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

  • Good morning, witness.

  • Witness, can you tell the judges what year, if you can recall, the RUF finally left Kono District?

  • They left Kono District for where?

  • When did the RUF leave Kono District and the government take over that district again, so I am talking about towards the end of the war?

  • That was - I was in Kono District. I saw and the UN entered there in 2000 for the disarmament. It was during that time I realised they have left finally.

  • That was the year 2000. You were in Kono in 1999 and the year 2000, in the Kono District?

  • Now, witness, you told us yesterday that as well as being a clergyman you are, in fact, a teacher, is that right?

  • Even at present I am a teacher.

  • When you were captured by the RUF you told Captain Banya that your name was Isaac Teh, didn't you?

  • It was not Captain Banya I told my name is Isaac Teh. I said when they were going to shoot I told them I was a pastor. It was the time I told them I was Isaac Teh. That was not the time I told them. It was Rocky I told.

  • You told Rocky your name was Isaac Teh after you were first captured?

  • Yes, Rocky. I told Rocky that my name is Isaac Teh.

  • So you have two names, you have two first names. You are known as Alex Teh and Isaac Teh?

  • I am called Isaac because I am a pastor. I met commanders who were rebels so they too changed their names, so I am also the son of a covenant, so that is the reason why I didn't give them my real name.

  • And some of the rebels came to know you as Isaac Teh, didn't they?

  • It was the name I gave to them, Mr Lawyer.

  • Now, I am right in saying that during this period of time, during at least 1999, the RUF were running free schools for the poor in the Kono District, weren't they?

  • They were running more than three schools in the Kono District. You are saying three, but they were running more than three schools.

  • How many schools were they running in Kono District?

  • There were many because at least every town had one. I cannot give you the grand total of all of them.

  • These RUF schools were free for the poor, weren't they?

  • That was what I heard, that there is no salary for that. It was run free.

  • Now, during the period of 1999 a Reverend Isaac Teh is listed as the supervisor of RUF schools in the Kono District. That is you, isn't it?

  • I was not an even a supervisor. If you got an information about that - I did not put that in my statement, so I don't know. What is in my statement is what I am saying.

  • Were there two Reverend Isaac Tehs in the Kono District, two persons of your name?

  • Mr Lawyer, if you go through my statement files what concerns a school I never put in my statement. Even when I testified the first time I never said that to an investigator, so I don't know a thing about that. It is not in my file. I am begging you not to drag me away from what is not in my file, or my statement.

  • The Presiding Judge reminded you yesterday to keep calm and simply answer the questions I am asking you. Now, the question I have asked you, and it is one I want answered, is: are there two Reverend Isaac Tehs in the Kono District? Were there two persons of that name in 1999 in Kono District?

  • I am the only person called Reverend Isaac Teh for that. In the rest of the Kono District I am the only reverend called Teh.

  • Thank you witness. You said in your evidence yesterday that an individual, I believe it was Banya, told to you, during the course of your captivity, his real name. Do you recall that evidence?

  • I am right in saying that he also said that he belonged to a tribe which came predominantly from Liberia, is that right?

  • Your Honour, sir, I beg to interrupt. My recollection does not indicate at all that the witness dealt with somebody called Banya who disclosed his real name to him.

  • I seem to recall --

  • It was Rocky, your Honour.

  • Yes, another Sierra Leonean actually, I think.

  • I think he said he was from Liberia, but anyway.

  • If you could redirect that question in the context of what truly happened yesterday.

  • Yes, your Honour. A simple mistake on my part. Unfortunately the transcript is still in draft form.

    You said yesterday, I think, that Rocky was a man who in fact was called Emmanuel Williams. Do you recall that?

  • Yes, CO Rocky told me he was Rocky and his real name - he is a Christian called Emmanuel Williams and it was - he was from Liberia. He is from the Bassa tribe.

  • Now, witness, I am right in saying that the first time that you mentioned this is to Mr Bangura in the sessions that you spent with him this week prior to your evidence. This is the first time that you mentioned this fact, isn't it, witness?

