was a fiasco, then that is his statement. I am not in the position to judge his statement, but I am in the position to tell this Court that the disarmament of 1995 was complete and that was what led to a peaceful election.

  • Now, Mr Witness, let's go back to my question, that I would like you to answer: Who would be in a better position to know about the quality of this 1995 disarmament, you or Daniel Chea?

  • I believe the peacekeepers who conducted the disarmament should be in better position to say whether the disarmament was complete or not.

  • Who, unofficially, said their programme was a big disappointment?

  • I don't know. I never heard that from anyone. I'm only hearing that from you this morning, or from the script that you have just read.

  • Mr Witness, after he was elected President, Charles Taylor relied on militia units, didn't he?

  • No. After he was elected President all of the militia, let's say, the NPFL was dissolved; he relied on the national security of the Republic of Liberia.

  • In fact, Mr Witness, Charles Taylor was suspicious of the military, the AFL, after he became President, wasn't he?

  • I don't know.

  • Well, Mr Witness, you have told this Court a lot about what Charles Taylor knew or didn't know, so why are you unable to answer that question?

  • If I told the Court about what Charles Taylor knew, then that was the one I knew. But the ones I don't know, I would not be in a position to say I know them; I would be lying to the Court if I did, and I don't want to lie to this Court.

  • Mr Witness, Charles Taylor ran his militias out of the Executive Mansion, isn't that correct?

  • I don't know.

  • Just as he ran the SSS out of the Executive Mansion, correct?

  • He never ran the SSS. The SSS were securities assigned at the Executive Mansion. They controlled the Executive Mansion and they controlled the life of the President and the First Family and other VIPs. They were not controlled by the President. It's not so.

  • Members of the SSS actually participated in Charles Taylor's militias, didn't they?

  • They were national securities, they were not militia.

  • In fact, Benjamin Yeaten, Joe Tuah, they participated in militias controlled by Charles Taylor, didn't they?

  • What I know is that Benjamin Yeaten took part in the national security of Liberia with the military and paramilitary; that is, the SSS and the Armed Forces of Liberia.

  • Mr Witness, did you participate in these militias that Charles Taylor ran out of the Executive Mansion?

  • I was in the Special Securities Service that was responsible for the safety of the President of Liberia.

  • Let's go back to my question: Did you participate in these militias that Charles Taylor ran out of the Executive Mansion?

  • Charles Taylor, to my knowledge, never controlled any militia from the Executive Mansion.

  • So then your answer would be you did not participate in any such militia, is that right?

  • My answer is: I was a member of the Special Securities Service of the Republic of Liberia.

  • Now, because Charles Taylor was suspicious of the army, he decided to transfer most of the army's duties to his militias. Isn't that right?

  • I believe President Taylor was satisfied with the army.

  • And he empowered the militias instead of empowering the army. Isn't that correct?

  • I believe Mr Taylor was satisfied with the Armed Forces of Liberia.

  • And these militias, controlled by Charles Taylor, mistreated civilians in Liberia. Isn't that correct?

  • The Armed Forces of Liberia never treated any civilians badly in my presence, or that I know about.

  • Let's go back to my question: These militias, controlled by Charles Taylor, mistreated civilians in Liberia. Isn't that correct?

  • To my knowledge, the President was not controlling any militia in Liberia --

  • -- from the Executive Mansion.

  • Well, was he controlling them from anywhere else, to your knowledge?

  • The President was not controlling militia.

  • Let's look at what Daniel Chea had to say about Charles Taylor and militias, and we're looking at P-453, page 2.

    And, your Honours, I'm going to page P-453 because it is my understanding that your ruling would apply to both clips 2 and 3 as well as one, correct?

  • We haven't heard any submissions on 2 and 3. Our ruling was limited to clip 1.

  • It will be the same issues with 2 and 3. It is from P-453. It is simply the video version of that information.

  • Well, I would advise that if the material is verbatim, a replica of what's contained in an existing exhibit, you go with the existing exhibit. There's no point to be served by hearing an audio of the same material.

  • Other than, of course, seeing the identity of the person and that he identified himself.

  • Mr Witness, let's look at what Daniel Chea had to say about Charles Taylor and militias. And I'm looking at page 2 of P-453, the first paragraph on that page, and beginning three lines down, this is Daniel Chea:

    "But Mr Taylor had his own problems, his own suspicions and one of those suspicions - and I thought this was a big mistake - was his suspicion of the military. Because of his own suspicion of the army, he decided to transfer most of the responsibility of the army into militia groups. I thought that was a mistake. And, of course, when the militia groups began to act disorderly, the people began to reject them; they rejected the whole idea of not empowering the Armed Forces, which is a constitutional entity, and instead Taylor empowered militia forces."

    And then, if we look at the third paragraph, the last sentence in that paragraph:

    "President Taylor had his own disjointed militia that he ran from his own mansion."

    So, Mr Witness, Daniel Chea is saying that Charles Taylor was suspicious of the army; that, because of that, he transferred most of the army's duties to his militias; that he empowered the militias, instead of the army; that he ran it from his own mansion; and that these militias were disorderly towards civilians.

    Now, Mr Witness, Daniel Chea, the Minister of Defence, when Charles Taylor was the President, who would be in a better position to know about Charles Taylor's militias, you or the Minister of Defence?

  • The Minister of Defence was the Minister of Defence. He was working, he was doing his work. So if there was anything like that, he was supposed to have told the President at that time. But what I'm here to tell this Court is that, to my knowledge, the President did not control militia group or militia from the Executive Mansion. All those security that were assigned at the Executive Mansion, I believe, were national securities and there were no militia group at the Executive Mansion or controlled by the President.

  • Let's go back to my question. The Minister of Defence or you, Mr Witness, who would be in the better position to know about Charles Taylor and the militias?

  • But I am not the one - I am not in the position to tell what the President does, because I'm not the spokesperson for the President, nor am I the spokesperson for the defence minister.

  • In the same vein, Ms Hollis, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think this is an appropriate time to ask this question.

    Mr Witness, regarding the 1995 disarmament, were you given some role as an observer of that disarmament?

  • I was not given a role. I was an NPFL man who went through the disarmament process. I was not an observer.

  • So you simply went through the disarmament process with other people. Is that right?

  • Exactly so. And I fully disarmed, along with other people.

  • You see, the reason I ask that is that not so long ago this morning you told the Court, and I'm quoting you now: "I am in the position to tell this Court that the disarmament of 1995 was complete." Now, how would you know the disarmament of 1995 was complete, given your limited role in it?

  • Okay. I said this because, and I stated clearly, that I know about my own house, that is the NPFL. The NPFL disarmed fully. And, secondly, I said this because the ECOMOG that conducted the disarmament process - after the disarmament process, they declared that it was over and that was the reason they were satisfied to carry on or to allow the elections to take place. So if there was a foul play or if there was anything pertaining the disarmament that they were dissatisfied with, I don't think they would have allowed the elections to take place. That is why I am saying that the disarmament was conducted. And particularly so, the NPFL turned in all their weapons.

  • Well, that's what I'm asking you: How do you know that the NPFL disarmed fully? Give me a reason why you can say that.

  • Because every one of us who went to disarm, we went with all - every weapon that we had. And I saw - within the camp where I was disarmed in Gbarnga, I saw everybody with their weapons, including the artillery weapons and others with light weapons. Like for me, I presented all my weapons that I had. So there was no doubt for me to say that nobody refused to surrender their weapons. I am saying this from the observation that I made in the disarmament camp.

  • So you saw everybody in the disarmament camp disarm, did you?

  • Everybody I saw there disarmed. They all brought their weapons.

  • And how many people are you talking about?

  • It was a very long queue. Highly populated, so I can't tell the number. It was highly populated.

  • I don't have any more questions on that issue.

  • Please continue, Ms Hollis.

  • Thank you, Madam President.

  • Mr Witness, you told the Court about Sam Bockarie going to the Ivory Coast in 2000, yes?

  • Charles Taylor sent militias to the Ivory Coast to fight. Isn't that right?

  • It's not to my knowledge.

  • In fact, Charles Taylor sent Sam Bockarie and some of his group to the Ivory Coast to fight. Isn't that right?

  • I don't know. It's not to my knowledge.

  • In 2002 Benjamin Yeaten took fighters into the Ivory Coast. Isn't that right?

  • I did not see that.

  • And Joe Tuah, Edward Zammy, Ocebio Dehme, they all went with Benjamin Yeaten when he went into the Ivory Coast in 2002. Isn't that right?

  • I don't know whether Benjamin Yeaten ever took troops to the Ivory Coast. I don't know.

  • And it was Charles Taylor who sent Benjamin Yeaten and these fighters into the Ivory Coast to fight with Phillip [sic] Doh. Isn't that right?

  • I said I don't know whether Benjamin Yeaten ever led troops to the Ivory Coast to fight.

  • Mr Witness, are you aware that the Liberian TRC found that in October of 2002 Benjamin Yeaten, Joe Tuah, Edward Zammy, Ocebio Dehme, went into the Ivory Coast on the mandate of Charles Taylor? Are you aware of that?

  • I don't know. I never came across that report.

  • And that the Liberian TRC found that they were sent to the Ivory Coast to act as mercenaries for Phillip Doh. Are you aware of that?

  • Mr Witness, did you go into the Ivory Coast with Benjamin Yeaten and these others in 2002?

  • I said I don't know whether Benjamin Yeaten ever went to the Ivory Coast to fight.

  • Mr Witness, were you sent into the Ivory Coast to fight in 2002 or any other year?

  • I was not sent to the Ivory Coast and I don't know whether Benjamin Yeaten ever led troops to the Ivory Coast to fight.

  • Now, you were aware that there were Liberians fighting in the Ivory Coast, weren't you?

  • I was not aware that there were Liberians fighting in the Ivory Coast.

  • Now, Mr Witness, if Daniel Chea talked about militia forces from Liberia, from Charles Taylor's government, being involved in the Ivory Coast, you would have no reason to dispute that, would you?

  • If he said that, then that's it. But, to my knowledge, Benjamin Yeaten never led troops to the Ivory Coast to fight any war. So I would be in a position to say that I don't know whether Benjamin Yeaten ever crossed into the Ivory Coast to fight.

  • And, Mr Witness, Charles Taylor sending Benjamin Yeaten and others into the Ivory Coast was the same that he was doing with Benjamin Yeaten and others when he was using them to assist and otherwise participate with the rebels in Sierra Leone. Isn't that right?

  • That's not so. I told you that I was not aware that Benjamin Yeaten ever crossed into the Ivory Coast to fight. And I told you that Benjamin Yeaten's relationship with Sam Bockarie was totally not to the knowledge of the President.

  • And you talked to the President about that, is that right, so President Taylor told you he was surprised when you told him about that? Is that how you're able to say that Charles Taylor didn't know about this?

