| SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE
OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTORPRESS RELEASE Freetown, 29 March 2006 Chief Prosecutor Announces the Arrival of Charles Taylor at the Special CourtFreetown – The Prosecutor, Desmond de Silva QC, today announced the arrival of Charles Taylor into the custody of the Special Court for Sierra Leone.”Today is a momentous occasion and an important day for international justice, the international community and above all, the people of Sierra Leone. The indictee Charles Taylor has today been safely secured and is now in the detention facility of this international criminal tribunal here in Freetown,” said Mr de Silva.”His presence in the custody of the Special Court sends out the clear message that no matter how rich, powerful or feared people may be – the law is above them.” The Prosecutor originally indicted Charles Taylor on 3 March 2003 on a 17-count indictment for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the conflict in Sierra Leone. “On the 16th March 2006 a Judge of the Special Court gave leave to amend the indictment against Charles Taylor. Under the amended indictment Taylor is charged with 11 counts. This will ensure a more focused trial. The thrust and gravity of the former indictment is in no way diminished. “In summary, he now stands indicted for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law, including sexual slavery and mutilations.” _____ The Special Court is an independent tribunal established jointly by the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone. It is mandated to bring to justice those who bear the greatest responsibility for atrocities committed in Sierra Leone after 30 November 1996. To date, the Prosecutor has indicted thirteen persons on various charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. Two indictments were withdrawn following the deaths of the accused. Nine indictees are currently in the custody of the Court. Brief Chronology on Efforts to Bring Charles Taylor to Justice On 3 March 2003 the Special Court Prosecutor signed a 17-count indictment alleging war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. The indictment was confirmed by the Trial Chamber on 7 March 2003 but ordered kept under seal. The Prosecutor unsealed the indictment on 4 June 2003, during Taylor’s first trip out of Liberia since the signing of the indictment. On 4 August 2003 Taylor went into exile in Calabar, Nigeria. On 31 October and 1 November 2003 Taylor’s lawyer, the late Terrence Terry, introduced a preliminary motion before the Special Court’s Appeals Chamber unsuccessfully challenging the Court’s jurisdiction to try him. The motion argued that as President of Liberia, Taylor enjoyed head of state immunity. He also argued that the Court was not an international tribunal and thus had no jurisdiction outside of Sierra Leone. On 31 May 2004 the Appeals Chamber decided the Special Court was an international court and that a head of state does not enjoy immunity from prosecution before an international court. The motion was consequently dismissed. On 24 February 2005 the European Parliament unanimously passed a resolution calling for Nigeria to transfer Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. On 4 May 2005 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a Resolution, 421-1, calling for Nigeria to transfer Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. On 11 May 2005 the U.S. Senate passed the 4 May House Resolution by unanimous consent, joining the call for Nigeria to transfer Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. On 24 May 2005 members of the United Nations Security Council underlined the importance of ensuring that all those who have been indicted by the Court appear before it, thereby strengthening the stability of Sierra Leone and the sub-region and bringing an end to impunity. On 30 June 2005 a coalition of up to 300 African and international civil society groups sent a declaration to the African Union (AU) demanding that Nigeria surrender Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Press conferences were held in 14 countries throughout Africa announcing the declaration. On 11 November 2005 the UN Security Council passed resolution 1638 which gave the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) the powers to detain Charles Taylor should he ever be returned to Liberia, and apprehend and transfer him to the Special Court. This resolution clearly displays the views of the UN Security Council’s that Taylor should be brought to justice at the Special Court. On 16 March 2006 the Judge of the Special Court for Sierra Leone approved an amended indictment of 11 counts. SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE PRESS RELEASE Freetown, 28 March, 2006 Urgent Statement by The Prosecutor of the Special Court – Desmond de Silva QC, on reports that the wanted war criminal Charles Taylor has absconded within or from Nigeria Responding to reports from the Federal Government of Nigeria that Charles Taylor has disappeared from his place of former asylum in Calabar, Nigeria, the Chief Prosecutor stated: “Today marks a step back on the road to accountability and justice. Charles Taylor is now an international fugitive. He has been indicted by an international criminal court. The President of Liberia has requested an end to his temporary asylum in Nigeria. The President of Nigeria has agreed to this. For him now to disappear, on the eve of his transfer, is an affront to justice. As I have always stated, Charles Taylor is a threat to the peace and security of West Africa. His disappearance now from under the eye of a regional superpower only heightens that threat and puts the whole region on the highest alert. It is now up to the Government of Nigeria, the regional leaders of West Africa and the international community to respond immediately and to take all necessary steps to ensure that Mr Taylor is located, detained and transferred to the Special Court for Sierra Leone forthwith.” _____ Produced by the Brief Chronology on Efforts to Bring Charles Taylor to Justice On 3 March 2003 the Special Court Prosecutor signed a 17-count indictment alleging war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. The indictment was confirmed by the Trial Chamber on 7 March 2003 but ordered kept under seal. The Prosecutor unsealed the indictment on 4 June 2003, during Taylor’s first trip out of Liberia since the signing of the indictment. On 4 August 2003 Taylor went into exile in Calabar, Nigeria. On 31 October and 1 November 2003 Taylor’s lawyer, the late Terrence Terry, introduced a preliminary motion before the Special Court’s Appeals Chamber unsuccessfully challenging the Court’s jurisdiction to try him. The motion argued that as President of Liberia, Taylor enjoyed head of state immunity. He also argued that the Court was not an international tribunal and thus had no jurisdiction outside of Sierra Leone. On 27 November 2003 a warrant for the arrest of Charles Taylor, issued by the Special Court was transmitted to the Government of Nigeria via the Nigerian High Commission in Freetown. On 31 May 2004 the Appeals Chamber decided the Special Court was an international court and that a head of state does not enjoy immunity from prosecution before an international court. The motion was consequently dismissed. On 24 February 2005 the European Parliament unanimously passed a resolution calling for Nigeria to transfer Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. On 4 May 2005 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a Resolution, 421-1, calling for Nigeria to transfer Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. On 11 May 2005 the U.S. Senate passed the 4 May House Resolution by unanimous consent, joining the call for Nigeria to transfer Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. On 24 May 2005 members of the United Nations Security Council underlined the importance of ensuring that all those who have been indicted by the Court appear before it, thereby strengthening the stability of Sierra Leone and the sub-region and bringing an end to impunity. On 30 June 2005 a coalition of up to 300 African and international civil society groups sent a declaration to the African Union (AU) demanding that Nigeria surrender Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Press conferences were held in 14 countries throughout Africa announcing the declaration. On 11 November 2005 the UN Security Council passed resolution 1638 which gave the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) the powers to detain Charles Taylor should he ever be returned