  • Mr Lawyer, I think Rocky - as long as I, Reverend Teh, is concerned, in my statement I am still standing by my oath. I am telling you Rocky's name is not new to the Special Court of Sierra Leone in my statement.

  • Let us take a look at your statement of 15 November 2002 and if the witness could be given his first statement. Witness, just to be clear and so you don't again think that there is any jiggery pokery going on, Mr Bangura disclosed the fact that this is a new piece of evidence to us in the notes that he took during the sessions that he spent with you. I would like you to answer the question I put to you. I welcome you to look at your first statement and tell me whether or not you disclose in that statement what Rocky's real name was because I cannot see it in that statement.

  • Mr Lawyer, I am saying Rocky is not new in my statement. Rocky's tribe, or his real name, is a continuation and a development. To be sincere enough, Rocky is not new to me and whosoever dealt with my case is not new to the person as long as it is in my statement and my file.

  • Did you mention Rocky's real name in your first statement? Will you answer that question. In your statement of 15 November 2002, when you refer to Rocky did you state that you knew his real name and that he was from Liberia?

  • Mr Witness, listen carefully to the question asked to you. It refers only to the statement that is in front of you. If the real name of Rocky is mentioned in that statement, please say so and point to where it is. If not then please just answer the question directly put to you, as regards this particular statement of 15 November. It is a simple question and then we can move forward to other statements.

  • My Lord, Emmanuel Williams is in my statement --

  • -- which is Rocky's name.

  • Please indicate somewhere in this statement where you mention the name Emmanuel Williams.

  • Then I should go through the files. Please assist me.

  • Only through the statement of 15 November. That is what the lawyer is talking about, only that statement for now.

  • If it assists, your Honour, I think he can look at page 7 onwards because it is actually there that it starts, when he starts talking about Major Rocky.

  • What are the last four digits?

  • The last four digits are 1724 when he says, "I knew he was a Liberian from his accent."

  • Please switch to document cam witness.

  • Of course, counsel, if I may enquire, the assumption is that this witness can read English. Is that the assumption?

  • I am told he can. I did make that enquiry, Madam President.

  • I asked the Prosecution.

  • Mr Bangura is that the case?

  • Correct, your Honour.

  • Can understand fluently the English language?

  • I cannot say that, your Honour.

  • Because we are referring to him a statement that is written in English.

  • I know he can read, but with some difficulty.

  • He is your witness. I don't know anything about him. He is your witness who is being asked to look through a statement. I don't know if he actually wrote this statement himself.

  • As far as I know he didn't write it himself.

  • A statement written in a language that is not his mother tongue.

  • Your Honour, as far as I know he did not write the statement himself. He signed it.

  • Can this witness read English fluently?

  • He can read English, but I cannot say that he can read it fluently.

  • Mr Witness, I will ask you. Can you read English be fluently?

  • I am a country boy. I can hear English. That is the reason why I said I will speak English. I can hear it and I can speak a bit of it.

  • Can you read English?

  • Yes, I can read it, but I am not perfect because there are some words that I cannot easily understand. That is the reason why I prefer it to be in my own language.

  • Mr Witness, the statement before you is written in English. Can you then point to the reference to the names Emmanuel Williams in this statement? Please go ahead. If you say you can, just go ahead and point to the names. We are not asking you to read the statement, simply to indicate where the names, or the reference to the names, Emmanuel Williams is in that entire statement, if you can.

  • Okay. I did not see it in it. I did not see Emmanuel Williams there.

  • Thank you, your Honour.

    So, witness, it is a fact that when you first gave this statement you did not mention the real name of Rocky, did you?

  • Rocky is there. The word Rocky, the name Rocky --

  • That is not the question I put to you. It is a fact you mentioned the word Rocky, but you would accept you did not mention the real name, Emmanuel Williams, of Rocky when you first made this statement, did you?

  • But, Mr Lawyer, I told you even yesterday, I said it is a continuation to my statement. What I had to do with Special Court in Sierra Leone I have done that, I have testified. If I am here again before this court I am supposed to make an addition. I have told you yesterday it is a continuation.

  • Witness, I will put the question to you one more time then I am going to move on, but you would accept the fact that you did not mention Emmanuel Williams when you made this statement on 15 November 2002?