  • I never met the President on any issue like that. What I know was that Benjamin Yeaten, who had this relationship with Sam Bockarie, told me and others that we should be very careful so that the President would not know about his relationship, because it was a secret one with Sam Bockarie, because if the President discovers it he would be arrested. And before the President does that, any one of us who leaks out the secret, he would deal with us before the President deals with him.

    So this gave me the clue that the President was not informed about this relationship; that this relationship was not to the knowledge of the President.

  • Mr Witness, this evidence that you've given this Court about Benjamin Yeaten being provided ammunition from people in counties under the control of the LPC and ULIMO-K, that's all new information, isn't it, since 12 May?

  • Madam President, I object to the question. That's not the witness's evidence. The witness did not say people in counties under the control of the ULIMO or the LPC. The witness said from areas controlled by the LPC and ULIMO. And, indeed, he didn't even say areas controlled by ULIMO. He said from ex-ULIMO personnel in Lofa County. That's what he said.

  • In any event, Ms Hollis, perhaps you can rephrase your question.

  • Mr Witness, you're telling the Court that Benjamin Yeaten got ammunition from people, correct? It's people who gave him the ammunition, correct?

  • I told this Court that Benjamin Yeaten sent people to these counties that were controlled by ex-LPC and ULIMO. That was where I used the word "people". That he sent his people, and I mentioned Sampson and Jungle as examples.

  • Mr Witness, let's go back to my question. When Benjamin Yeaten sent people to these counties, from whom did he get - did these people get the ammunition?

  • That is what I don't know.

  • Well, are you saying that LPC led them to secret hiding places and they took it, or are you saying that people in those counties gave the ammunition to Benjamin Yeaten's representatives? What are you saying?

  • I am saying that these people were sent to these counties to purchase these ammunition, but from whom they purchased the ammunition, I don't know.

  • Well, Mr Witness, you would purchase ammunition from human beings, right?

  • Exactly so. But I don't know the human beings that they purchased the ammunition from.

  • So, Mr Witness, this testimony of yours about purchases in these counties that were formerly controlled by the LPC and ULIMO-K, purchases from people in those counties, that's all new, isn't it? It's new since 12 May, isn't it?

  • Yes, this is new information that I revealed to the Defence counsel here in the Netherlands.

  • This is yet another part of your story that you have invented since 12 May, correct?

  • This was not a make up story. And let me make it clear that it is not a make up story. If I hear you mentioning - I hear you mentioning since 12 May. At the time that I met with the Defence counsel in Monrovia from 19 - from 2000 - in June 2009 or to 2010, I did not reveal the truth of this story to these people because I was not sure of who they were and I was not sure of whom I was talking to. That was why I took a defensive position; because I did not know who they were up to late 19 - 2000 when I heard Silas over the radio when he was examining a witness. It was at this time that I got convinced that, indeed, Silas was from the Special Court in The Hague and Silas was a member of Mr Taylor's Defence counsel. But until then, I never knew - I was not satisfied with them.

    And maybe you might ask me what about John Gray. I heard the name John Gray, but before that time I had never seen John Gray and I had never known him. But I heard his name, that he was the Vice-President to Moses Blah but I never knew him, so I did not trust him to open myself up to him, for my own security.

    So when I got here, it was at this time - because I did not want to lie to this Honourable Court; I don't want to lie to this Honourable Court, before this Honourable Court - so when I got here, it was at that time that I revealed the truth that I'm saying here now. Even if they had not asked me, when I left Liberia if I were to come here directly, then this would have been a surprise to them, because my statement to them was going to be totally different than - from the truth that I am giving here today.

  • Mr Witness, this trial's been going on since January of 2008, you know that, don't you?

  • Yes, I know that this trial had been going on for a long time.

  • And, Mr Witness, this trial has been streamed to the public, the video of it, you know that as well, don't you?

  • I don't have a video at my house. I do not have a television. I only hear about this trial by chance on one of our local stations. And all the Defence lawyer for Mr Taylor that I know is - or was Mr Courtenay Griffiths. Apart from Mr Courtenay Griffiths, I don't know about any other Defence lawyer, apart from him. I saw his picture on some of our local newspapers. If Mr Griffiths was the one I had met at the time, I would have told him exactly what I'm saying here today because I would have trusted him.

  • And, Mr Witness, the Court has taken Outreach videos of testimony in this case, which shows Defence counsel as well as Prosecution counsel. They have taken these Outreach videos to Liberia, beginning in 2008. Isn't that right?

  • I never came across it. You know, Liberia is a country - even Monrovia is large, so you do not expect what is being shown on maybe Broad Street, that everybody within Monrovia would see that. I never came across the video.

  • And, Mr Witness, the Defence team has gone to Liberia and has actually given interviews in Liberia. Isn't that right?

  • I don't know. I never heard their interviews at all.

  • And, Mr Witness, you knew that there were members of Charles Taylor's Defence team who were actually stationed in Monrovia. You knew that, didn't you?

  • Until June of 19 - let me say - I keep saying 19. Until June of 2009, when I met Mr Gray, I never knew that Mr Taylor ever had - never had a Defence team in Monrovia. I said the only person that I heard about, and whose picture I saw, was Mr Courtenay Griffiths.

  • Mr Witness, you knew John Gray because you knew him from NPFL days. That's correct, isn't it?

  • I never knew John Gray. I heard the name John Gray at the time when Moses Blah was the President. I even did not see his picture.

  • And, Mr Witness, John Gray made you aware that Lavali Supuwood was also a member of the Defence case - of the Defence team, and that he was in Monrovia. You knew that, didn't you, Mr Witness?

  • I said I knew nothing about Mr Taylor's Defence team in Monrovia. Nothing. Before I could meet Silas and Mrs Logan, I never knew anything of the sort.

  • And, Mr Witness, after John Gray took you to meet with Silas and Logan, you had ample opportunity to find out just who these people were. Isn't that right?

  • I had the opportunity to find out. But, actually, I never trusted them. I did not know who they were. That was my first time of seeing an American lady and another person who claimed to be Mr Taylor's lawyers. I was not satisfied with them.

  • And you had ample time to find out that these people were, in fact, members of Charles Taylor's Defence team, didn't you?

  • But from whom would I inquire? I told you all I know, that the only person I was satisfied with, if I had seen them at the time, was Mr Griffiths, because I had seen his picture and I had heard that he was the Defence lawyer for Mr Taylor. Apart from Griffiths, nobody else.

  • And, Mr Witness, you changed your story after 12 May because you realised at that time that a complete denial just wouldn't be credible to the Court. Isn't that right?

  • I changed my story afterwards because I was now satisfied that the people I was dealing with were from the Special Court here; and, secondly, they were Mr Taylor's Defence lawyers.

  • And I having known their identity, I changed my - I also changed my story because I did not want to come before this Honourable Court and tell lies or to explain made up stories. Even if you were the one I had met before, I had the intention that if the Special Court ever invited me, because I dealt with Yeaten, I was with Yeaten - because Yeaten had this connection with Sam Bockarie - if the Special Court had invited me and I had known that I was satisfied that they had invited me, I would have come and explained this. If you were the one at the time, I would have given myself to you once I was satisfied - I would have given myself up to you and explained myself, except if you disagree that I should deviate from the fact and give you the story, that's where we would have disagreed.

  • So, Mr Witness, you are perfectly willing to lie when it suits your purposes to lie, is that what you're telling the Court?

  • I'm telling the Court that I am not willing to lie. I am prepared, as I am, to tell the Court the truth and nothing but the truth. And I'm telling the Court that I am perfectly willing not to give the Court a made-up story.

  • Because before the 12 May of this year, you gave very detailed lies to the Defence team, isn't that right?

  • Before the 12th - before I came here to The Hague, I had given some of my testimony - some of my testimony was not accurate because I did not know who they were, as I told you; I was afraid of explaining myself to the wrong person. And, secondly, I told you of how I got information of unknown people being in search of me, to have me arrested, because of my connection with Benjamin Yeaten.

  • Now, you said that that occurred around the time that David Crane left the Special Court, correct?

  • I said - this was the other instance. There were several instances that I gave. I said number one, I gave you the individual who - I said the individual who gave me the story --

  • Please pause.

  • Madam President, if memory serves, this information was elicited in private session yesterday.

  • Yes, indeed. I was about to point this out to counsel. This very area was covered in private session.

  • That's correct, but the question about David Crane would not identify this person at all.

  • But his answer might.

  • I would ask we go into private session.

  • Madam Court Manager, we'll go into a brief private session for the protection of the current witness in the box.

  • [At this point in the proceedings, a portion of the transcript, pages 48111 to 48117, was extracted and sealed under separate cover, as the proceeding was heard in private session.]

  • [Open session]

  • Your Honour, we are in open session.

  • Mr Witness, you've told these judges that you - that you were aware of Sam Bockarie having meetings in Monrovia before December of 1999, correct?

  • I told this Court that before December of 1999 I saw Sam Bockarie at the RUF guesthouse.

  • And that there were several occasions that Sam Bockarie came to Monrovia before December 1999, correct?

  • And that was the only time that I saw Sam Bockarie in Monrovia before December of 1999.

  • And, Mr Witness, this story of yours about Sam Bockarie coming to Monrovia before December of 1999, this is a new story, isn't it? This is a story since 12 May, correct?

  • Well, Mr Witness, you never told the Defence about these visits of Sam Bockarie to Monrovia before December of 1999. You never told the Defence about that before 12 May of this year, did you?

  • I believe that I told the Defence that I saw Sam Bockarie in Monrovia in 1999 at the RUF guesthouse at the time of Foday Sankoh's release. Maybe you don't have it in the summary there, that is why you are asking that question.

  • So, once again, it's something the Defence failed to put in the summary. Is that what you're saying?

  • That's a summary. And that is why I am here; to give full details of what has been summarised there.

  • So now to the judges you are admitting that Sam Bockarie came to Monrovia several times in 1998, correct?

  • Please repeat. I heard '98 from the interpreter.

  • So now to the judges you are admitting that Sam Bockarie came to Monrovia several times in 1998, correct?

  • Now I am admitting to the judges that I saw Sam Bockarie in Monrovia three times in the last quarter of 1998.

  • So you, personally, saw Sam Bockarie three times in the last quarter of 1998. Is that what you're saying?

  • This is what I'm saying; that Sam Bockarie visited Liberia three times in late in 1998 and I saw him.

  • Three times, you saw him?

  • And can you give us the locations where you saw him these three times?

  • The first visit, I saw him in Sinkor at the YWCA community and a house - and at a house where Benjamin Yeaten once lived in the YWCA community, but at this time he had turned it over to members of his bodyguard unit, that is Sampson Wehyee, Zigzag Marzah was also there, and Pa Joe, one of his drivers. And on the second - for the second time it was within that same community but in a different house, within that same community. And then the last time, this was in Benjamin Yeaten's yard. He came along with Benjamin Yeaten in Benjamin Yeaten's jeep at Yeaten's house. That was where I saw him for the last time in 1998.