to Liberia, and apprehend and transfer him to the Special Court. This resolution clearly displays the views of the UN Security Council’s that Taylor should be brought to justice at the Special Court. On 5 March 2006 a formal request was sent to President Olusegun Obasanjo by President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf requesting that former President of Liberia Charles Taylor be transferred to the custody of the Government of Liberia. On 25 March 2006 President Olusegun Obasanjo informs President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf that the Government of Liberia is free to take former President Charles Taylor into its custody. On 26 March 2006 The Prosecutor of the Special Court called upon Nigeria to execute the warrant of arrest issued by the Special Court and which was received by Nigeria in November 2003. On 28 March 2006 The Nigerian Government announce that Charles Taylor has disappeared from his place of temporary asylum in Calabar. SPECIAL COURT PROSECUTOR WANTS TAYLOR ARRESTED BY NIGERIA Monday March 27, 2006 SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE PRESS RELEASE Freetown, 26 March, 2006 Urgent Statement by the Prosecutor of the Special Court, Desmond de Silva, QC, on his request to Nigeria to execute a warrant of arrest on former President of Liberia Charles Taylor Until the indicted war criminal Charles Taylor is in the hands of Liberian authorities to whom Nigeria is making Taylor available for collection, the spotlight of the international community will be upon Nigeria. In particular, the watching world will wish to see Taylor held in Nigerian detention to avoid the possibility of him using his wealth and associates to slip away, with grave consequences to the stability of the region. I have therefore transmitted via the High Commission of Nigeria in Freetown, an official request to President Olusegun Obasanjo, whose contribution to peace in the sub-region has been huge, to take all necessary steps to ensure that Charles Taylor is unable to abscond. In particular, I have requested President Obasanjo to have his authorities execute the warrant for the arrest of Charles Taylor issued by the Special Court and transmitted to Nigeria in November 2003. _____ Produced by the Brief Chronology on Efforts to Bring Charles Taylor to Justice On 3 March 2003 the Special Court Prosecutor signed a 17-count indictment alleging war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. The indictment was confirmed by the Trial Chamber on 7 March 2003 but ordered kept under seal. The Prosecutor unsealed the indictment on 4 June 2003, during Taylor’s first trip out of Liberia since the signing of the indictment. On 4 August 2003 Taylor went into exile in Calabar, Nigeria. On 31 October and 1 November 2003 Taylor’s lawyer, the late Terrence Terry, introduced a preliminary motion before the Special Court’s Appeals Chamber unsuccessfully challenging the Court’s jurisdiction to try him. The motion argued that as President of Liberia, Taylor enjoyed head of state immunity. He also argued that the Court was not an international tribunal and thus had no jurisdiction outside of Sierra Leone. On 27 November 2003 a warrant for the arrest of Charles Taylor, issued by the Special Court was transmitted to the Government of Nigeria via the Nigerian High Commission in Freetown. On 31 May 2004 the Appeals Chamber decided the Special Court was an international court and that a head of state does not enjoy immunity from prosecution before an international court. The motion was consequently dismissed. On 24 February 2005 the European Parliament unanimously passed a resolution calling for Nigeria to transfer Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. On 4 May 2005 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a Resolution, 421-1, calling for Nigeria to transfer Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. On 11 May 2005 the U.S. Senate passed the 4 May House Resolution by unanimous consent, joining the call for Nigeria to transfer Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. On 24 May 2005 members of the United Nations Security Council underlined the importance of ensuring that all those who have been indicted by the Court appear before it, thereby strengthening the stability of Sierra Leone and the sub-region and bringing an end to impunity. On 30 June 2005 a coalition of up to 300 African and international civil society groups sent a declaration to the African Union (AU) demanding that Nigeria surrender Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Press conferences were held in 14 countries throughout Africa announcing the declaration. On 11 November 2005 the UN Security Council passed resolution 1638 which gave the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) the powers to detain Charles Taylor should he ever be returned to Liberia, and apprehend and transfer him to the Special Court. This resolution clearly displays the views of the UN Security Council’s that Taylor should be brought to justice at the Special Court. On 5 March 2006 a formal request was sent to President Olusegun Obasanjo by President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf requesting that former President of Liberia Charles Taylor be transferred to the custody of the Government of Liberia. On 26 March 2006 President Olusegun Obasanjo informs President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf that the Government of Liberia is free to take former President Charles Taylor into its custody SPECIAL COURT LAUNCHES INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW BOOKLET IN SIERRA LEONE Friday February 17, 2006 The Special Court’s Outreach Section has launched a new booklet on International Humanitarian Law aimed at increasing knowledge of the obligations of states and combatants during times of conflict. The booklet , WETIN NAR INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, ( Inrernational Humanitarian Law Made Simple ) was formally unveiled by Sierra Leone’s Chief of Defence Staff on Thursday at a ceremony in Freetown attended by Interim Registrar, Lovemore Munlo and outreach officials. The book draws on the expertise of of the Special Court’s Office of the Prosecutor and Defence Office , the Outreach Section , the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Sierra Leone Red Cross Society. Illustrated with drawings by a local artist, it provides a straightforward and easily understood explanation of the major principles of international humanitarian law . Outreach Coordinator , Binta Mansaray, said that the booklet is aimed at Sierra Leoneans with limited literacy or limited knowledge of international humanitarian law. CHIEF HINGA NORMAN TELLS SPECIAL COURT HOW THE CDF CAME ABOUT Wednesday January 25, 2006 The former Coordinator of the pro-government Civil Defence Force ( CDF ) , Chief Hinga Norman yesterday started his testimony before the Special Court , which is trying him and two other leaders of the militia for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity . The trial started with controversy as the morning session was taken up by a request by Norman’s counsel, Dr. Bubakai Jabbie, asking that he ( Norman ) be allowed to testify on alternate days and that his legal team be allowed to meet with him on the off days. At about 3:00, after the midday break, the chamber referred to their previous order and dismissed it. Chief Norman then started his testimony. He was led in evidence by Dr. Bubakai Jabbie. Hinga Norman said that the National Provisional Ruling Council ( NPRC ) in 1994 decided that chiefs be mobilized in their respective chiefdoms to help fight the war and since he hailed from Nyagua Bongor Chiefdom, the NPRC decided to have him appointed as Regent Chief of the area . Norman went on to narrate that they ( The council of Chiefs ) sought permission from the NPRC to train young men in their respective chiefdoms to defend their various boundaries against the rebels. Continuing his testimony , the former Internal Affairs Minister said that as a result of the consent granted their request by the NPRC, the first batch of young men were trained at Koribondo to help deend their respective boundaries .Every chiefdom, he said, contributed 75 men. Chief Norman however pointed out in his testimony that it was wrong to say that the Kamajors came about because of the war. He said that CDF were constituted by hunters from the various regions of the country . These hunters had always existed before the war. He stated however that when they became part of the CDF they were known by different names to different tribes. The Mendes, he explained , called them the Kamajors, while the Temnes called them Gbethis or Kapras and the Madingo and Yalunkas Tamanborohs. A legal analysis of this segment of the Hinga Norman Testimony It could be that Chief Norman is trying to demonstrate that the CDF, the organization he headed, which has been accused of committing atrocities, which led to the leaders being brought before the Special Court, was not only comprised of the Kamajors, against whom testimonies have made in court to the effect that they killed people belonging to other tribes. He probably wants to show that the CDF was just an umbrella name under which the hunters , known by different names by the tribes in the localities where they operated , operated. LIKE THE AMERICAN MEDIA, throughout the trial , COCORIOKO will make legal analyses of some portions of the testimonies. This paper will also publish the views of noted lawyers like John Lansana Musa, John Carr, Baimba Kamara, Professor Peter Dumbuya etc. However, the views must only be seen as the facts and the law as seen by these lawyers and in no way the final authority about the implications of certain testimonies. CHIEF HINGA NORMAN TO START HIS DEFENCE BEFORE SPECIAL COURT TODAY Tuesday January 24, 2006 The former Coordinator of the Civil Defence Force ( CDF ), Chief Hinga Norman, is today expected to start his long-awaited defence before the UN-backed Special Court , which is trying him for alleged war crimes and crimes againsy humanity . The Chief’s defence had been delayed by legal contentions. The whole Defence’s case in the trial of the CDF indictees started last Thursday when the counsels for second accused Moinina Fofana and third accused Allieu Kondewa made opening statements outlining the defence they planned to put up before the Special Court. At the time, the Principal Defender , Vincent Nmehielle hailed the opening of the Defence case and described it as another landmark for the court and a milestone for international justice. Norman was in court, but did not speak. He was not asked to make an opening statement. In fact, on Tuesday his co-lead counsel (Hall) asked to make an opening statement on behalf of Norman and permission was refused because Norman had already exercised his right under Rule 84 (June 15, 2004, pages 4-6 of the transcript, available online) and made his opening statement. Each party is allowed only one opening . On Thursday , his other co-lead counsel (Dr. Jabbie) said he wanted to state for the record that Norman was being denied his rights under Rule 84 because of things that went on in court on 14-15 June 2004. The Presiding Judge (Boutet) corrected him, and said that Norman had already made his opening statement, and that was why he was not being allowed another one. Defence is allowed only opening statement during the trial. On the matter of the AG, yesterday the court was prepared to hear oral arguments on whether a subpoena could be issued to the president to call him as a witness. There have already been written arguments tendered to the court. The Presiding Judge announced, however, that they had received a letter from the attorney-general saying that he would like to be heard in the case. This “intervention” was welcomed by both prosecution and defence, as well as by the bench. They adjourned this particular matter for a week. While the legal contentions were going on in the court, the Spokesman of the CDF, Rev. Alfred SamForay issued an angry statement saying : “I have just received an urgent call from Freetown from family members of the SC-SL indictees about systematic harrassment at the detention Center over the past few days. Today family members were asked to take pictures for new id cards based on “orders from above”. After the visits, the family members were asked to surrender these new id cards back to the court security. We consider this a very serious matter and an infringement on the rights of the detainees and their families”
The Hinga Norman testimony was last week off to tomorrow because Counsel for Norman (Dr. Jabbie) said that Norman had only agreed in the last couple of days to give evidence, and that he had not told his legal team what he intended to testify about. Since that would make it difficult to lead him in evidence, Dr. Jabbie asked for a delay of one week. The court gave them until Tuesday, which is tomorrow.
MONGOLIAN FORCES NOW IN CHARGE OF SPECIAL COURT SECURITY PRESS RELEASE Mongolian Peacekeepers Take Over Security at Special Court Responsibility for the protection of the Special Court was formally transferred today from the United Nations Nigerian contingent (NIBATT) to the Mongolian contingent (MONBAT) of the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL). In a brief ceremony in front of the courthouse, Brigadier-General Tommy Goransson, representing UNMIL Force Commander Lieutenant-General C.I. Obiakor of Nigeria, witnessed the handover of the Special Court Military Guard Force to Lieutenant-Colonel Byambasuren Bayarmagnai of Mongolia. The Officer-in-Charge of the Registry, Joseph Poraj-Wilczynski, noted that various contingents of Nigerian peacekeepers had provided security at the Special Court since 2003, where they have served with professionalism and distinction. The current Nigerian contingent is headed by Commanding Officer Lieutenant-Colonel J. Ismail, and has been deployed in Freetown for just over a year. “The Interim Registrar Mr. Lovemore Munlo and all staff members at the Special Court wish to extend their gratitude and thanks to the Commanding Officer and all ranks of NIBATT for a job well done,” Mr. Poraj-Wilczynski said. “We wish them a safe and speedy return home to Nigeria.” The MONBAT force will be housed both at the Special Court complex in New England and at the U.N. Camp near the U.N. headquarters in Aberdeen. The force will be under the military command of UNMIL headquarters in Liberia. This is MONBAT’s first peacekeeping deployment in West Africa, however individuals of the unit have served in U.N. missions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Western Sahara, and Sudan. Other soldiers in the unit have taken part in peace-support missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. MONBAT personnel have attended a month-long training course to prepare them for their duties in Sierra Leone. The contingent will be equipped with heavy weapons and armoured personnel carriers. The Mongolian contingent will conduct operational exercises with other elements of the UNMIL force, in particular with its Swedish and Irish contingents who are prepared to deploy rapidly by air, land and sea to support MONBAT if required. ___ The Special Court is an independent tribunal established jointly by the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone. It is mandated to bring to justice those who bear the greatest responsibility for atrocities committed in Sierra Leone after 30 November 1996. To date, the Prosecutor has indicted eleven persons on various charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. Nine indictees are currently in the custody of the Court. INFORMATION FOR MEDIA – NOT FOR ADVERTISING Produced by the
COCORIOKO SPECIAL REPORT SIERRA LEONE SUPREME COURT RULES THAT SPECIAL COURT IS CONSTITUTIONAL Wednesday October 26, 2005 BY WILFRED LEEROY KABS-KANU THIS ARTICLE IS NOT NOT MEANT TO BE A MERE NEWS REPORT. IT CONTAINS LEGAL INTERPRETATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR READERS The historic case brought before the Supreme Court against the Sierra Leone government by three indictees who contended that the Special court was unconstitutional was decided on October 14 in favour of the government . According to the the Supreme Court, the Special Court is constitutional. The plaintiffs in the case were Special Court indictees Issa Sesay of the Revolutionary United Front ( RUF ) and Allieu Kondowa and Moinina Fofana of the Civil Defence Force ( CDF) . They wanted the Supreme Court to declare that the creation of the Special Court was unconstitutional and therefore null and void and of no legal effect. Also, the plaintiffs wanted the Supreme Court to order that the arrest and detention of the plaintiffs herein by the Special Court was unconstitutional and therefore illegal . Thirdly, the said plaintiffs above wanted the Supreme Court to order the immediate release of the plaintiffs from the custody of the Special Court Detention Unit. Fourthly, the plaintiffs sought any further order or other relief as the Supreme Court may deem fir and just. Lawyers for the plaintiffs were : Meesrs A.F. Serry Kamal and Charles Margai . The case was heard by the Hon. Chief Justice Mr. Justice Ade Renner and other