  • You see, in the year 2002 I mentioned Rocky. If I am testifying again where it concerns Rocky it has to be continuous. I told you yesterday, even today, from where you are talking from perhaps some of that history may have come into me that I will want to mention. I know what I went through, Mr Lawyer. I know the problems and the troubles I went through. I hope if you were

  • [overlapping speakers].

  • Witness, we are going back to where we were yesterday. We have a great deal of sympathy with your suffering, but I would like you to directly respond to the questions I am putting to you. We are going to be here a very long time indeed if you don't do that.

  • Counsel, I think we can move on. You have made your point, we can move on.

  • I would like to ask one more question on this, your Honour, and then I will move on as you request me to do.

    The first time you mentioned the name Emmanuel Williams was to Mr Bangura, wasn't it, this week in The Hague? It is the first time you mentioned the name, isn't it?

  • I told you that I met with lawyer Bangura, who is a prosecution lawyer, for a day and a half. From where I was in Sierra Leone, when they told me to come here I decided --

  • I have to stop you there. Listen to the question carefully and please answer the question directly. The question is very simple. If the lawyer would ask it again. Listen carefully and answer only what you are asked.

  • Witness, listen to me before you answer the question. The first time that you mentioned the name Emmanuel Williams was in your session with Mr Bangura in The Hague this week, or last week, so in 2007. That is the first time that you mentioned that name, isn't it?

  • That concerns Emmanuel Williams. I did not get you clearly. Please come again.

  • I will put the question to you one last time. The first time you mentioned the real name of Rocky, Emmanuel Williams, was in your proofing session in the time you spent with Mr Bangura, wasn't it?

  • He spoke with me and, indeed, I gave him this Emmanuel Williams, but in actual fact it was not in The Hague.

  • Where was it? Where did you give him this piece of information?

  • It was in Sierra Leone.

  • Was that this year, 2008, or 2007?

  • What month of 2007, if you recall?

  • Mr Lawyer, I cannot recall the date and the month.

  • Was that the statement that you made to the Office of the Prosecutor in May 2007?

  • I can recall I gave this particular statement and it was filed, but I have just told you, Mr Lawyer, I cannot recall the dates and the month. I have said this clearly.

  • Let us look at those two statements from 2007 and this, your Honours, is tab 5 and the last four digits are 2463. These are interview notes with a Mr Phillip Ross and trial lawyer Shyamala Alagendra. I don't think Mr Bangura was present for this interview. Again and I think the relevant part of this statement, so that we can move quickly through this, would be in fact the last page where he talks about a number of individuals. That is 2465. Can you indicate there where you mention the name Emmanuel Williams, if at all? You did not mention the name Emmanuel Williams, did you, witness, when you gave this particular statement on 21 May 2007?

  • It was not - Mr Lawyer, it was not only in 2007 on the 21st, or what, but they used to call me down to Freetown and I gave them my information that is in my statement. So, Mr Lawyer, the word Rocky to me is so important than Emmanuel Williams. It is the same person, the very person that did the act, so if you are dragging me to Rocky and to Emmanuel Williams let me say I am doing this for it to be more impressive, but if you are dragging me there and if it is not in this, my statement, and I am saying I mentioned it to Shyamala and Mr Bangura. I said, "Rocky's name is Emmanuel Williams", for example. I even mentioned - I even said Morris Kallon is also called Bilai Karim, but, you see, I am saying the time I endured this suffering I was traumatised, so if you are asking me to say all --

  • The questions asked you are quite simple. There is no need to go back into the suffering, et cetera, et cetera. The questions asked really are asked in good faith. It would help this court if you just answered directly.

  • Sir, just to clarify with you, your evidence now is that you did meet with Mr Bangura in 2007 and you gave him this piece of information: the name Emmanuel Williams. Is that what you are saying to the judges?

  • Yes. The only information I gave as a continuation of my statement, it was during that time I told them that Rocky is called Emmanuel Williams.

  • Just for information we have absolutely no disclosure from that period of an interview taking place with Mr Bangura. We have two statements from that time, one from May and one from June of 2007, so I am going to move on because I can't actually deal with this matter because I don't have a statement.