  • And, Mr Witness, prior to the 12th of - actually through 12 May of this year, your story to the Defence had been that you didn't remember seeing Sam Bockarie at Benjamin Yeaten's house but that it was possible he may have been there. Isn't that right?

  • Before the 12th - I don't know the time you're talking about. During the time that I met Defence counsel, for all of their visits, I never admitted this. I never admitted this.

  • And, in fact, if we look at tab 5 of the binder that has the summaries in it, CMS page 28698, and it's the first full paragraph on that page, 29698 is the CMS page number:

    "W will testify he does not remember seeing SB, Sam Bockarie, around BY, Benjamin Yeaten's house, but that since the radio room is in an adjacent small building, he would not really know if SB was around."

    So you lied to the Defence, right up through 12 May of this year, correct?

  • I did not tell the Defence the truth because I was not sure of who they were.

  • And, in fact, if we look at this, you said, "Since the radio room is in an adjacent small building, he would not know if Sam Bockarie was around."

    Now, when you testified to these judges, you told them about the radio room being in two locations; you said it was in Benjamin Yeaten's house and then later it was in an adjacent small building. So, until you came here, you never told the Defence - at least let me correct that - at least up until 12 May of this year, you had never told the Defence that at one time the radio room was in Benjamin Yeaten's house. You had never told them that, had you?

  • I told the Defence for this part - I told the Defence during all of my visits - during all of my contacts with them in Monrovia, I told the Defence that the radio was first in Benjamin Yeaten's house; and, secondly, outside of his house. For this part I told the Defence. And what you are reading here is - is one part of where the radio was before, which is outside in a small house; it's part of it. But I told the Defence that - I told the Defence about the two locations of the radio at the time. I did not - I did not avoid it.

  • So you're saying this is something else the Defence failed to put in their summary, is that what you're saying?

  • I am saying this is part of my statement in the summary, and the detail is not here. A summary.

  • Mr Witness, on 30 August you gave the judges great detail about the killing of Sam Bockarie. Do you remember?

  • Yes, on 30 August I gave the judges detailed information that I had about the killing - about the death of Sam Bockarie.

  • And you told the judges you learned this both from an official statement from the Minister of Defence and what you supposedly had heard from other sources, correct?

  • Yes.

  • And, for example, you knew what funeral home Sam Bockarie had been taken to?

  • Yes, I heard it.

  • You even quoted to the judges what Moses Blah had said about arresting him or killing him, correct?

  • That's all new since 12 May of this year, correct?

  • This was not revealed to the Defence in Monrovia.

  • And this is all part of your re-invented story to help bolster Charles Taylor's case. Isn't that right?

  • This is not an invented story. This is an actual story that I gave to the lawyer and to this Court. It's not an invented story.

  • Now, Mr Witness, when you were explaining about the death or the killing of Sam Bockarie, you got confused a couple of times, didn't you?

  • You were telling us --

  • I don't know what you mean about confused, except if you bring out my confusion. I don't know what you're talking about.

  • If we could please look at the transcript of 30 August, page 47506.

  • We have that in front of us now.

  • Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. And if we could please look at - show on the screen lines 14 to 15.

  • Now, Mr Witness, lines 5 to 14, you are explaining about the events around the death, or the killing of Sam Bockarie, and at lines 13 and 14 you say this:

    "A. So Blah was given manpower under the command of

    Benjamin Yeaten to go and arrest Moses Blah."

    So you got a little confused in your story there; yes, Mr Witness?

  • What's the confusion there?

  • That Blah was given manpower under the command of Benjamin Yeaten to go and arrest Moses Blah. That's the confusion; yes, Mr Witness?

  • That's not confusion. That was a slip of tongue and I corrected it.

  • And, Mr Witness, the reason that you got confused with this story is because you didn't have your lie quite well enough rehearsed. Isn't that right?

  • That's not so. I said that was a slip of tongue and I corrected it. It was not a confusion. I never got stopped in between.

  • And, Mr Witness, you also had this slip of tongue because you knew that Benjamin Yeaten had been ordered to arrest Moses Blah at a later time. You knew that, didn't you?

  • What are you saying? I did not get the context of your question, please.

  • You had this slip of tongue because you knew that Benjamin Yeaten had been ordered to arrest Moses Blah at later time. You knew that, didn't you?

  • But this slip of tongue has nothing to do with the arrest of Moses Blah. How could I say Benjamin Yeaten - I mean, Moses Blah was given manpower under the command of Benjamin Yeaten to arrest Moses Blah again? You should - you should analyse and say that was a slip of tongue, and I rectified it.

  • And it was a slip of tongue because you know that Benjamin Yeaten was later ordered to arrest Moses Blah correct?

  • It was not a slip of tongue because I knew that Benjamin Yeaten was given orders to arrest Moses Blah.

  • Now, Mr Witness, in this explanation that you gave from lines 5 to 14, you also admit that Benjamin Yeaten was in Nimba County when the killing of Sam Bockarie occurred, correct?

  • Yes, he went with Moses Blah and they went to Nimba County. I said so.

  • Now, Mr Witness, you also got confused in this story later on in your explanation of this story, correct?

    And let's look at page 47507. And if we could look at the bottom of the page beginning at line 24, please. And you're asked:

    "Q. Did the government have its own version of this

    sequence of events?"

    Talking about Sam Bockarie's death and your answer was:

    "A. What I heard from the government through the defence

    minister was that after the death of Moses Blah the defence

    minister said --"

    And at that point you were interrupted. Now, that was another slip of the tongue, wasn't it, Mr Witness?

  • That was not a slip of --

  • Please pause. Yes, Mr Anyah?

  • I remember these series of questions quite well. One of them actually, her Honour Justice Doherty pointed out the error in the transcript, for each of these misstatements, once they appear in the record, attributable to the witness in a manner that doesn't make sense in the overall context. I went through the transcript with the witness, the witness corrected it right after they were said. They were slips of tongue, so to speak.

    Now, for us to spend two or three minutes with counsel opposite insinuating that the witness did not have his lie thoroughly rehearsed, and that's why he had a slip of tongue, when this happens repeatedly or recurrently in this case with various other witnesses, I think it's unnecessary, even in cross-examination.

    We have had today, and throughout the cross-examination of this witness, statements like appear on my page a 51, line 10: "So you got a little confused in your story"; and then you go to line 19 of page 51: "You didn't have your lie quite well enough rehearsed. Isn't that right?" How does that contribute to your Honours' understanding of the case when the witness merely misspoke? Surely the Prosecution has other substantive matters to put to the witness in cross-examination than calling the witness names and saying that the witness has rehearsed such-and-such.

  • Ms Hollis, could you respond to this kind of objection to the way you are proceeding.

  • Thank you, Madam President.

    First of all, Madam President, let us be perfectly clear. The Prosecution's position is that this witness has lied to your Honours under oath. We are perfectly entitled to put that to this witness in cross-examination. And, indeed, the Defence have done that throughout the Prosecution case, so it's a bit curious to hear the objection. We are not being disingenuous, we are putting it to the witness. And we have a right to do that.

    In terms of these slips of tongue, not only do we have the right to suggest it is because the witness doesn't have his story straight, but we have also put to the witness that it is because the witness is aware that Benjamin Yeaten was involved in the arrest of Moses Blah. So there was another reason why the witness misspoke. He, inadvertently, we will admit, put on the record something that indicates his awareness of Benjamin Yeaten's involvement in the arrest of Moses Blah. And we are moving to that same area with the question about the slip of the tongue of the death of Moses Blah. And we believe that we have a right to do it. And considering the repetitive nature of some of the Defence's cross-examination and direct examination, we do not believe we are unduly wasting this Court's time.

  • So, in other words, whilst the Defence describes these errors as slips of tongue, the Prosecution view is that they were more than a slip of the tongue?

  • And as to why the slip of the tongue occurred.

  • Very well. In that case I would overrule the objection.

  • Thank you, Madam President.

  • Now, if we could please look at 47507 and down at the bottom, pages - lines 24 to 29, please. And you see there, Mr Witness, we had referred to your statement about "after the death of Moses Blah". Another slip of the tongue, correct?

  • Where?

  • Well, I've read it to you before, let me read it to you again. Line 28: "Was that after the death of Moses Blah, the defence minister said." Do you see that, Mr Witness?

  • But would you consider - is Moses Blah dead?

  • Mr Witness, the reason you made that slip of the tongue was also because you knew that Benjamin Yeaten not only had orders to arrest Moses Blah, he had orders to kill Moses Blah. Isn't that right?

  • Benjamin Yeaten never had an order to kill Moses Blah. Benjamin Yeaten was operating under the orders of Moses Blah at this time.

  • And it was Charles Taylor who gave Benjamin Yeaten the order to arrest Moses Blah, correct?

  • I am not talking about the arrest of Moses Blah. I am talking about the stories about the death of Sam Bockarie that Moses Blah was given the order to go and arrest Moses Blah and he was given manpower under the command of Benjamin Yeaten.

  • Mr Witness, I am talking about an order to arrest Moses Blah, so let's go back to my question. It was Charles Taylor who gave Benjamin Yeaten the order to arrest Moses Blah. You know that, don't you?

  • And it was Charles Taylor who gave Benjamin Yeaten the order to kill Moses Blah. You know that as well, don't you?

  • I don't know that Charles Taylor gave orders to Benjamin Yeaten to kill Moses Blah.

  • An order that Charles Taylor later rescinded, correct?

  • I don't know that.

  • Mr Witness, you told the judges about Sam Bockarie leaving Liberia for the Ivory Coast in 2000 and you testified about Junior Seiatoe's relationship with Sam Bockarie and that he was a bodyguard. Do you remember telling the judges about that?

  • And you said that Junior Seiatoe and Musa Cisse both left Liberia to follow Sam Bockarie to the Ivory Coast, correct?

  • And this is all new information as well, isn't it?

  • This is new information. This was information that I gave here because I wanted to say the truth before the Court.

  • And, in fact, Mr Witness, this is even new information, even after the sixth summary, isn't that right? The last summary didn't have this information.

  • If the last summary did not have the information, well, I don't know. I'm - I am not the one who wrote the summary.

  • Did you invent this information even after you took your oath?

  • I did not invent any story.

  • And, indeed, Mr Witness, Junior Seiatoe and Musa Cisse were with Sam Bockarie but they went with Sam Bockarie when he departed Liberia. But they were sent on Charles Taylor's order. That's the truth of it, isn't it?

  • They were not sent on Charles Taylor's orders. Junior Seiatoe, according to his commander, Junior Seiatoe went AWOL. According to Benjamin Yeaten, Musa Cisse went with Sam Bockarie without the knowledge of the President. And when the President asked Benjamin Yeaten about Musa Cisse, Ben said that he lied to Musa Cisse - he lied to the President that Musa Cisse was sick. Because Musa Cisse had always been sick, the President had to believe it.