justices of the Supreme Court : Mr. Justice E.C. Thompson-Davies, Mrs. Justice V.A.D. Wright and Mr. Justice Tollla Thompson as well as JA ,Hon .Justice Sir John Muria. Editor ‘s explanation : Before I quote the decision rendered by the honoured justices, let me first prepare your minds to the fact that the most relevant point raised by the justices is that the Special Court is not part f the Sierra Leone judiciary and as such it is not unconstitutional or illegal. The Supreme Court’s verdict can only be understood if this point is thoroughly comprehended. The justices are inferring that the Special Court was not intended to form part of the Sierra Leone Judiciary system and therefore it is not bound by the dictates of the relevant portions of the constitution of Sierra Leone that govern the legality or illegality of the establishment of the Special court. His Hon. The Chief Justice dealt exhaustively with that point in the first part of the decision and with regards to the first relief sought by the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court replied : “The first question to be answered by the court is whether by creating the Special Court for Sierra Leone pursuant to Articles 1 (1) of the schedule and preamble to the Special Court Agreement 2002 ( Ratification ) Act 2002 as ammended by the Special Court Agreement 2002 ( Ratification ) Ammendment Act 2002 is not a transgression of Sections 120 ( A) 30 ( 1) AND 108 Act No.6 of 1991” The Honourable Justice Renner-Thomas answered the question thus :” In the light of what I have already said about the legal meaning of Sections 30(1), 108 (3) to 180 ( 6) and 120 ( 4) of the constitution as well as that of Section 11 (2) of the Ratification Act which expressedly states that the Special Court shall not form part of the judiciary of Sierra Leone , the question must be answered in the negative “ Editor’s Interpretation of the court’s argument : According to the reasoning of the justices, the creation of the Special Court did not contravene section 120 (A) 30 (1) and 180 ( Act No.6) of 1991, because the Special Court was not intended to form part of the Sierra Leone judiciary. The Supreme Court also ruled that there is nothing in the provisions of Section 30 ( 1) 108 and 120 ( 4) of the constitution that takes away from President Kabbah the powers vested in him by Section 40 ( 4) of the same constitution from entering into the same agreement as that which he concluded with the United Nations to establish the court. This is another very interesting reasoning that must be taken into account in trying to understand how the justices reached their decision. SINCE THE LEGAL REASONING IS BURIED UNDER COMPLEX DICTA, THIS EDITOR WILL DEAL WITH THE DECISION IN SERIES . However, readers must bear in mind that some of the remaining answers to the relief sought by the plaintiffs are covered under the two reasoning already explained. If the Special Court was not meant to form part of Sierra Leone’s judiciary or if nothing in the provisions of the relevant sections of the constitution precludes the powers of President Kabbah from entering into any agreement as that which led to the creation of the Special Court, the Supreme Court, obviously , BY THEIR OWN REASONING , will find no legal merit in the pleas by the plaintiffs that their arrrest and detention be declared unconstitutional and illegal or that they be released . It would appear to me from the reasoning of the honoured justices that if the plaintiffs were ever to prevail, they should provide clear and convincing evidence from the charter establishing the Special Court that the court was intended to be part of the Sierra Leone judiciary . Further, they should demonstrate by a clear and convincing evidence from the relevant portions of the constitution that President Kabbah’s powers to enter into such an agreement was precluded by the relevant portions dealing with the exercise of his powers, vis-avis entering into similar agrrements; failing which , according to the reasoning of the justices, they did not make a case that the creation of the court was unconstitutional or illegal or that their arrest and detention was unconstitutional and illegal and that they should be released . READ MORE TOMORROW
ORAL ARGUMENTS IN THE HINGA NORMAN CASE PRESS RELEASE Oral Arguments Scheduled for Tuesday in CDF Case Oral arguments are scheduled to take place Tuesday on motions for acquittal in the case of the three CDF accused. The hearing will take place before the Judges of Trial Chamber I, Justice Pierre Boutet presiding. Following the conclusion of the Prosecution’s case in July, counsel for the three accused – Sam Hinga Norman, Moinina Fofana and Allieu Kondewa – each filed a motion for acquittal (in the local jurisdiction, a “no case submission”), arguing that the Prosecution had failed to present evidence which, if believed, could satisfy the Chamber beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. The motions have been argued in written briefs submitted to the Judges. Now, the Judges have asked Defence attorneys and Prosecutors to summarise their position in open court. Based on the written and oral submissions of the parties, the Judges have the option of dismissing indictments, individual counts, or even allegations where the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the Judges should uphold the charges, it should not be assumed that the indictees are presumed guilty. It indicates, rather, that at this stage in the trial there is a case to answer and that the accused should now proceed to present their defence. The trial of the CDF accused began on 3 June 2004. The Prosecution concluded its case on 14 July 2005 after testimony by 75 witnesses during five trial sessions. ____________ The Special Court is an independent tribunal established jointly by the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone. It is mandated to bring to justice those who bear the greatest responsibility for atrocities committed in Sierra Leone after 30 November 1996. To date, the Prosecutor has indicted eleven persons on various charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. Nine indictees are currently in the custody of the Court. INFORMATION FOR MEDIA – NOT FOR ADVERTISING Produced by the SAMFORAY’S LETTER OF COMPLAINT AGAINST ALLEGED ARREST OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR FOR THE DEFENCE , MR ABU TURAY Sunday August 7, 2005 We regret to inform that Special Investigator for the Defence, Mr. Abu Turay, was this morning picked up by the Sierra Leone Police on the grounds of State Security, whatever that means. Chief Counsel for the Norman Defence, Dr. Bubuakai Jabbi, says the Police only gave the vague reason of state security for Turay’s arrest and interrogation. As of this writing, he is still being held by the Police.
We are, however, fully aware that Mr. Turay has had a run in with special court Ayatollah for information, Peter Anderson. Anderson is the former Peace Corps volunteer and publisher of the Sierra Leone Web until he lost his fumding for that project and wound up on the payroll of the so-called special court for Sierra Leone. Anderson also had a brief run in with my daughter when she was at the court as an intern for the Defence last Summer. That fire, however, was quickly extiguished before it got out of hand.
With regards to the Sierra Leone Police, it is well for them to note that Sierra Leone is no longer the despotic State it once was when law enforcement can use State facilities to intimidate law abiding citizens. We are not under a state of emergency and using the sorry excuse of “State Security” for arresting and detaining citizens is not acceptable.
We are fully aware that Turay is an active member of the SLPP and possibly a member of Chief Norman’s campaign committee. We also know that things are getting very worrisome for those who thought they had signed and sealed the nomination process. Be that as it may, no one is above the law in Sierra Leone. Not the police, not the foreigners calling the shots at the so-called special court. Harassing our citizens for political or any other reasons is not acceptable.
This week we lost a very promising journalist, Harry Yasaneh, for daring to say what probably needed to be said about one of our Parliamentarians. Suuposedly, her children and other thugs thought it necessary to silence Mr. Yasaneh by beating him to death. So far not President Kabbah, not the Speaker of Parliament, not the Minister of Information nor any other repsonsible leader of Sierra Leone has raised an eyebrow about the death of Mr. Yasaneh at the hands of a government official or her thugs.