  • To be fair to the witness though, the documents that you are referring to of an interview that transpired on 21 May are actually interview notes. It is not a statement of the witness and my understanding is these are notes taken down by the interviewer in his own words.

  • It is true, your Honour, but I mean the problem with taking that position, of course, is what is the worth of this information? The Prosecution have an obligation of discovery, they have an obligation of disclosure. That is why they disclosed these documents to us. We have to be able to rely on them. Simply because it is given a title like "Witness Interview Notes" doesn't mean to say it is not a document we shouldn't rely on when cross-examining a witness. That is a real problem.

  • I am not suggesting, sir, you do not cross-examine. I am simply saying to be fair to the witness you cross-examine in context. These are interview notes. They are not his statement. They are interview notes and in cross-examining - you rightly can cross-examine on that topic, but in the context of knowing that these are interview notes. Whoever interviewed this man, these were his notes --

  • -- vis-a-vis a statement of the witness that he makes.

  • I would hope they were read back. The difficulty with taking that position, your Honour, is that there is completely new information in here. If the witness spoke to the OTP and gave new information, one would assume that they actually read these notes back to him.

  • Why do you have to make that assumption? You can ask him. The assumption is never evidence. You can ask him. As far as the judges are concerned, there is no indication that - his signature is not indicated here. If neither of the parties asks that question then there is the doubt, the doubt remains. We so far do not know if these notes were, in fact, read back to him and I don't think you should make that assumption either.

  • I will ask the question, your Honour.

    Witness, could you answer the question that is being suggested by the learned President of the Court. These notes of 21 May 2007, can you just take a look at them. Do you see them in front of you? Do you want to look at the front page?

  • Yes, sir.

  • Do you recall speaking with the Office of the Prosecutor on 21 May 2007?

  • Yes, I saw that in my file. I could recall.

  • Were these interview notes actually read back to you, or did you read them for yourself?

  • Yes, Shyamala had to give it to me. It was given to me and I went through.

  • And you read and you checked the accuracy of those notes?

  • She gave it to me together with my whole statement I did at the Special Court. I looked at them. I saw typographical errors to which I called the attention of Shyamala and told her, "This was not like this, this is what you are supposed to use", in the first statement, which was in the same statement but the very first one. I showed it to her.

  • In your session with Mr Bangura were you shown these interview notes again? While you were in The Hague were you shown these interview notes and were you able to read them?

  • Well, that one she didn't give it to me, but she read it to me.

  • Let us move on and now I would like to address you on another issue and this concerns your evidence from yesterday. I would like you to direct your mind to the second visit that you made to Mosquito. Now, you stated yesterday in your evidence that Mosquito put a satellite phone to his ear, said, "Yes okay, sir, yes, sir", and then he announced that he had to go on a trip to Liberia. I put it to you that the first time you mentioned this aspect of the second visit was in your proofing session with Mr Bangura. That is right, isn't it?

  • Mr Lawyer, this particular word I said it in my statement. As long as it was a prosecution lawyer that was taking me on board in the interview - I don't know the court procedures. I don't know. Since I told him that this was what I saw, that is all I would say. If you ask me of anything now, Mr Lawyer, beyond that I will not be able to answer because I don't know the court procedures. Special Court was the first.

  • Mr Witness, nobody is asking you court procedures. The question asked of you is very simple. Please answer it directly and I will ask counsel to ask it again. Listen carefully and answer the question directly. Nobody is asking you court procedures.

  • Thank you Madam President.

    Witness, I will ask this question to you again. The first time you mentioned seeing Mosquito with a satellite telephone in this second visit that you refer to was in the proofing session with Mr Bangura in The Hague, wasn't it?

  • Yes, I told Mr Bangura.

  • You did not mention it, did you, in any of your prior statements, the appearance of this satellite telephone?

  • Concerning the satellite phone, the satellite phone, yes, it was during the time that we met so that I could tell him that that was - so that I could tell him about the satellite phone.

  • You had never mentioned the issue of the satellite telephone in any of your prior statements to the Office of the Prosecutor, had you?