  • Mr Witness, this evidence about Musa Cisse, is that evidence to try to explain away the stamps in his passport, showing him leaving at the times and going to places that corroborate Prosecution evidence? Is that why you've come up with this story?

  • That's not what I'm saying.

  • Now, Mr Witness, you also went into great detail about the death of Jungle. And that is something new to your story as well, isn't it, Mr Witness?

  • I don't think it is new because the death of Jungle - I believe I delivered this to the Defence in Monrovia.

  • So this is something else they failed to put in their summary, is that correct?

  • Just bear in mind that I am not the one that wrote the summary. This was how they felt, that they would summarise the report.

  • Now, Mr Witness, you've given testimony about Benjamin Yeaten speaking with Sam Bockarie on a satellite phone in 1998, correct?

  • -- in late 1998.

  • So you admit that Sam Bockarie and Benjamin Yeaten had contact over a satellite phone in 1998, correct?

  • I admit that Benjamin Yeaten and Sam Bockarie had contact over a satellite phone in late 1998, correct.

  • And was this a Thuraya satellite phone?

  • It was not a Thuraya satellite phone. It was a satellite phone that I described here. I do not know the name of that satellite phone in 1998.

  • Now, Mr Witness, up until 12 May, you had not told the Defence about this conversation in 1998, had you?

  • Up to 12 May I did not tell the Defence counsel about this, because of the same - because of the same reasons that I decided not to give the accurate story, because I did not know who they were.

  • And you had not told the Defence that Benjamin Yeaten had a satellite phone in 1998, had you?

  • I told the Defence that Benjamin Yeaten had a satellite phone - he had a satellite phone in late 1998 and I described that phone. Even in Monrovia, I told the Defence that.

  • Yes, I have my eye on the clock.

  • We'll take the midmorning break now and reconvene at 11.30.

  • Thank you, Father.

  • [Break taken at 11.02 a.m.]

  • [Upon resuming at 11.33 a.m.]

  • [The accused present]

  • Yes, Madam President. I merely rise to indicate that Mr Taylor has now joined us in court.

  • Yes, certainly. That is noted. Ms Hollis, please continue.

  • Thank you, Madam President. Mr Witness, before the break we were talking about whether you had told the Defence before 12 May of this year that Benjamin Yeaten had a satellite phone in late 1998.

    Now, let's look at the summary behind tab 5, beginning - for context, with the last line, at CMS page number 28697. And we have looked at this before, this line is simply for context. We look at that page, BY, Benjamin Yeaten, lived in a house directly behind White Flower. And then it goes on:

    "And his radio was called Base 1, BY" - Benjamin Yeaten - "also had a travelling radio that he could take to the front lines. BY also got a Thuraya satellite phone in the 2000s."

    Mr Witness, there is nothing there about Benjamin Yeaten having a satellite phone in 1998, is there?

  • But there is something about Benjamin Yeaten having a Thuraya phone in 2000. I mentioned to the Defence in Monrovia that Benjamin Yeaten had a satellite phone in late 1998, which I described, like I described it here before.

  • So that's something else that the Defence left out of their summary, is that what you're saying?

  • It is something that is embedded within the summary.

  • Now, Mr Witness, you also told the Court about Benjamin Yeaten's reaction upon hearing the news that rebels had attacked Freetown. Do you remember telling them about that?

  • And you said that Benjamin Yeaten was shouting, "Oh, when did this happen? Who did this?" like it was a surprise. Do you remember telling them that?

  • I remember telling the Court that when Benjamin heard about the rebel attack in Freetown, from the radio in his jeep, he was surprised. It was like - actually, he did not - actually, it was a surprise. He was wondering about it.

  • Now, Mr Witness, this is some more of your new information, isn't it?

  • In terms of when?

  • Certainly new since 12 May of this year, isn't it?

  • This is part of the information that I gave to the Defence counsel here in The Hague.

  • Now, Mr Witness, Benjamin Yeaten was certainly shouting, wasn't he, but he was shouting in jubilation. That's the truth, isn't it?

  • I never saw any form of excitement in his face. He was not yelling. He was not jubilating. He was kind of concerned that there was something happening within the neighbouring country. Even though he did not express that, yet he did not express any happiness. He did not express happiness.

  • Well, Mr Witness, you just said that he wasn't yelling, but on 30 August you told the judges that Benjamin Yeaten was shouting. So was he shouting?

  • You said he shouted in joy. I said he did not express any form of joy in his face. This is a point that I am making clear to you.

  • Now, Mr Witness, you also told the judges that Sampson had confided in Sunlight, that Sampson had taken Jungle to the Executive Mansion, to the seventh floor, to a radio room on the seventh floor and that an operator there had assisted them to communicate with the RUF. Do you remember that?

  • I remember telling the judges that Sampson told Sunlight that he had taken Jungle to the Executive Mansion to communicate - for Jungle to communicate with the RUF. But that was done between him, Jungle, Sampson and that operator but that the government was not aware of it. It was secret.

  • And, indeed, you told the judges that Sampson had confided in Sunlight that these communications from the seventh floor of the Executive Mansion were secret, no other operators knew about them, correct?

  • I told the judges that, according to Sampson, these communications that went on when he took Jungle to the Executive Mansion, were secret and that no other operator, with the exception of Mission 5, knew about it.

  • But, Mr Witness, several other operators would have known about these secret communications, wouldn't they? Not just one operator?

  • The operator, according to Sampson, who knew, was Mission 5.

  • Because, Mr Witness, you told us that Sunlight's shifts - radio shifts at the Executive Mansion, there would have been three, four or even five operators on each shift, correct?

  • Yes. I said Sunlight heard this but did not know how many manpower was on the shift with other people, I said that.

  • Well, are you telling the judges that the manning for these other shifts would be very different than the manning for Sunlight's shift?

  • I am telling the judges that Sunlight only knew about the manpower on his shift. I think I made that clear here.

  • Now, Mr Witness, there is no reason to believe that these other shifts would not have been manned in the same way that Sunlight's shifts were manned, is there?

  • I don't know, but, according to Sunlight's shift, he knew the manpower on his shift and that was the information that Sunlight also got from Mission 5; that Mission 5 was the one who knew about this communication. And beside him, no other operator knew about it. It was secret. But I don't know what else you want me to say other than this?

  • Or, Mr Witness, was it the situation that Charles Taylor arranged for just one operator to be on duty when his subordinates were communicating with Buedu?

  • This is the condition that the President was not responsible for the arrangement of the security shift. He had nothing to do with the security shift.

  • So if the President of Liberia said, "During this period of time I want only one radio operator on duty at a particular radio station," are you saying that that direction would have been disobeyed?

  • That never happened, so I cannot comment on it. I have idea of how the shift was run. And how the shift was run, in fact the entire security was not run by the President. It was run by the organisation that was responsible for the safety of the President.

  • Mr Witness, if Charles Taylor had told Benjamin Yeaten or the head of the radio operators, "During a certain time I want only one radio operator on duty," they would have obeyed that instruction. Isn't that correct?

  • If - had Mr Taylor had told Benjamin Yeaten that he wanted one operator, it was up to the security. It was up to Benjamin Yeaten to either agree or disagree with this. But it's not my judgment. And you should also realise that the SSS had what they call the control system. They had the best way that they could conduct the security to provide safety for the President. So even if the President recommended, the director had his own opinion or his own judgment, so I can't sit here and judge for him. My duty there was to execute instructions or commands.

  • My question had nothing to do with a recommendation. My question had to do with Charles Taylor ordering this to be done. And you know full well that, had he ordered that to be done, that order would have been carried out, correct?

  • Not you. If he ordered that, then it was up to the chief of security to the President to either agree or disagree. I will not tell you yes or no, because I am not in the position. I was not the chief of security.

  • The seventh floor of the Executive Mansion was between private quarters of the President on the sixth and eighth floors, correct?

  • I don't know what you mean by private quarter of the President.

  • Well, it seems pretty clear but let's try it again. These were quarters that were used for the private purposes of the President of Liberia, isn't that right, both the sixth floor and the eighth floor?

  • That is not to my knowledge.

  • The Executive Mansion itself was exposed to a lot of security, correct?

  • I don't know what you mean by exposed to a lot of security, but all I know is that the Executive Mansion was controlled by the SSS and the ATU in terms of security.

  • Well, you do know what I meant by exposed to a lot of security because that's the language you used to the judges when you were testifying before, isn't that right, on 24 August?

  • Except if you read that to me, but I do not remember saying that.

  • Well, let's do that. Let's look at 24 August, page 47047. If we could look down, beginning at line 15, please. This is Defence counsel asking you a question and he is basically asking you if you know why Sampson did not use Mission 5 on this particular occasion and instead decided to use Sunlight. And here's your answer to the judges. This is you speaking to the judges:

    "I believe he was afraid that Mission 5 was assigned at the Executive Mansion and that his deal would be uncovered at any time, and the Executive Mansion was exposed to a lot of security."

    So, Mr Witness, let me go back to my question: The Executive Mansion was exposed to a lot of security. Isn't that correct?

  • I don't remember using this word "exposed to security", "a lot of security", but I was giving my own presumption about this issue, that maybe Sampson felt that by using Mission 5 continuously, the other securities - this would be disclosed to the other securities. The Executive Mansion is controlled by the SSS and the ATU.

  • And indeed the Executive Mansion is exposed to a lot of security. It was during the time that Sampson and Jungle were making these supposedly secret communications to Buedu. At that time the Executive Mansion was exposed to a lot of security. Isn't that correct?

  • I don't know what you mean by a lot of security. What I know is that the Executive Mansion was manned by the Special Security Service and the ATU. But what I said was that I believed that Sampson never wanted to continue there because he was afraid that these interruptions would be uncovered by other securities around, that is the SSS or the ATU.

  • And indeed there was a lot of security provided by the SSS and, according to you, also by the ATU at the Executive Mansion, correct?

  • The SSS controlled both the Executive Mansion building and the surrounding of the Executive Mansion. And the ATU were responsible for the exterior, the outside parts of the building of the Executive Mansion. They were not exposed to the inside of the Executive Mansion. That was what I said.

  • And your story to these judges is that Jungle, who you said was an RUF member, was able to enter the Executive Mansion without proper identification, correct?

  • He was able to enter the Executive Mansion under the wings of Sampson Wehyee, under the protective wings of Sampson Wehyee. And that was common. If you were an SSS personnel and you had somebody that you wanted to enter with at the Executive Mansion, that you can just tell them that he or she is going with me and they will allow you and that was common.

  • Well --

  • You will now be serving as that individual's identity.

  • Mr Witness, we went over, in a lot of detail, the procedures that were followed before a person was allowed into the Executive Mansion, and what you told the judges at that time is different than what you're telling the judges now. Isn't that correct?

