I have been requested by the Presiding Judge to give a ruling on behalf of the Bench this way.
Mr Anyah, we do acknowledge that the accused has a right to have full disclosure of this name that you've just named, in addition to the incident of decapitation. We acknowledge that this is the right of the accused in order to help him prepare or enable him to adequately prepare. This is his right under the statute. We also recognise that in this case this was not done, as is the duty of the Prosecution to have done so. However, we believe that it would be drastic to simply strike out this evidence given the fact that the incident itself was disclosed to you. So we believe that this defect can be cured with allowing the Defence more time, or adjournment if they so require, in order to further investigate this matter. This is what we have done in the past. If the time has come for you to cross-examine and you feel you need more time to investigate this incident then the Chamber can accommodate that, but in this case we will not strike out the evidence altogether. That is the ruling of the Court.