  • I mentioned the satellite phone. I mentioned it. If you read my first statement I mention something about the satellite phone.

  • Let us have a look at your first statement. Now, the issue of the visit to Mosquito is dealt with on page 1730. Those are the last four digits and I welcome you and encourage you to look through the rest of the statement, but if you can point out to me on 1730 where you state that Mosquito was on a satellite telephone I would be grateful.

  • If you look at this particular statement towards the end, that is it about it. This one at Burkina and then Mosquito, then it is telling you that, so that - this is the end of it. Turn to the very first page which concerns about Mosquito, or about my going to Burkina, which is Buedu. Turn to that.

  • Let me read that to you.

  • 1730. Let me read it to the Court. It is very brief:

    "At Burkina I met Mosquito who asked me to join their movement or their force as a combatant, but I told him I was a pastor and a man of God and that I did not want to join as a fighter. He asked me to pray for them."

    You do not mention a satellite telephone, do you, in this first statement?

  • Mr Lawyer, I said it. If it is not in my statement I stand by my oath. I will not deny this statement, but to be sincere with God I said it in my statement. The time when I was being interviewed I said it.

  • So your position is the investigator did not copy down correctly what you stated to him in November 2002?

  • I would not say he did not say so because I have signed it. I have signed it, I have signed the document. I would not say he did not do the correct thing, but really he left out certain errors which could be typographical errors. There are certain errors, but really I said it, I said something about the phone. And even if I was in picture I mentioned like this week because that was what he said, yes.

  • You signed the statement, didn't you, witness?

  • Yes, sir, I said it. I said it that I signed it.

  • And you in fact confirm that you have read the statement, or the statement was read back to you in the English language?

  • Yes.

  • And you had the opportunity to make additions to the statement, didn't you, or to correct matters in the statement?

  • And you didn't correct the statement at the time, in November 2002, and have incorporated into it the fact that Mosquito was using a satellite telephone, did you?

  • I didn't know that those are the things that will happen, but I can remember - remind you, Mr Lawyer, the time when they were asking me about Mosquito, where he was around the hills of Freetown, I know that he was using the phone, but all this I would not be able to point it out straight, or now, but as you talk about the satellite phone I had to mention it that the time the BBC was interviewing Mosquito where he was, he said that he was in the hills of Freetown, so that shows that in fact he was using the satellite phone.

  • All right, witness, we will move on from that issue. If the witness, please, could be shown the final document which is a witness expense policy form. Witness, I don't believe that you will have been shown this by the OTP, so again please take an opportunity to read it through if you can. I have a couple of questions for you. This is a document concerning the money that you have received from the Office of the Prosecutor and the subject matter of the memorandum is, "Witness Expense Policy: expenses incurred by TF1-015."

  • What tab would that be?

  • It is the last tab, tab 8, your Honour.

    Now, you will see there in paragraph 2, witness, that you received 38,000 leones for medical treatment and 580,000 leones for transportation. Those transportation costs were to take you from Kono District to Freetown and from Freetown back to Kono District, correct?

  • They gave me transport. I was given the transport.

  • The other issue here, other expenses, 638,000 leones, what is that for?

  • Mr Lawyer, this is not my question because I was not in the particular office. I don't know anything about that and, in fact, I will tell you that this inter-office memorandum which you are talking to me about it is only now I have seen. This is the first time for me to see it in this. I did not discuss anything about it. I know that they paid me my passage to and fro. Each time I came they would give me food. I got welfare. When I was sick they would take me to the hospital, but I don't know how much it cost. I don't know when I went to the hospital, so therefore this question I don't know it.

  • You say you were given transport from Kono District to Freetown. Did officials of the Court come and collect you and take you to Freetown, or did you make your own way there and they refunded the expenses to you?

  • The area where I am I was - to get to Koidu Town is 59 miles. They would give me the passage because I had a motorcycle from Koidu. They had other businesses, I was not the only one involved, so they would send me ahead and give me passage to go ahead. I would go directly to the office. That is all I know.

  • So to be correct, you would rent a motorcycle and the Court would refund the cost of that motorcycle rental to you?