  • That is not correct. The question you asked me, that's the way I answered your questions because by then you were talking about diplomats.

  • And we were talking about members of the RUF. Now, Mr Witness, you are also telling the judges that this Jungle was able to go to a floor near the President's private quarters without showing proper identification. That's what you're telling the judges, yes?

  • I don't know what you are talking about, that near the President's private quarters, but Sampson never had any close physical contact with the President that he alone could even travel and go to the President's office, let alone talk about him taking with him a stranger. So that would not have happened.

  • But they were able to go to the seventh floor, which is between the sixth and eight floor, correct, according to you?

  • Yes - no, I did not say. Sampson told me they went to the Executive Mansion, and I made mention of the seventh floor when I said it but that the radio had been transferred from the fourth floor to the seventh floor. So please do not try to confuse me.

  • Mr Witness, you told the Court that Sampson and Jungle had gone to the seventh floor to make these radio communications, didn't you?

  • I told the Court that Sampson told me that he had taken Jungle to the Executive Mansion to communicate with the RUF and that was through Mission 5 and it was secret.

  • Mr Witness, is it possible you just don't remember exactly what you told the judges about that?

  • I don't know what you want me to say, but what I recall telling the judges is the story that Sampson told me and that is what I am repeating.

  • Could we please look at the transcript of 24 August, page 47040 and if we could look at lines 11 through 17. Mr Witness, this is you talking.

  • Yes.

  • This is a court reporter taking down what you said. Do you understand that?

  • Starting at line 11, and this is your answer:

    "Okay, before that, when Sampson brought Jungle and told Sunlight that this fellow is called Jungle and introduced Jungle to Sunlight, he also said that he had been taking - he had taken Jungle to the Executive Mansion, now on the seventh floor, to communicate."

    So, Mr Witness, you told these judges that Sampson had taken Jungle to the seventh floor. Do you remember that now?

  • Also remember that I said earlier that the long-range radio was transferred to the seventh floor before I left the Executive Mansion for the other assignment.

  • And so, Mr Witness, your story to these judges is also that this fellow Sampson was able to go to the communications centre in the Executive Mansion without proper identification, correct?

  • I am telling this Court that Jungle was under the protection - that Jungle was under the protective wings of Sampson when he went to the mansion and it was Sampson who took him with him. And that was common. It used to happen.

  • And that he was able to spend time in this communication centre without being seen by anyone who was loyal to the President. That would be your story, correct? For example, other operators who were working on the same shift?

  • I was not there to have known how many operators were on shift when Sampson took Jungle there. But what I was told was that Sampson had taken Jungle only to Mission 5 and that it was secret. Those were the expressions I got, that it was secret.

  • And your story is that Jungle was able to actually use communications there without being seen by anyone who was loyal to the President of Liberia. Is that correct?

  • My story is that Sampson said he took Jungle with him and that it was secret.

  • And, in fact, this entire story is new, isn't it?

  • I don't know what you mean by new.

  • Sorry for interrupting, Ms Hollis.

    Mr Witness, you have said it was secret but you've also said a few moments ago that Jungle came in with Sampson and, I quote, "That was common. It used to happen."

    Now, are you saying that it was common only between Sampson and Jungle or, as you have said earlier, that it happened that other people would bring strangers without proper ID into the Executive Mansion? Which was common?

  • What I said was common was that - it was only securities, and as long as you were assigned at the Executive Mansion and you were travelling with somebody who did not have ID cards, the person will travel under your protection and you will serve as the person's identity and you will be allowed. But whatsoever thing the person does there, you will be responsible. So it used to happen. But I am not saying --

  • So what you're saying is it was common for people to bring others into the Executive Mansion without any ID?

  • What I'm saying is that people used to do it and I used to see it, but they were security officers, SSS officers.

  • Mr Witness, this story is certainly new after 12 May of this year, isn't it?

  • I don't know whether it is new but I believe and I remember - yes, I think it was after the 12th. It was when I got here that I told the lawyer all of these.

  • And in fact, Mr Witness, that very important piece of information is not even included in the last summary that was provided by the Defence, is it?

  • But it is included in my total testimony that I gave to the Defence. It is included in my overall testimony that I made to the Defence here.

  • So did you come up with those details after you were sworn in as a witness?

  • I came up with those details after I had got here and during the times we were doing the proofing exercise. It was not after I had been sworn in as a witness.

  • Now the fact is, of course, Mr Witness, that Jungle was able to enter the Executive Mansion and that was because he was a member of the SSS. Isn't that correct?

  • It was not because he was a member of SSS, but because he travelled with a member of the SSS and a senior bodyguard to the director of SSS.

  • Major Daniel Tamba, he was a member of the SSS, wasn't he?

  • I don't know whether the Daniel Tamba that I know as Jungle was a member of the SSS.

  • And Jungle and Sampson may well have communicated with the rebels in Sierra Leone from the Executive Mansion and that would have been kept a secret from some people. That's correct, isn't it?

  • This was kept a secret away from the entire Government of Liberia and the security of the Government of Liberia, but not "some people" like you said.

  • It would have been kept secret from the Liberian general public and the international community, correct?

  • It was kept secret from the Government of Liberia and the President of the Republic of Liberia and the entire Executive Mansion security guards - guard force, I mean the security including the SSS and the ATU. It was kept secret from them.

  • Actually when you said it was kept secret by them, that's when you testified truthfully, correct?

  • That is when I make mistake.

  • Let's go back to my question. It would have been kept secret from the Liberian general public and the international community. That's correct, isn't it?

  • It was kept secret from the Government of Liberia and the President of Liberia.

  • Mr Witness, do you not understand my question or do you choose not to answer it?

  • I said this was kept --

  • Mr Witness, do you not understand my question or do you choose not to answer it?

  • Repeat your question.

  • These communications would have been kept secret from the Liberian general public and the international community. That's correct, isn't it?

  • Yes. It is also correct that it was kept secret from the Liberian people and it was kept secret from the international community, as well as the Government of the Republic of Liberia.

  • And it was kept secret from the people in the Government of Liberia who were not involved in dealing with the rebels in Sierra Leone. That's correct, isn't it?

  • The Government of Liberia was not having dealings with the rebels in Sierra Leone. These were individuals within the government, that is Sampson and his boss, Benjamin Yeaten. So, don't consider this to be the Government of Liberia. It was an individual and/or personal things that they did.

  • And this secrecy from members of the Government of Liberia who were not involved in dealing with the rebels, this secrecy was at the direction of Charles Taylor. Isn't that correct?

  • It was because they were afraid that the President do not know it because they will have been punished seriously by the President for that.

  • So being afraid that the President of Liberia would find out about the communications, they went to the Executive Mansion to use the radio equipment there to send these communications. Is that what you're telling the judges?

  • I'm telling these judges that, according to him, he did it and this is how he did it and that's it. It was secret.

  • You have also told the judges that in late September Sampson brought Daniel Tamba, also known as Jungle, to Base 1 and that Sunlight let Jungle use Base 1 to communicate with the rebels in Sierra Leone, correct?

  • I told the judges that in late September Sampson brought Jungle to Sunlight with the instruction that Benjamin Yeaten sent him with this individual so that he can use the radio. And Sampson being a senior bodyguard to Benjamin Yeaten, Sunlight never hesitated to do it. He allowed it. But it was not done by Sunlight out of his own will, but it was done because of the instruction given by Sampson.

  • And, Mr Witness, when you were telling the judges about this you said that Sampson told Sunlight that the chief had authorised this, correct?

  • Yes. That was the title he used, and the chief was Benjamin Yeaten.

  • And Charles Taylor was also known as chief. Isn't that correct?

  • As I told you, in Liberia everybody with a title, or a superior, is regarded as chief. But within the security section we used to refer to him as chief. But in the capacity, when he was given the instruction, the instruction was from Benjamin Yeaten who was his direct boss. Sampson was not dealing with the President. And this is why, when Benjamin Yeaten came, Sunlight confirmed it from Yeaten and Yeaten said, "Yes, because I have my friend across there, you should allow that to happen."

  • Please excuse me for interrupting. I am seeking a clarification from the witness.

    Mr Witness, this is what you have been quoted as saying:

    "As I told you, in Liberia, everybody with a title, or a superior, is regarded as chief. But within the security section we used to refer to him as chief".

    Now who is the "him" you're referring to?

  • Benjamin Yeaten. For example, Sunlight was referred to as chief by those operators that were working directly under him. They used to call Sunlight chief and the deputy also, Dew, they used to call him Chief Dew.

  • Mr Witness, Sunlight worked directly for Benjamin Yeaten, correct?

  • Now, you also told the judges that when Sampson came to Base 1, Sampson told Sunlight about these supposedly secret communications at the Executive Mansion. Do you recall telling the judges that?

  • Yes, I remember telling the judges about this, yes.

  • And that Sampson told Sunlight that these communications with the RUF in Sierra Leone were a secret even from the President of Liberia, correct?

  • Yes.

  • And you told the judges that Sunlight informed Benjamin Yeaten about this communication that had occurred between Jungle and the RUF, that Sunlight told Benjamin Yeaten about this after the communication had occurred when Benjamin Yeaten came home that evening. Do you recall telling the judges that?

  • I ask for clarification about the question for this purpose: There are two different sets of communications that the witness has mentioned in the sense that Jungle had been taken to the Executive Mansion and, through Mission 5, communication ensued. That's one set of communications.

    The second one is Jungle's communication from his Base 1. There is a distinction as to both vis-a-vis whether the witness discussed either of them with Benjamin Yeaten. If it is the latter, that is communication from Base 1, I raise no objection to that. But if counsel is saying the witness testified that Jungle - that Sunlight told Benjamin Yeaten about what Sampson had mentioned in relation to communication from the Executive Mansion, I need a page citation for that because that's not my recollection of the witness's testimony.

  • Ms Hollis, would you like to clarify your question to reflect the record?

  • If need be I will. I will point out that this entire set of questions had to do with Base 1, but I will certainly clarify.

  • Mr Witness, you told these judges that Sunlight informed Benjamin Yeaten about this visit to Base 1 by Sampson and Jungle that Jungle had communicated with the RUF in Sierra Leone - you told these judges that Sunlight informed Benjamin Yeaten about all of that after Benjamin Yeaten came home that same evening, correct?

  • Yes, I told the judges that after Sampson had brought Jungle and Jungle had used the radio, Sunlight after all told Benjamin Yeaten when he returned from work that Sampson brought an individual called Jungle to use this radio upon your directive through him. And he said, "Yes, I am aware, because I have a friend in Sierra Leone." He told him.

  • And you told the judges that Sunlight informed Benjamin Yeaten of all of this after Benjamin Yeaten came home that same evening, correct?

  • What you have just gone over in great detail, Mr Witness, Sampson coming to Base 1 with Jungle, Jungle communicating with the RUF in Sierra Leone. You told Benjamin Yeaten about all of this after he came home that evening. Isn't that correct?