The Sierra Leone Police need to be occupying themselves with criminal elements within our system of government and not the harassment of peaceful citizens who question the begger state we have created for ourselves.
A. SamForay, CDF Defence Fund.
Hinga Norman asks Special Court to let him leave cell to declare his presidential candidacyThursday July 28, 29005 Tamba Borbor reports from Freetown Chief Samuel Hinga Norman has in a letter dated Friday 15th July written to the National Chairman and the National Secretary General of the ruling SLPP informing them of his intention to contest the leadership of the ruling SLPP. In the letter, Chief Norman informed the executives and membership of the party of his “intention to offer myself to the free democratic choice of the party to be considered for election as Presidential Nominee and Leader of the SLPP.” Presently the first accused in the joint Civil Defence Forces (CDF) trial at the UN backed Special Court, Chief Norman declined to state his reasons for wanting to contest the leadership position saying they “will however be amply stated and elaborated at the proper times and places before the appropriate bodies and sessions or meetings .” He also respectfully requested “use of the top-floor hall at the Party Headquarters in Freetown as venue for making my Declaration of Intent and Launching of Campaign on Sunday, 31st July 2005 at 2p.m. On the same day, Chief Norman also wrote the Registrar of the Special Court Mr. Robin Vincent drawing his attention to press reports about “the intention of the Party to elect a Presidential nominee and leader of the SLPP” and also the holding of the “National Party Conference for this year 18 – 20 August 2005” He disclosed that he was “deeply concerned about both sets of events,” stating his “intention to participate in them as fully as possible.” Chief Norman argued, “In view of the presumption of innocence, you will agree that my fundamental rights in this regard are not prejudiced by my present circumstances.” He respectfully asked the Registrar to “make arrangements for me to meet with the SLPP National Chairman and Secretary General and also with the national and international media present in Freetown at separate times and venues of your own preference, but within the period of 18 – 26 July 2005.” It is not too clear under what circumstances the Registrar will allow Chief Norman to leave the detention cells of the Special Court. So far the Public information section of the court has yet to make any official comment, while Norman’s lawyer – Bu-Buakei Jabbie could not be reached for his comments.
CHIEF HINGA NORMAN OPENS UP DEFENCE ON SEPTEMBER 16 Tuesday July 19, 2005 The war crimes tribunal going on in Sierra Leone will take a turn for the surreal and the dramatic when first accused Chief Hinga Norman and other Civil Defence Force ( CDF) accused open up their defence on September 16. The drama will start with legal arguments over a motion to dismiss filed by the CDF indictees lawyers as a matter of legal procedure. If the defence submission is not upheld , then the case will continue with witnesses coming forward to testify on behalf of the accused. The point of excitement is who the witnesses will be and whether their identities will also be concealed like the prosecution witnesses . Towards the end of the prosecution’s case , it was reported by leading Sierra Leonean newspaper, FOR DI PEOPLE , in its June 16 edition that some Kamajors of Gbap Chiefdom in Bonthe District had exposed a witness, Mr. …….and “marked him for death for cooperating with the Special Court to prosecute Chief Hinga Norman.” Also, some Sierra Leoneans were charged with contempt by the Special court for also revealing the identity of a witness. The defence case , predictably, will produce a lot of tension and curiousity . Are there unknown forces or people who also contributed to the alleged atrocities during the war ? Will the CDF witnesses expose them in an attempt to show that there were more culpable citizens at large ? If they are exposed, will the Special Court indict them too ? These are some of the questions being asked by members of the public. Meanwhile , the new Chief Prosecutor of the Special Court, Mr. Desmond de Silva, QC, has said that the day the prosecution rested its case against Chief Norman and other CDF accused was a historic moment for justice and the rule of law in Sierra Leone. READ THE FULL STATEMENT BELOW SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE Office of the Prosecutor
PRESS RELEASE
Freetown, 14 July 2005
Statement by Chief Prosecutor Desmond de Silva, QC
Today is a historic moment for justice and rule of law in Sierra Leone. The prosecution closed its case against the three CDF indictees after presenting a body of substantial evidence in just under 100 days of proceedings, to support the charges of murder, systematic looting and burning of villages, the recruitment of child soldiers and the targeted slaughter of specific groups including police officers.
This is a turning point for the Special Court in Sierra Leone, demonstrating that international justice can be delivered effectively, efficiently and in an acceptable timeframe. The judges have heard from 75 prosecution witnesses. All the witnesses must be commended for their courage in coming forward to testify. Three of the witnesses were expert witnesses, while the others were either alleged victims or former CDF insiders who were willing to testify against the indictees.
#END
Produced by the Office of the Prosecutor Special Court for Sierra Leone Email: [email protected]
Visit the Special Court’s website at www.sc-sl.org
PROSECUTION RESTS CASE AGAINST CDF ACCUSED Friday July 15, 2005 The Special Court Prosecution has rested its case against the three leaders of the now-disbanded Civil Defence Force ( CDF ) Chief Hinga Norman, Moinina Fofana and Allieu Kondowah. The three faced 8 -counts charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. This sets the stage for the much-awaited Defence case during which witnesses for the accused will provide evidence aimed at rebutting the Prosecution’s charges. It hopes to be a cliff-hanger as it had long been talked about that Chief Hinga Norman may implicate many high-placed citizens within the SLPP heirarchy. During the trial, prosecution witnesses gave testimonies linking all three men to the atrocities committed by the CDF during the Sierra Leone war. READ TAMBA BORBOR’S REPORT LATER TODAY Revealed at Special Court. How Tikonko saw hell day military overthrew President Kabbah By Tamba Borbor in Freetown Saturday June 25, 2005
Giving evidence before the Trial Chamber of the Special Court, Prosecution witness TF1-004 has told the Court that 20 people were buried in a grave in Tikonko around the market area. Led in evidence by the Prosecution team, the witness maintained that after he heard an announcement on the Radio that the AFRC junta had overthrown the Government of Ahmed Tejan Kabbah, some soldiers came to the village on the 25th of June 1997. The witness said that when they returned from their hiding places as he was searching for his wife and children, he saw a man and his child lying down dead after been shot on the back. “I went to on another house and met two dead women- one was lying with her head between the legs of the other. As I was going towards the junction, I saw another corpse with his feet chopped off. About hundred yards from my house, I also saw one man that had been shot by the soldiers lying in a gutter dead,” the male witness narrated. He went on to explain that he saw a lot of corpses lying all about the place. At night he went on, as he was afraid to be in the village alone, so he went into the bush to spend the night. Early the next day, his son helped him to find his wife. Later in the day he recounted, the Paramount Chief and the Chiefdom Speaker gave orders that the corpses need to be buried as the stench was disturbing the town. “We dug a hole and started collecting the corpses. At first we collected eleven and later picked up nine more bodies and buried them in one mass grave around the market area. During cross-examination by Lawyer A. Manley-Spaine, the witness was asked whether he knew any of the soldiers that were involved in the killing of civilians. The witness said he could remember three of them. “One was called Brima Moisia, Junior Mesalie and one who was nick-named ?Babou Paddy’ who was staying with me when he was first deployed in Tikonko during the war.” The witness was also questioned about the way he got the information about the overthrow of the Government by the juntas. To this, the witness said he got it through the radio. Manley-Spaine then challenged the witness and read from the statement that the witness had earlier made to the Special Court investigators. In this statement, TF1-004 had said that they were sitting under a tree together with one Pastor Khobe and Alie Koroma when Amadu came and informed them that the soldiers are coming. The statement went on to state that “the soldiers came and gave them the information that they are now in control of the Government.” “The witness then told them that he was with them,” the statement read.