  • They would give me the cost of the passage from my village to the Koidu Town then I would pay. I have no money. They would give me the money and I would pay for the Honda and come to Koidu. From Koidu maybe they will put me on a bus, they themselves will put me on the bus to go to Freetown. Sometimes they will give me transport fare and pay so I can board the bus to Freetown.

  • Other than payment of your transport expenses and your medical expenses, about which I don't wish to ask you any further questions, what other expenses were paid to you, if you recall? For what purpose were other expenses paid to you, other than the medical and transportation costs?

  • Mr Lawyer, I have told you that this particular inter-office memorandum it is the first time to see it and I don't work there. What I require is the medical, they would take me there. Transport, they would give it to me. Until you remind me, if it is yes, I will tell you yes, but if it is no, then I will tell you no, but I have no understanding about it.

  • You mentioned a moment ago that you were paid money for the welfare of your family, is that correct?

  • I was not given any money to take care of my family. They gave me money to relocate.

  • Just a moment. Mr Bangura, you are on your feet.

  • Yes, your Honour, I have waited patiently to see the direction my learned friend was going. Your Honours, I just wish to point out that the document on which counsel is cross-examining the witness is a document inter-office memorandum which comes from Naeem Ahmed, Deputy Chief of WVS. We understand the organs of the Court and WVS is a unit which is set up to take care of the welfare of witnesses, which includes their expenses in court, in attending on the Court when they are called upon and we understand this unit to be responsible for serving not only prosecution witnesses but defence witnesses as well. I just wish to draw my learned friend's attention to the fact that these are not payments which were made by the Prosecution, but by WVS.

  • I don't think that the lawyer suggested that they were made by the Prosecution at all. He has been referring to the Court, weren't you, sir?

  • Certainly not but that is when why I said I waited patiently to see which direction he was going but I need to draw his attention to this part.

  • I think the point is well taken, but I think the questions the Defence lawyer is asking are pertinent and they only require a direct and truthful answer from the witness.

  • Thank you, Madam President. I am going to actually move on to what I believe are the expenses which were directly paid by the Prosecution. This memorandum has never been fully explained to us. My understanding was that it was disclosure to us of general payments made for the expenses of the witness, but there is another document which is at tab 7 which I believe, and again Mr Bangura can correct me - which are payments that were expressly made by the Office of the Prosecutor to the witness.

  • Do you wish to refer this document to the witness?

  • In a moment, your Honour. I just wanted to tell the Court where I was going.

    One last time, witness, again and to be clear, in respect of this payment of 638,000 leones from the Court, your evidence is you do not know anything about that sum of money, or why it was paid to you, if indeed it was paid at all?

  • To be fair to the witness, before he answers, this document does not show that the sum of 638,000 was actually paid to the witness. It says "Other expenses".

  • It says, your Honour, to date he has been paid a total of 2,000 leones.

  • Sorry, 2 million leones as witness attendance allowance.

  • That one has been specified and you haven't asked him anything about that, but the figure in question is "leones 638" which is entitled "other expenses". It doesn't mean he received it. It could have been spent on him, but by way of accountability it is indicated that --

  • I will ask the larger sum, your Honour, thank you.

    The sum of 2 million leones that is referred to in this document, do you recall receiving that amount? This is the witness attendance allowance.

  • I don't know because I was sick. My head was swollen and I used to go to hospital. One of my teeth was disturbing me, so I went to extract it, so I don't know that was the area where they spent the money. To say I was given 2 million leones and say, "Here is it", is not something that happened between us.

  • Again, to be fair to the witness this statement says a total of 2 million leones which means this was not dispersed in a lump sum. It could have been given to him in smaller amounts. He may have added it up to 2 million, or he may have not. Maybe you should ask the question in a fair manner: did he receive a total altogether, or various sums that totalled 2 million?

  • Witness, do you recall receiving small sums of money from the Court as witness attendance allowance?

  • Do you recall how much each of those payments were?

  • When I am in Freetown, if I am brought down to Freetown every week I will receive 120,000 leones. If I was in Freetown for two weeks that was what I received, as long as I was in Freetown with the Court.