  • Sorry, I think it was Sunlight who told Benjamin Yeaten - not the witness - you used the word "you".

  • I am sorry, I was talking about "you telling the judges".

  • You told the judges that Sunlight told Benjamin Yeaten about all of this after Benjamin Yeaten came home that evening, correct?

  • So, your story is that Sampson came with Jungle and told Sunlight about secret communications before Sunlight discussed it with Benjamin Yeaten, correct?

  • No.

  • So you are telling the judges that Sunlight immediately called Benjamin Yeaten before Sunlight allowed Jungle to use the radio, is that what happened?

  • What I am telling the judges is that Sunlight - Sunlight, by the directive that Sampson brought, that the director had sent him to allow that individual to use that radio, that Sunlight allowed that because Sampson was a senior bodyguard to Yeaten and Sunlight accepted it and the communication went through. But after all, Sunlight confirmed that from Benjamin Yeaten after Ben had returned home from job. So I am not saying that Sunlight told Benjamin Yeaten about how Sampson and Jungle used the radio at the Executive Mansion, no.

  • So having learned about secret communications at the Executive Mansion, supposedly unknown, even to the President of Liberia, Sunlight did not call Benjamin Yeaten to ask about whether Sunlight should allow Jungle to use the radio. Sunlight did not do that, did he?

  • Okay. Let me make it clear, that during that moment when Sampson brought Jungle, he did not immediately tell Sunlight that this is what happened. He --

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

  • Mr Witness, you have to repeat the evidence because you are going too quickly for the interpreter. So the question was: So having learned about the secret communication at the Executive Mansion, supposedly unknown, even to the President of Liberia, Sunlight did not call Benjamin Yeaten to ask whether Sunlight should allow Jungle to use the radio. Sunlight did not do that, did he? What is your response?

  • Okay, my answer is that I want to make it clear that Sampson did not tell Sunlight that moment, that this was what he did. Sampson told Sunlight - after all, when Sunlight had explained to 50 or to the director that Sampson brought somebody to use the radio. So, after all, it was when Sampson gave this information to Sunlight on a different date. It was not at the start of this interaction.

  • So now your story is that Sampson told Sunlight about all of these secret communications at the Executive Mansion after the first time Jungle had used the radio. Is that what you're telling the Court now?

  • This is what I am making clear to the Court now.

  • Now, when you were telling the Court about this before, you didn't tell the Court that this conversation with Sampson happened after the communication with Jungle, the communication that Jungle had with the RUF, you didn't tell them that, did you?

  • When I was explaining here, I told the Court about the communication that Jungle had with the RUF through Sampson from the Executive Mansion. I told the Court this. I think I mentioned that. It should be in the document.

  • Now, you also told the Court that Sunlight had never met this person, Jungle, before this occasion when Sampson brought him to Base 1, correct?

  • And you told the Court that when Jungle communicated with the RUF, Jungle communicated in a language that Sunlight did not understand, correct?

  • Yes. I told the Court that Jungle communicated in Krio and Sunlight did not understand Krio.

  • And this communication you talk about occurred after the 18 September fighting, correct?

  • This story is also completely new, since 12 May, isn't that right?

  • This was a factual story, since 12 May.

  • Now, of course, Jungle and Sampson came to Benjamin Yeaten's house and Base 1, they came there often, didn't they?

  • Periodically, not most of the times. They went there periodically, not most of the times.

  • They were members of the SSS and they were carrying out duties in relation to the rebels in Sierra Leone, correct?

  • Jungle was not a member of the SSS. Sampson was a member of the SSS and a bodyguard to Benjamin Yeaten.

  • And they were carrying out these duties in relation to the rebels in Sierra Leone at the instance of Charles Taylor. Isn't that right?

  • They did this at the instance of Benjamin Yeaten, but without the knowledge of President Taylor.

  • Now, Mr Witness, you have also told the judges about Sunlight's various contacts with the RUF operator Sellay, both over the radio and also that he even met him in person, correct?

  • Yes, I told the Court that.

  • And you told the Court that it could be remembered, this name, this fellow, Sellay, because, like Sunlight, Sellay was a radio operator and that Sunlight and Sellay had been communicating for a few days, so that it was easy to remember this fellow, Sellay. Do you remember telling the judges that?

  • Please make your question clear. When you say, "When he said to remember Sellay", what do you mean?

  • Because it was easy for Sunlight to remember Sellay because, like Sunlight, Sellay was a radio operator and Sunlight and Sellay had been communicating for a few days. Do you recall telling the judges that?

  • The question posed by learned counsel opposite comes from page 47052, the transcript of 24 August.

    Using this language that counsel has used, let's look at the question posed by counsel. The question is: Because it was easy for Sunlight to remember Sellay, because, like Sunlight, Sellay was a radio operator and Sunlight and Sellay had been communicating for a few days. Do you recall telling the judges that? Counsel is asking the witness if the witness recalls telling the judges this. But there is a context to this.

    The witness's answer was given in relation to why he could remember Sellay when Sam Bockarie visited. So to set aside the context that it was in relation to a visit by Sam Bockarie to Monrovia, and that's how the witness remembered Sellay, and then to just ask the witness this part of his answer, whether he recalls telling the Court that, is not fair to the witness.

  • Ms Hollis, what is your response?

  • It is totally fair to the witness. It is what the witness told this Court. And there was nothing about the witness remembering because of a visit. The witness told this Court that Sunlight remembers it was Sellay, the radio operator, because Sunlight was also a radio operator and he met with Sellay and he and Sellay had been communicating for a few days without seeing each other and knowing each other.

  • Well, let's read the transcript.

  • No. From the 24th. I am proposing, with respect, that you did not read all of it.

  • Okay. Can we go to the transcript of the 24th, please, so that we read verbatim what the transcript says.

  • I have it - I will wait for the Court Manager to display it. Yes, the 24th, the page is 47052, starting at line 7.

  • Actually, if you want to look at the --

  • The question to the witness:

    "These names you've given us: Sellay" - well I hope this is not the confidential version being published. But anyway, I will read what it says:

    "Q. The names you have given us, Sellay, Zigzag Marzah,

    Sampson, Jungle, Sam Bockarie, Sunlight. Were those the

    only persons present at the house when Sam Bockarie was met

    by Sunlight at the YWCA community during his first visit?

    A. During his first visit what I recall is that those with

    whom he came, namely, that {redacted} Sellay, the

    radio operator, because Sunlight was also a radio operator

    and he met with Sellay, and he and Sellay had been

    communicating for a few days without seeing each other and

    knowing each other."

    My objection is simply that to just take the sentence where it begins with, "Because Sunlight was also a radio operator and he met with Sellay and he and Sellay had been communicating for a few days" and to ask the witness, "You remember telling the Court this?" And it has been over a week now, and no context is given to the witness, is not a fair question to the witness.

  • Very well. Now that the text, the full text, has been read, Ms Hollis, please put your question.

  • Now, you have heard what Defence counsel have read in this Court. Do you remember telling the judges that on 24 August?

  • Yes, I remember telling the judges that Sunlight and Sellay had been talking on the radio before - before Sellay's visit to Liberia, along with Sam Bockarie. So they had been talking without knowing each other. I remember saying that.

  • And that Sunlight remembers Sellay because Sunlight was also a radio operator and he met with Sellay. Yes, you remember telling them that?

  • I remember saying that, yes, that Sunlight remembers, because they had been talking on the radio. He remembers the name Sellay. He remembers Sellay.

  • And you also told the judges that this radio operator, Sellay, committed suicide. Do you remember telling them that?

  • Yes. I remember telling the judges that Sunlight heard that this radio operator, Sellay, committed suicide. He was not there. Sunlight was not there. But that was what he said. I mean, this was what they told Sunlight.

  • None of this information was provided to the Defence before 12 May, was it?

  • This information was provided to the Defence counsel when I got here, but it was not provided to Defence counsel prior to my arrival here.

  • And in fact, what you told the Defence counsel prior to that was that Sunlight did not know Sellay Duwor but that Sunlight knew a Duwor who was a member of the reactivated Jungle Fire unit. Do you remember telling the Defence counsel that before you had arrived here in your meetings with him?

  • Before answering your question, please, I want you to repeat that question because the names that you gave is like having breaks. Are you talking about a Sellay or Sellay Duwor? You say Sellay, you stop, you say Duwor, you stop.

  • Let's look at what you told the Defence counsel up to 12 May of this year. And let's look at tab 5 of the summaries and let's look at CMS page 28698, and let's look at the first full paragraph, third line down:

    "W does not know a Sellay Duwor but does remember a Duwor who was part of BY's, Benjamin Yeaten's, reactivated Jungle Fire unit."

    So that was the information that you gave to the Defence.

  • Yes.

  • Up to 12 May of this year, correct?

  • And you will note that in that information you say you don't know a person whose first name was Sellay and last name was Duwor, but you do go on to note that you remember a Duwor who was part of the Jungle Fire unit. You don't tell the Defence, however, "You know, I also remember a Sellay who was an RUF radio operator." You don't tell them that, do you?

  • I think you are uncertain because you were not there, but I told the Defence counsel, even in Monrovia, that I did not know Sellay Duwor, okay. But, when I came here, I told the Defence counsel that I knew one Sellay that Sunlight dealt with but not Sellay Duwor, and the Duwor that I knew was with - there were two Duwors with Benjamin Yeaten. There was Duwor number one "Clean Dower", a radio operator, and Duwor number two was "Dirty Dower" who was a fighting man or a bodyguard to Benjamin Yeaten. I made these distinctions and I made them very clear.

  • Let's go back to my question. Up through 12 May of this year you did not tell the Defence that you knew a Sellay who was an RUF radio operator, did you?

  • All of the times I dealt with the Defence counsel in Monrovia, I did not tell them that I knew a Sellay from the RUF. And I gave you the reasons for which I did that and I have been giving those reasons to you. So I dissociated myself with these people when I was dealing with the Defence counsel in Monrovia because, like I said, I never knew who they were. I was not sure whether they were from the Special Court. I told you that.

    But, when I got here, in order for me to testify with the truth before this Honourable Court, I was bold to tell the Defence counsel about other things. That notwithstanding, I told the Defence counsel that the Sellay that I knew from the RUF was not Sellay Duwor. I said I only knew his name, his first name Sellay, not the last name.

  • Madam President, I apologise for interrupting.

  • Sorry, Mr Anyah, I hadn't seen you.

  • We have confirmed on the Defence side of the bar that the transcript that was published was the confidential version. I am looking at both versions and I read out the confidential version, and so I have an application for redaction.

  • Have you confirmed that the transcript you read from had the words "open session" at the top.