At special court. Forensic Anthropologist describes how four men were killed.
Thursday June 23, 2005
By Tamba Borbor
Led in evidence by the prosecutor team, witness William D. Haglund (TF2-EW3) told the court that examinations were done on certain corpses to know the causes of death. In his evidence, the witness said he has been in this field for the over twenty years and has worked with several Non Governmental Organisation for Human Right, in Cambridge Massachusetts. ” I also have an international experience. I have been sent on several Human Right activities in Croatia, and East Timor. In 1996 to 1998 I have been a senior Forensic Anthropologist in several international Tribunal in Rwanda and ISTY and ISTI.” In Forensic anthropology, the witness said entails the examination of Human Skeleton to determine the age, sex statue and ancestral of a dead person. To determine the age, ” which is evidence of the skeleton stated, “the age to be determined would be on the skeleton of the teeth. Also on the bones, wherein as an adult you have 450 bones and when you are born you will have about 206 bones as some membrane take a couple of years to turn into bones. To determine the sex in the skeleton this would be in the pelvic. In women, it needs to be wider to allow babies to come out. The skull of the men is more pronounced than the women”. The witness maintained that the Office of The Prosecutor (OTP) first of the Special Court of Sierra Leone contacted him in May 2002 was tasked to do a Forensic assignment which involves large International Project. The project the witness said involves evaluating report on site or grave and other places where bodies were allegedly buried. The witness further stated that he started his work in October 2003 wherein he visited 20 of these sites where bodies were buried in person, photos were also taken after which report was written to the OPT about what was done. This report, the witness stated related to various gravesites but not all were related to the CDF. The Anthropologist stated that the four bodies that were done at Mahei Boima Road in Bo where two gravesites were found. In of them was found a single dead body and the other three dead bodies. Family members helps to identify the corpses of these individuals, sex was identify by their names, their clothing were also identified. The first corpse sustained a blunt force trauma in the head which may have come from booth or club instrument, both legs were amputated. The second Foday Bangura sustained trauma at the back of the head and to the siding end of the left front. The two other corpses lying face down. Abdul Conteh who sustained to the head, a blow that destroys the bones on the face. The anthropologist maintained “the impress has to cut the through the muscles and soft tissues. The other dead body received three separate blows from a sharp object that amputated the middle finger. The cause of death all three cases were shot force trauma.” He said.
PRESS RELEASE Freetown, Sierra Leone, 26 May 2005 New President of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Justice Raja Fernando of Sri Lanka has been elected the Presiding Judge of the Appeals Chamber, a position which makes him the President of the Special Court for a period of one year. Justice Fernando will succeed President Emmanuel Ayoola of Nigeria, whose term as President will end on 26 May 2005. Justice Fernando has been a Judge in Sri Lanka since 1992, and currently he is a judge of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. From 1995 to 1997 he served as Director of Public Prosecutions in Belize. Prior to 1992 he served as Senior State Counsel in the Attorney-General’s Department in Sri Lanka, and as Judge Advocate of the Sri Lanka Navy at the rank of Commodore. He was sworn in as a Justice of the Special Court on 10 March 2004. Justice George Gelaga King of Sierra Leone has assumed office as the Vice President of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. #END The Special Court is an independent tribunal established jointly by the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone. It is mandated to bring to justice those who bear the greatest responsibility for atrocities committed in Sierra Leone after 30 November 1996. To date, the Prosecutor has indicted eleven persons on various charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. Nine indictees are currently in the custody of the Court. INFORMATION FOR MEDIA – NOT FOR ADVERTISING Produced by the Visit our website at www.sc-sl.org APPEALS CHAMBER DISAGREES WITH PROSECUTION Monday May 22, 2005 The Appellate Division of the Special Court has averred that claims by the Prosecution that the consolidated indictment in the Hinga Norman case did not add something new to the original indictment must be rejected. The Chamber ruled that sections of the indictment amount to serious charges of criminality “in places and at times that are not included in the original paragraph 18.”.It identified the new portions that added serious charges to the original indictment as the parts where firstly, the consolidated indictment state that “between about October 1997 and December 199 in Moyamba District , including Sembehun ,Taiama,Blyago, Ribbi and Gbangbatoke, Kamajors killed an unknown number of civilians “. The other portion that amounts to serious charges of criminality pertains to the part that states : Between about October 1997 and December 1999 , in locations in Bonthe District including Talia( Base Zero) , Mobayeha, Makose and Bonthe Town, Kamajors unlawfully killed an unknown number of civilians “. The Prosecution has been given leave to make all the ammendments introduced without leave “by way of changes to the consolidated indictment , including additional subparagraphs d)and e)in paragraph 24and the corresponding additional subparagraphs in e) and f) in counts 1 and 2 ( Paragraph 25). The chamber also asked that ammendments that do not amount to new counts should generally be admitted, even at a late stage , if they will not prejudice the defence or delay the trial process.But the Prosecution will have to show that these two negative effects will not happen when the case resumes on May 25. READERS ARE ADVISED TO VISIT THE COURT’S WEBSITE TO READ THE WHOLE DOCUMENT AS IT COST US NEARLY 100 PAGES WHEN WE PRINTED IT OUT .THE LEGAL OPINIONS ARE SCATTERED ALL OVER THE PAGES AND THE SPECIAL COURT COULD HELP LAYMEN UNDERSTAND THEIR RULINGS BY HAVING ONE OF THEIR LAWYERS SUMMARIZE SUCH DOCUMENTS . THERE IS NO USEFUL PURPOSE SERVED HAVING LAYMEN READ SUCH DOCUMENTS REPLETE WITH COMPLEX LEGAL LANGUAGE AND LEGAL REASONING , ESPECIALLY WHEN OPINIONS ARE SCATTERED ALL OVER THE PAGES . . SAMFORAY’S RELEASE HINTING POSSIBLE HINGA NORMAN VICTORY IN CONSOLIDATED INDICTMENT CASE
In the matter of Chief Sam Hinga Norman versus David Crane on the issue of the service and arraignment on the consolidated indictment, it is Norman 1, Crane 0. Or perhaps more correctly, it is actually Norman 2, Crane 0. Unofficial reports from Freetown indicate that the Appeals Chamber of the so-called special court for Sierra Leone has accepted Chief Norman’s contention that he was never properly served the consolidated indictment, the main reason for which Norman had refused to attend the trials since last November.