  • On how many occasions, just to the best of your recollection, did you receive that payment of 120,000 leones?

  • Mr Lawyer, I was not able to tell the number. I did not really take note of it to be sincere. I did not really take a note of it.

  • Did you receive those payments more than five times, less than ten times, the sum of 120,000 leones?

  • Mr Lawyer, I stand by my oath. I will not delay you. I did not count, or collect. I don't know. They will call me and give it to me. I will not call - I will not check it up and each time they call me I will do what I have to do with it. I did not count it.

  • Let us move to tab 7, please, your Honours, and I think this will be easier. This, I believe, is payments made to the witness by the Office of the Prosecutor. Here I think, Madam President, it is actually clearer: the actual sums, the smaller parts actually received by him.

    Can you just look at that document, witness, and if you go to number 2 it states there that the amount of 15,000 leones were funds required to facilitate your presence at the Special Court for the reconfirmation process as well as funding lost wages. On that date you received the sum of 15,000 leones for transportation and lost wages. That is right, isn't it?

  • Yes, Mr Lawyer. Each time they went for me, for my passage they will give it to me.

  • And if we go to number 3 we see you received 35,000 leones on 20 September 2004 for transport, meals and communication.

  • Mr Lawyer, all this could be true, but I am not in the office and even the times, I did not recall all the times. I did not put them on record.

  • Let us go to number 7. That is over the page, please Rachel, thank you. These two payments on 10 May and 11 May are just prior to that additional statement you made on 12 May 2007. Do you recall receiving 50,000 leones from the Office of the Prosecutor for family welfare? That does say it was a payment made to you.

  • Yes, they met me in my village and then I asked, "I will not go because my family I have nothing to leave them", and Akomeh gave me 50,000 leones which I signed for myself, Mr Lawyer.

  • Then I think the next day you were given 35,000 leones transport and meals for your trip to Freetown, is that right?

  • What was given to me? I cannot see it.

  • If you go to paragraph 8, sir, and you look there you will see the sum of 35,000 leones?

  • Yes, sir, they gave me that money in the morning and both of us went to the bus station and then he gave me the money. The 5,000 leones was for my meals in the week and the 35,000 leones was the transport fare to Freetown and, indeed, I signed there also.

  • I think you said 5,000 leones. Maybe it was an interpretation mistake. In fact it was 50,000 leones under 7.

    If we can go over the page to paragraph 9, Tuesday 19 June 2007, if you can look at that entry, "Family welfare provided as witness required to attend investigations, prosecution meetings." You were then paid the sum of 100,000 leones. Do you recall receiving that money?

  • I received it from Akomeh.

  • What was the purpose of that meeting on 19 June, 20 June with the Office of the Prosecutor?

  • I was invited. They told me about the Special Court in The Hague here. Mr Lawyer, you see most of these things I cannot recall properly because it is not in a record with me. I don't want to tell a lie before this Court. I stand by my oath. I would not remember, I will not recall all the things that were involved, I mean, all the things that I was called for.

  • At the time on 19 June, and again I am not in any way trying to mislead you, do you recall actually being in the Court on 19 June 2007, or was it a bit prior to that date?

  • Mr Lawyer, I have told you that I did not record these things, so you are still inviting me along that line. I did not record these things. I could not understand for now. The only thing, I was called and I responded to the call but I did not count how many times before I was there, or after, or before. This is not in my record, Mr Lawyer.

  • At the time you were made this payment of 100,000 leones, so this specific payment you do recall, you made a statement to the OTP, correct?

  • Mr Lawyer, I mean I was invited to be interviewed. They called me to be interviewed, but except you make it clear.

  • Let us look at the balance of the payments 10, 11 and 12. Two further payments made on 19 June of 40,000 and 35,000. Do you see that under 10 and 11? These were payments made to you directly, do you recall? This is numbers 10 and 11 to be clear.

  • 10 and 11, yes, I have said that as far as the money is concerned the man who was sent to hand this money to me would give it to me. He would give it to me, Akomeh. He would pass on the money to me.

  • Then the final payment in 12, Friday 6 July, you received a further payment of 20,000 leones for lost wages. Do you recall receiving that amount?