  • That is correct. It wasn't a private session testimony, but when that evidence was elicited in open session, your Honours gave an order of redaction and certain words were put in brackets. Those words in brackets do not appear on the public version of the transcript. They only appear on the confidential version and what was published in court and to the public is the confidential version of the transcript. That's what I am saying. So, I have identified the portion of the LiveNote transcript that I move or apply for redaction. And I use a 14-point font. This is at my page 85, line 17. It starts with the answer, "During his first visit", but the particular phrase in question comes in the second line of that response which it goes "namely that" and then somebody remembers. Those two words are not in the public version. They are only in the confidential version of the transcript of 24 August 2010.

  • Yes, but you are asking us to redact the answer of the witness? Or are you asking us to redact something that you read from the transcript?

  • What I am saying is twofold: One, published in court today was a confidential transcript for all the world to see. So I want some measure taken by your Honours in relation to that, both the live feed of this broadcast and perhaps an admonishment to those present. That's the first application.

    Then the second --

  • Right, sticking with the first application, what part of today's transcript do you want me to redact? Stick with that first application, please.

  • Yes, Madam President. It is what I have referred to on the LiveNote transcript at page 85, using a 14-point font, my line 18.

  • I am saying that that is the witness's answer. It is not an earlier transcript.

  • No, it is me reading. If you look, Madam President, to line 10 of that page, it's me quoting what was published in court, the transcript of the 24th.

  • I do beg your pardon. It did seem like a witness's answer. Okay, that's the first. Madam Court Manager, you can see the two words referred to there. The words between "namely that" and "Sellay". There are two words there that need to be redacted. And what's the second application?

  • Then the second application has to do with the admonishment your Honours usually give when others present have viewed the transcript, because forgetting what I said on the record, Madam Court Manager published that page on the live feed, the page was brought up and others could read it.

  • Mr Anyah, I would normally admonish the public but in this case, first of all, a lot of time has lapsed. I am even doubtful if we are going to catch the redaction on the broadcast. And, secondly, I doubt that anybody sitting here would make sense of exactly what it is we have redacted in order to republish it. So, I think I will just stick with the order to redact and that probably will be even in the written transcript and hardly in the broadcast. It has been brought out so late.

  • Madam President, I am simply in the Court's hands. All I can do is point it out. And I know that from my judgment of the time it has only been 10 minutes ago and usually we have 30 minutes to accomplish this, but I am in the Court's hands. Thank you.

  • We will just go with the written redaction where this is concerned. And just to remind counsel to be vigilant in future and not to jeopardise the protection of the witness.

  • And, Mr Witness, in fact it wasn't until after 12 May that you came up with this information about there being two Duwors. Isn't that correct?

  • No, I told the Defence counsel in Monrovia about the two Duwors within the Jungle Fire. I told the Defence counsel.

  • So this is something else that they forgot to include in the summaries. Is that what you're saying?

  • I don't know whether they forgot, but what I know is that it is part of my testimony, part of my full testimony.

  • Now, Mr Witness, you told the judges that Jungle and Sellay talked on the radio in Krio, correct?

  • And that Sellay spoke very good Krio, correct?

  • And that Jungle and Sellay spoke Krio, they spoke very good Krio.

  • That Sunlight did not speak or understand Krio, correct?

  • Yes. Sunlight did not understand Krio.

  • So if there is no understanding of Krio, how can there be a conclusion by anyone that Sellay spoke very good Krio?

  • I said it. I don't know one of the witnesses here that was read to me that Sunlight - I mean Sellay was a Liberian and from the Krio spoken by Sellay to Jungle at the time, there was nothing to detect that this man - you know, when you are learning something, you are not mastering it, it would reveal your accent. But the accent was totally a Sierra Leonean accent. This is what I was saying.

  • Or is it the case that Sunlight was actually able to understand the conversation between Jungle and Sellay because they were both Liberians and they were speaking in Liberian English?

  • It is not so. Sunlight never understood anything from the conversation between Sellay and Jungle.

  • When Sunlight met with Sellay and Sam Bockarie and others at this YWCA area in Monrovia, what language was spoken at that meeting?

  • Sellay and Sunlight?

  • When Sellay - excuse me. When Sunlight met with Sellay, Sam Bockarie and others at this YWCA area in Monrovia, what language did they speak?

  • They greeted Sunlight in the normal English. They spoke English.

  • Regular English.

  • So Sunlight understood and spoke regular English?

  • Sunlight understood regular English and practises how to speak it.

  • Now, Mr Witness, you have also told these judges about Sunlight overhearing a disagreement between Foday Sankoh and Sam Bockarie. You said Sunlight was monitoring the RUF net and heard a serious confrontation between Foday Sankoh and Sam Bockarie. Do you remember telling the judges about that?

  • And Sunlight was able to understand in great detail what they were talking about, correct?

  • Sunlight was able to understand it? They spoke - yes, Sunlight understood it. He understood it.

  • And you also told the judges that monitoring the RUF net, Sunlight also heard Foday Sankoh give an order to Issa Sesay to take charge. Do you remember telling the judges that?

  • Yes.

  • What language were Foday Sankoh and Sam Bockarie speaking when Sunlight happened to overhear them while Sunlight was monitoring the RUF net? What language were they speaking?

  • They spoke plain English that Sunlight was able to monitor - I mean understand. They spoke plain English.

  • So Foday Sankoh, he was a Sierra Leonean, correct?

  • Yes, they said he was a Sierra Leonean, but I did not know his nationality. They said he was Sierra Leonean. I heard that, that he was a Sierra Leonean.

  • And Sam Bockarie was a Sierra Leonean, correct?

  • And these two men were speaking over the RUF net, correct?

  • But your story is for that conversation, they decided to speak regular English. Is that your story?

  • I am not saying they decided, but my story is that Sunlight heard them speaking English and they spoke in regular English.

  • So your story is they weren't speaking to each other in Krio?

  • They were not speaking to each other in Krio, because if it were in Krio, Sunlight wouldn't have understood it.

  • And Foday Sankoh and Issa Sesay, what language were they speaking?

  • I do not remember Sunlight monitoring Issa Sesay, but he monitored the voices of Sankoh and Sam Bockarie.

  • Well, Mr Witness, you told the judges that Sunlight also overheard, while monitoring the RUF net, that Sunlight also overheard Foday Sankoh with Issa Sesay, and Foday Sankoh was giving Issa Sesay an order to take charge. Now, you remember telling the judges that, don't you?

  • What I told the judges was that Foday Sankoh ordered Issa Sesay to take charge. I did not say they were talking. That was the order that he gave. He called his name and he gave the order. And Sunlight never heard the response from Issa Sesay, but the conversation between Sam Bockarie and Foday Sankoh was what was heard and plainly heard by Sunlight.

  • What language did Foday Sankoh speak when he gave this order to Issa Sesay?

  • So, once again, Foday Sankoh, speaking with another Sierra Leonean, is speaking in English, not Krio. Is that your testimony?

  • My testimony is this was what Sunlight monitored. He monitored the - that was the language he monitored at that time. I don't know the reason why they decided to do this, but this was what transpired.

  • Now, in relation to this communication between Jungle and Sellay. This communication between Jungle and Sellay, we have talk about this, it took place after this 18 September fighting, yes?

  • At the time there was heightened security in Liberia, correct?

  • At the time there was security in Liberia, yes.

  • At the time there was heightened security after the 18 September fighting, correct? There was increased security, correct?

  • After the September fighting, security was under alert.

  • So with security on the alert, there having been this serious 18 September fighting, Sunlight let a stranger speak on the radio in a language Sunlight did not understand. Is that your testimony?

  • That is not the problem with Sunlight. That was the problem with Sunlight executing an instruction or an order from his boss.

  • And Sunlight allowed Jungle to communicate in a language Sunlight did not understand with a radio station in Sierra Leone, correct?

  • Sunlight allowed Jungle to speak on the radio with a radio station in Sierra Leone upon the directive of his boss, through the special assistance to his boss.

  • So for all that Sunlight knew, Jungle and this radio operator in Sierra Leone could have been plotting the assassination of Charles Taylor, correct?

  • I don't know that. I don't know what you mean by that, but as far as Sunlight is concerned, he was there to execute orders from Benjamin Yeaten, who was his direct boss, and whatsoever instructions that came from him. And Sunlight knew that Benjamin Yeaten would not assassinate his boss.

  • Well, he was committing treason against his boss, wasn't he?

  • Sunlight was also committing treason against Charles Taylor and the Government of Liberia, wasn't he?

  • Sunlight was meant, in the security force he was meant to take orders and execute orders from his boss. He had no option but to execute orders.

  • And for all that Sunlight knew, Jungle and this radio operator could have been planning the overthrow of the Charles Taylor government, isn't that right? Or even the invasion of Liberia, Sunlight wouldn't have known that. That's your story, correct?

  • It was not Sunlight's problem. It was the chief of security 's problem who allowed Sunlight to do that. Sunlight was just there to execute an order. He was caught in between whatsoever it was, he was caught in between. He was just an instrument being used by his boss.

  • The real truth is that Sunlight spoke and understood Krio and so knew what was going on in that conversation, isn't that correct?

  • The whole story is that Sunlight never understood Krio. Sunlight never even knew that Jungle could speak Krio, but he couldn't stop Jungle because he had been ordered to allow Jungle to carry on with his conversation. He never knew what language Jungle was going to speak in. Sunlight did not restrict Jungle to speak in this tongue or speaking Bassa. Once the order had been given that he should allow the communication to go through, whether they speak German, that was part of the communication. Sunlight had nothing to do with the language that was spoken on the radio at the time.

  • And the truth is that Foday Sankoh and Sam Bockarie, and then when Foday Sankoh contacted Issa Sesay, they weren't speaking English English, they were speaking Krio and Sunlight understood the conversation so well because Sunlight also understood and spoke Krio. That's the truth, isn't it?

  • Sunlight does not understand Krio, nor speak Krio, but the portion of the communication, I don't know whether that was how they spoke throughout, but part of the communication that Sunlight heard between these two men was in regular English. You know, the Krio, even the Nigerians, they speak their Krio and speak regular English. It doesn't mean that they are limited or that their tongue is tied to Krio.

  • Now, Mr Witness, it is correct, is it not, that when we talk about codes, a code can be used to disguise the message, correct, so you can have a content coded message, correct?

  • And you can also use coding so that you can disguise what frequency you will be operating on, correct? So you would have a code name for a particular frequency?

  • And operators would know codes for frequencies, correct?

  • And operators who knew codes for frequencies could then go to these frequencies and could monitor the frequencies, correct?

  • I don't know what you mean, but what I know is that the operators who operate, more especially during the time of the war in Liberia, the security operator - operators, they had a --

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

  • Mr Witness, can you repeat your answer. The interpreter didn't get you.

  • Mr Interpreter, sorry. I said that the only security - on the security net, more especially, during our time in Liberia during the war, the radio operators within the Government of Liberia, including Sunlight, would scan - would twist other frequencies in order to monitor the frequencies. It doesn't mean that they know the code for that frequency.