We are still awaiting the official ruling, but we are pleased to report as follows:
Although Norman’s Chief Counsel, Dr. Bubuakai Jabbi, had sought remedies for his client including complete vindication, it appears the court has saved itself from extinction (or perhaps delayed the inevitable) by deferring the matter back to the Trial Chamber. One can only speculate what Crane will do now after losing his arguments in both the Trial and the Appeals Chambers. The issue of Consolidated Indictment, to refresh your by now fatigued minds, is as follows: After Mr. Norman, Mr. Fofana and Mr. Kondewa were originally charged with eight counts each on war crimes, crimes against humanity and serious violations of ordinary humanitarian laws, the prosecutor, David Crane, sought and gained permission to consolidate the indictments against the CDF defendants into one set of indictments (the Consolidate Indictments). According to the Rules of Evidence, Crane was to have personally served Norman, Fofana and Kondewa with the new indictments and allow each one of them to plea guilty or not guilty. According to Crane, Norman already knew the charges against him so there was no need to serve him or take a new plea. In any case, says Crane, he had served the indictments on Norman’s lawyers. Not so, says Cameroonian jurist, Mutanga Itoe, President of the Trial Chamber. Serving the lawyers is not the same as personally serving Mr. Norman. No indictment, no trial, says Norman. And that’s how things stood for the past six months.
In his dissenting opinion on the issue Judge Itoe described Crane’s argument as “unreliable and speculative“. The other two members of the Trial Chamber disagreed with Itoe but today the Appeals Chamber granted Norman his right not to accept the Consolidated Indictment until he was properly served. In effect, after two years of legal rambling and refusal of David Crane to properly indict Chief Norman, Crane must now do exactly what Chief Norman had told him he must do – serve him properly. Normally, this is where we all join together to say: I TOLD YOU SO.
But perhaps we must wait to see what the arrogant American Prosecutor who has now lost three crucial rounds against Norman’s astute but much less financed defence team led by Dr. Bubuakai Jabbi has to do before he leaves Sierra Leone. As you can guess, there is much weeping and gnashing of teeth in the prosecution office today. Today’s ruling may perhaps partially explain why Crane recently decided to quit his six figure Chief Prosecutor job and return to flipping hamburgers or whatever he did before coming to Sierra Leone to civilize the savage Africans.
For his part, Chief Norman is quite content with his partial victory. He is willing to take the rest of his case to the court when the defence segment of the trial begins most likely in October this year. Crane will rest his case perhaps as early as next week when the CDF trial resumes.
Where does all this leave us? I am not sure. They say it is not over until the fat lady sings (sorry, ladies), and I think the fat lady is now in the dressing room. What I know or can say at this point are as follows:
Partly Political On a not so related matter, we are again unofficially but reliably informed that the Southern Regional Convention of the ruling SLPP virtually became a referendum on the arrest and detention of Chief Hinga Norman. The party leadership was grilled by party delegates on the Norman issue to where the convention itself almost became a secondary matter.
We are also informed though we cannot confirm that the leadership of the SLPP has now become a contest between Solomon Berewa and Julius Bio. Our sources in Bo also indicate that mass defection from the Vice President and heir-apparent to Tejan Kabbah primarily over the CDF indictment is now taking place in favour of the former NPRC Chairman. We are not sure exactly what the connection – if any – is, but it appears people who are mad over the Norman affair are drifting towards Mr. Bio.
It also appears that Charles Margai was virtually shut out of the convention. The leader of this SLPP mutiny appears to be Hon. Musa Tarawally, MP for Moyamba, whose defection to the Bio camp may have created a domino effect. Tarawally’s candidate for Women’s Leader of the party reportedly defeated Berewa’s candidate. In this regard, we are told of delegations from Mr. Margai and Mr. Berewa trying to sneak into the Detention Center to see you know who.
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR WELCOMES RESOLUTION ON TAYLOR FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Prosecutor Welcomes Resolution on Charles Taylor and Calls for Leadership from U.S. President Bush. The Prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, David M. Crane, today called for U.S. President George W. Bush to lead the effort to bring former Liberian president Charles Taylor to justice. His comments follow passage today of a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives calling for Taylor’s immediate transfer to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The resolution passed 421 – 1. “Today’s resolution expressed the overwhelming sentiment of the U.S. House of Representatives, among Republicans and Democrats, that the time has come for Charles Taylor to be sent to face trial at the Special Court for Sierra Leone,” Mr Crane said. Ahead of Thursday’s meeting in Washington between U.S. President George W. Bush and Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, Mr Crane added, “I am hopeful that President Bush will defend the rule of law in West Africa and use his meeting tomorrow to urge President Obasanjo to hand over Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone.” The Prosecutor pointed to indications that Charles Taylor harboured Al Qaeda operatives in neighbouring Liberia before and after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. “We know that Taylor did business with Al Qaeda, and we know that unless Taylor is transferred and the rule of law established, West Africa could remain fertile territory for terrorist organisations?another Afghanistan.” The Prosecutor also recently disclosed that he has information linking Taylor to the assassination attempt against President Lansana Conte of Guinea on 19 January 2005. The Office of the Prosecutor has contributed to the growing body of evidence that Taylor remains engaged in Liberian affairs despite his pledge to President Obasanjo in August 2003 to end his political career. “Clearly Nigeria did the world a favour in August 2003 by agreeing to accept Charles Taylor and allowing the Liberian peace process to begin. Nigeria, the United States, United Kingdom, and others joined to put together that agreement. Taylor has consistently broken his word and continues to menace Liberia and all of West Africa. It is only fitting that Presidents Bush and Obasanjo should revisit the agreement in light of Taylor’s obvious breaches, and deliver him to face justice for what he did to the people of Sierra Leone,” Mr Crane said. Charles Taylor faces a 17-count indictment for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the conflict in Sierra Leone. The charges include terrorising the civilian population, unlawful killings, sexual violence, physical violence, forced conscription of child soldiers, abductions, forced labour, looting and burning, and attacks on UN peacekeeping personnel. The Prosecutor indicted Charles Taylor on 3 March 2003, and unsealed the indictment on 4 June 2003. Official copies of the indictment and warrant of arrest were delivered to the Nigerian government by the Court’s Registry on 27 November 2003, and the International Police Organisation (INTERPOL) issued a “Red Notice” for Charles Taylor on 3 December 2003. On 31 May 2004, the Appeals Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone rejected a motion filed by attorneys for Taylor, who sought to have the charges against him thrown out on the grounds that Taylor was a sitting head of state at the time of the indictment. The Special Court is an independent tribunal established jointly by the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone. It is mandated to bring to justice those who bear the greatest responsibility for atrocities committed in Sierra Leone after 30 November 1996. To date, the Prosecutor has indicted eleven persons on various charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. Nine indictees are currently in the custody of the Court. INFORMATION FOR MEDIA – NOT FOR ADVERTISING Produced by the Visit our website at www.sc-sl.org TRIAL CHAMBER’S ORDER FOR CHARGING 5 PEOPLE WITH CONTEMPT OF COURT—–