  • Well, you see, I was given money which was 20,000 leones, but the names they did not make it clear like what I am seeing here now, lost wages, it was not clearly mentioned to me, but the money was given to me, but I don't know, I don't know what the money is given for, that, "This is the reason why you were given this money", or this money was going for this, this money was going for this. I don't know, but the money really was given to me. I signed for it.

  • So at the time that officials from the Office of the Prosecutor gave you this money they didn't actually tell you why they were giving it to you, they didn't specify the purpose for which they were giving you the money. Is that what you are saying?

  • The transportation fare they would give it to me. My welfare, my family welfare when I was not there, they would tell me. The lunch, they would tell me about it. I don't know if any of that - they would give me money, but there were times maybe it was a kind of gesture, but maybe because they came to see me, or because they wasted my time.

  • So you are saying to the judges that there were occasions when money was given to you as a gesture?

  • Mr Lawyer, understand me, they would be giving money and what was meant for the transport fare would be spelt out. What was meant for my family welfare when I was not there, they will say to me, "This is for your family welfare." On the way, my lunch on the way they would tell me. Rather than that they would give me money, I don't know what for. I received money. Listen, so I don't know it was because of kind gestures, or because maybe of the time, my time they wasted, or for what.

  • Thank you, witness. I don't have any further questions for this witness, your Honour.

  • Thank you, sir. Any re-examination?

  • Yes, your Honour, just on a short point. If you could direct the witness to - I'm going by the documents provided by counsel on the other side. Tab 5, first to the page with the numbers, last four digits 2463.

  • Mr Witness, in answering questions posed to you by Mr Cayley you did say that in your first statement that you made to the Prosecution you mentioned that in fact you had asked to be made a field marshall, you had asked Mosquito to make you a field marshall and that point was in dispute. Is that not so?

  • My Lord, I said so in the presence of the Court. I asked him, "Before you could make me a major, make me a field marshall because I am a man of God." What he told me he is yet not a one star general, his boss is yet not a five star general, how can he make me a field marshall? He told these people to release me.

  • Thank you, Mr Witness. On 21 May 2007 when you met with the Prosecution you had the opportunity of correcting previous statements that you had made to the Prosecution. Is that not so?

  • Yes, the things were taken to me. I read it and I was asked if there is anything I want to change.

  • Look at the page of the document which is before you now. The first line there after the names of the lawyer and the - the lawyer who was present - it says - can you read that for the Court or are you able to read that? "The witness." Just that line, that sentence?

  • "The witness supplied me with the following corrections that he made in his original statement".

  • Mr Witness, amongst the corrections that you made can we move on to the page ending with the digits 2464. Amongst the corrections that you made was this fact that you had asked to be made a field marshall. Is that not so?

  • And if you look at the second bullet point on that page does that reflect exactly what you had said to the Prosecutor as a way of correction of your first statement?

  • I did not get you clearly, sir.

  • I will read this for you. You say that - these are the notes of the Prosecutor who took your statement, the lawyer who took your statement, this is Shyamala Alagendra, and she says here, "In his original statement he advised that when he agreed to join Sam Bockarie and the RUF only - he advised that" - I will go over that again, sorry. "That in his original statement he advised that when he agreed to join Sam Bockarie and the RUF only if Bockarie made him a field marshall, Sam Bockarie's reply was that he himself was not even a one star general and his boss Charles Ghankay Taylor who was in Liberia was only a five star general, so it was not possible for the witness to be a field marshall."

    You made these corrections to --

  • Shyamala.

  • Shyamala. In respect of the first statement that you had made?

  • Yes, I made this correction.

  • Thank you, Mr Witness. No further questions, your Honour.

  • Mr Teh, I want to thank you for your testimony. This is now the end of it. You are free to leave the Court. Thank you.

  • Thank you ma'am.

  • I think the Prosecution should now call their next witness. There is a bit of time before the break. Yes, Madam Prosecutor.

  • Your Honour, the Prosecution now calls TF1-406. This is a witness who will testify in open court using Liberian English.

  • Also this is a witness who has waived his protective measures?

  • That is correct, your Honour.