  • And codes were assigned to frequencies so that operators could tell each other to go to a certain frequency by using the code word instead of using the frequency, correct?

  • Codes were assigned to frequencies used by operators under the same umbrella, or within the same organisation to be used by them. That is, the Government of Liberia, for example, had their operators and the operators assigned codes to those frequencies. And other organisations, even in NGOs, other NGOs, or whosoever had their own radio group, they had their own codes for their own frequency.

  • And, Mr Witness, operators would sometimes go on the general frequency and then one operator would tell the other to switch to a certain frequency by using a code word for that frequency, correct?

  • This is what I said; that operators under the same umbrella.

  • Now, do you remember telling the judges, in relation to Sunlight's first contact with Sellay, that Sunlight was given the RUF frequency, a coded frequency. Do you remember telling the judges that?

  • I remember telling the judges that on the first day of Jungle's communication with the RUF from Base 1, Jungle brought - Jungle brought an RUF frequency on a piece of paper to Sunlight. I remember telling the judges that.

  • And that there was a coded frequency that Sunlight used and that was 35B, correct?

  • The word 35B is not a frequency, and Sunlight did not use the call sign 35B. I told you that. The first call sign Sunlight used to contact Buedu was Sellay, who - which was the operator's name.

  • And you told the Court that Sunlight used this call sign to contact Sellay to contact 35B and Sellay responded immediately, correct?

  • If that was what is written there, then that's a mistake. It could be it's a mistake by those who copied it but I did not tell the Court that Sunlight used the call sign 35B at any point to contact the RUF.

  • So that would be a mistake by the translator or a mistake by the court reporter, is that what you're saying?

  • Yes, if it is mentioned - if it is written there, that would be a mistake by them.

  • If we could please look at the 24th of August, beginning with page 47042. Let's look at the question and answers, beginning with line 2, you had mentioned to the Court that Jungle had come with a piece of paper and the question is:

    "Q. What happened in relation to the frequency and piece

    of paper that Jungle brought with him?

    A. The piece of paper that Jungle had, Sunlight had to

    call that frequency. He had the frequency, he had

    programmed it on his radio.

    Q. And what was the result of that dialling of that

    frequency?

    A. When Sunlight made the call, Sellay answered and then

    he lent Daniel, or Jungle, to Sellay and they began

    communicating" - and then you explain it was in Krio - "so

    Sunlight did not understand."

    Now let's go to page 47043. And at the top of the page is where you indicate that you do not understand or speak Krio. Then the question, beginning at line 5:

    "Q. In calling Sellay, that is Sunlight calling Sellay, was

    there a call sign or a code name for Sellay's radio?

    A. Yes. As I said, Sunlight had been told by previous

    operators, that was between '91 and '92, the NPFL radio

    operator had been in contact with the RUF. In that process

    they used to call the RUF 35B, that was the call sign for

    the RUF - for the RUF at that time; 35B. And Sunlight used

    this call sign to contact Sellay to contact 35B and Sellay

    responded immediately. It was Sellay who was on the alert

    for a call by somebody using that call sign, 35B."

    Now, just so we are clear, 35B, was it the call sign for that particular frequency on that radio, or what was 35B exactly?

  • I told you 35B, according to previous radio operators, they told Sunlight that between '91 and '92 there was an RUF radio with the call sign 35B. I think this is when I mentioned the word 35 - the call sign 35B. It was not a frequency but a call sign.

  • And so Sunlight used this call sign 35B and Sellay responded immediately, correct?

  • Sunlight used the word given by Jungle, that the operator is Sellay. Sunlight initially used Sellay. It was only on two occasions that he used Sellay. Until the code was brought down by Memunatu, Sunlight used Sellay.

  • And this 35B as a call sign, that was a code for that particular call sign, correct?

  • That was - it wasn't the code for that particular call sign.

  • Well, wouldn't you, if you had done it and it wasn't in code, wouldn't you have simply said, "I want to speak to Sellay in Buedu"?

  • But instead you used a term which meant this was the station in Buedu, correct, and that was 35B?

  • I didn't say the station in Buedu was 35B.

  • Well, you said it was the call sign, so the call sign goes with the station, correct?

  • I said that this was a call sign of one of the RUF radios in Sierra Leone and the call sign was 35B. That was according to previous RUF operators that operated before Sunlight being part of the radio communication. This was the story that Sunlight got in Gbarnga, but I did not tell the Court that the call sign for the radio in Buedu was 35B.

  • And 35B is what Sunlight used to contact Sellay in 1998, correct?

  • Sellay was what Sunlight used to contact the station in Buedu in 1998, and later on he used the call sign Planet 1 and Bravo Zulu 4.

  • And these were also code names to refer to this particular radio station, correct?

  • Bravo Zulu 4 and Planet 1 were the code names referring to the particular radio station in Buedu, not 3-5B or 3-5 Bravo.

  • Now, Mr Witness, you told these judges that Memunatu Deen provided Sunlight with an RUF code, correct?

  • And do you recall when it was that this code was provided to Sunlight?

  • It was one month - I think it was about one month Memunatu had been using Base 1. After one month. Possibly one month.

  • Now, Mr Witness, this testimony about these communications with Buedu, the use of 35B, the use of Bravo Zulu 4, Planet 1, none of this information was provided to the Defence until after 12 May of this year, correct?

  • The information about Base 1 using Base 1 - about Base 1 contacting the station in Buedu with the call sign Planet 1 and the call sign Bravo Zulu 4 was not disclosed to the Defence in Monrovia by me.

  • Nor was the use of 35B disclosed before 12 May, was it?

  • Base 1 - Base 1 operator never used the call sign 35B.

  • And the fact that Memunatu Deen gave Sunlight an RUF code was never disclosed to the Defence until after 12 May. Isn't that correct?

  • Before 12 May, Sunlight - because of what I told you, that he never knew whom he was dealing with, did not - he dissociated himself.

  • Your Honours, can the witness repeat his testimony slowly and more clearly.

  • Please pause, Mr Witness. You have to repeat this answer for the interpreter to interpret to us. The question was: "And the fact that Memunatu Deen gave Sunlight an RUF code was never disclosed to the Defence until 12 May. Isn't that correct?"

  • Okay, for short, yes.

  • And in fact it was not disclosed until after 12 May. That's correct, isn't it?

  • Now, in the information you gave the Defence up until 12 May you indicated that you would deny, or you denied, ever received or knowing RUF radio code, correct?

  • And that was a lie, wasn't it?

  • That was an excuse because I did not know whom I was dealing with.

  • Mr Witness, that was a lie, wasn't it?

  • Please pause. Yes, Mr Anyah.

  • Yes, Madam President. May I make an application for a redaction, please. This is 105 of the LiveNote transcript, lines 12 to 14. It is an answer given by the witness that was not completed.

  • Mr Witness, are you feeling all right? Are you feeling all right?

  • Headache. I am feeling some symptoms of headache, but we can continue.

  • Yes. Yes, Mr Anyah, you were saying line?

  • Yes, Madam President. Page 105, lines 12 to 14, an answer that begins "before 12 May." It wasn't a completed response, but looking at it, in the exercise of caution, I think someone may deduce, in connection with what was testified to earlier today in open session, what the witness is referring to there. It is of course in the discretion of the Court.

  • Because the answer is disjointed, I think it is safe to leave the text as it is.

    Ms Hollis, please repeat the question that you were about to ask before I interrupted.

  • Let me find it, Madam President.

  • And, Mr Witness, we only have less than half an hour before the luncheon break when you can take an aspirin.

  • Ms Hollis, before you go back to your questions I would like to ask the witness: Mr Witness, in answer to a question just now you said the following - it was put to you that something you said was a lie and you said the following: That was an excuse because of uncertainty about the persons being dealt with. And you have given that answer several times, you didn't know these people, et cetera. Why did you talk to them at all if you were so distrustful of them?

  • I talked to them because they came and presented, through Mr Gray, that they were from the Special Court. I had to have a conference with them to find out what they wanted to ask me. It was not civilised for you to just go away from people like that.

  • Mr Witness, they told you they were from the Defence for Charles Taylor. Isn't that right?

  • Yes, they said that.

  • And, Madam President, I will move on to the next topic.

  • Mr Witness, you also told these judges about Sunlight meeting an RUF operator by the name of Mortiga, correct?

  • And at one point you told the judges that before Sunlight had met Mortiga in person, Mortiga had intercepted Sunlight's communications with Buedu once or twice. Do you remember telling the judges that?

  • I said that, and it was corrected. I said I made a mistake. I mistook Mortiga for another person and I made that correction. I think the correction should be written. I think I made that correction.

  • And, indeed, Mr Witness, you did make that correction after saying that Mortiga had intercepted Sunlight's communications with Buedu once or twice while Sunlight was trying to get in touch with Sellay, and you later corrected that.

    Now, Mr Witness, you told these judges that Sunlight met with Mortiga on more than one occasion during one of Sam Bockarie's trips to Monrovia. Do you remember telling the judges that?

  • I told the judges that Sunlight met with Mortiga once during one of Sam Bockarie's three visits to Monrovia in late 1998, and that was Sam Bockarie's second visit.

  • Mr Witness, {redacted} the judges about meeting Mortiga twice during that visit by Sam Bockarie. Isn't that correct?

  • During this particular visit - I don't know when you say twice. When Sunlight met Mortiga at YWCA where he was, I told the judges that Jungle brought Mortiga to Base 1. So I do not classify it as two different visits. That was the same visit. So, to be clear, within that same visit, Sunlight met Mortiga twice.

  • Now here in the question, Ms Hollis's question, I will have to do some redaction. I think I will have to redact, if you look at page 109 where Ms Hollis asks the question "Mr Witness ", now the words after "Mr Witness" up to "the judges", those words, four words, the words between "Mr Witness" and "the judges" should be redacted, please.

  • And these two meetings that Sunlight had with Mortiga, where did the first meeting occur?

  • The first meeting took place at the YWCA community during Sam Bockarie's second visit to Monrovia in late 1998, but this time it was not in the previous house where Sunlight saw Bockarie, that is, where Sampson and Jungle - I mean, not Jungle - Sampson, Pa Joe, Zigzag and others, but this time it was in another house but within the same YWCA community. And then within that same visit, the second one was the time that Jungle took Mortiga down to Base 1.

  • And this second visit occurred the day after the first visit, correct? And I am talking about visits with Mortiga, not Sam Bockarie's visits to Liberia. The second meeting that Sunlight had with Mortiga occurred the day after the first meeting, correct?

  • I believe it happened the following day, after Sunlight had met Mortiga for the first time at YWCA.

  • And during this second occasion, you told the Court that Mortiga drew a communication on the paper that was coded, and that the communication was translated back to Sellay in Buedu, correct?

  • Yes, he brought a communication and he transmitted the communication back to Buedu.

  • And that on this occasion of the second meeting Mortiga actually was taken to Sunlight's house for lunch, correct?