PRESS RELEASE Trial Chamber issues order to indict five people for contempt of Court On Friday, 29 April 2005 the Trial Chamber II consisting of Justice Teresa Doherty (Presiding), Judge Richard Lussick and Judge Julia Sebutinde issued a decision ordering the prosecution of five individuals for contempt of court for allegedly revealing the identity of, and threatening a protected witness. Under the Rules of the Special Court, contempt proceedings may be initiated when a Judge or Trial Chamber has reason to believe that a person may be in contempt of the Special Court. If there are sufficient grounds to proceed, the Chamber may issue an order in lieu of an indictment and direct an independent counsel to prosecute the matter. In the present case, one individual named Brima Samura, is charged with contempt of Court under Rules 77 (A) ii which states: “The Special Court, in the exercise of its inherent power, may punish for contempt any person who knowingly and willfully interferes with its administration of justice including any person who: […] discloses information relating to proceedings in knowing violation of an order of a Chamber.” Four other individuals named Margaret Fomba Brima, Neneh Binta Bah Jalloh, Anifa Kamara and Ester Kamara have been charged under Rule 77 (A) (iv) which states: “The Special Court, in the exercise of its inherent power, may punish for contempt any person who knowingly and wilfully interferes with its administration of justice including any person who […] threatens, intimates, causes any injury or offers a bribe to, or otherwise interferes with a witness who is giving, has given, or is about to give evidence in the proceedings before a Chamber, or a potential witness.” The order in lieu of an indictment alleges that on 9 March 2005 while in the public gallery of Court Room II, Brima Samura, an investigator attached to the Defence team for the accused Alex Tamba Brima spoke to Margaret Fomba Brima and Neneh Binta Bah Jalloh and asked to meet them outside the public gallery because he had something important to tell them. It also alleges the two women met Brima Samura outside the public gallery and he revealed to them the name of witness TF1-023 in knowing violation of a witness protective order. The women said they knew where the witness was resident and that they were going to attack her house. The order in lieu of an indictment further alleges that later in the day, while witness TF1-023 was being escorted from the court premises by the Special Court’s Witnesses and Victims Services, the four women shouted out the witness’s name and told her in Krio that they knew she was testifying in the trial and that they knew she was in the vehicle. The four women then uttered words in Krio whose effect was to threaten and intimidate the witness as a result of her testimony. The decision containing the order in lieu of an indictment notes that the witness complained to Trial Chamber II about the incident on 10 March 2005. Her complaints were supported by the Prosecution during a closed session. On 10 March 2005, Trial Chamber II under Rule 77 (C) (iii) ordered the Registrar to appoint an experienced independent counsel to investigate the five persons and report back to the Trial Chamber as to whether there were sufficient grounds for initiating contempt proceedings. Also on 10 March 2005, Brima Samura was suspended from his duties as an investigator and the four women were prohibited from entering the public gallery pending the outcome of the investigation. On 11 March 2005, the Registrar appointed an independent investigator, who reported his findings to the Trial Chamber II on 16 March 2005. Having considered that report, Trial Chamber II found that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against each of the five persons for contempt. Through the services of the Special Court’s Registry, an independent Senior Trial Attorney has been appointed to prosecute the matter. Under Rule 77 (G) of the Special Court’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence the maximum penalty for contempt of court can arise to imprisonment for seven years or a fine not exceeding 2 million leones, or both. The Proceedings will be heard at the Special Court by a Judge of Trial Chamber I. #END DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. If you wish to reply to, or comment on the contents of this message,
PRESS RELEASE FROM OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR Freetown, 28 February 2005 Special Court Prosecutor to Step Down Today David M. Crane, Prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, notified the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, by letter that he would not seek reappointment and will leave his position effective 15 July 2005. Appointed in April 2002, Mr Crane assumed his duties as Prosecutor on 15 July 2002, with the mandate of prosecuting those who bore the greatest responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity during the civil war in Sierra Leone in the 1990’s. Arriving in August of 2002, Mr Crane began his investigations which culminated in the first set of indictments being issued seven months later. Six of the eight indictees were arrested in Operation Justice on 10 March 2003 in Sierra Leone. Since then there have been five other indictments issued for a total to date of thirteen. Nine of these indictees are in custody and being tried in three joint criminal trials. The investigations continue. Following Mr Crane’s indictment of then-President Charles Taylor of Liberia, Taylor fled to Calabar, Nigeria. Taylor, indicted on seventeen counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, is only the second head of state in history, and the first African, ever to be indicted for war crimes. Mr Crane told the Secretary General that he hoped he could serve mankind and the United Nations in another capacity someday. By statute only the Secretary General can appoint a Prosecutor for the Special Court. Mr Crane is known for his town hall meetings where he frequently met with the people of Sierra Leone to talk about the Court and listen to their questions and concerns about justice in Sierra Leone. He travelled throughout the countryside. Mr Crane always told the citizens of Sierra Leone that the law is fair, that no one is above the law, and that the rule of the law is more powerful than the rule of the gun. The Special Court for Sierra Leone is the world’s first hybrid international war crimes tribunal, and was established by an agreement in January 2002 between the United Nations and the Republic of Sierra Leone. It is headquartered in Freetown, Sierra Leone. #END Produced by the Visit the Special Court’s website at www.sc-sl.org Press and Public Affairs Office Special Court for Sierra Leone Press and Public Affairs Office PRESS RELEASE Freetown, Sierra Leone, 17 January 2005 Judges of Second Trial Chamber Sworn In The three new Judges of the Special Court’s long-awaited Second Trial Chamber were sworn in Monday morning in a brief ceremony held at the Special Court’s landmark courthouse in Freetown. Judges Teresa Doherty (Northern Ireland), Julia Sebutinde (Uganda) and Richard Lussick (Samoa) solemnly undertook to serve “without fear or favour, affection or ill-will…honestly, faithfully, impartially and conscientiously” as Judges of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The event was witnessed by H.E. Solomon Berewa, Vice President of the Republic of Sierra Leone, and Mr. Victor da Silva Angelo, Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General, who represented the United Nations. Judges Doherty and Sebutinde were appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General, and Judge Lussick was appointed by the Government of Sierra Leone under a formula stipulated in the Special Court Statute. Registrar Robin Vincent, who administered the oath to the new Judges, told them he was “enthusiastically happy to welcome you at long last” to the Special Court. In his welcoming address, Judge Benjamin Itoe, the Presiding Judge of the First Trial Chamber, told the new Judges that “it is a very daunting task indeed to assume the responsibility of trying those who are alleged to bear the greatest responsibility for what happened in this country.” “We feel that with your presence we would be able to fulfil the mandate which has been given to us by the international community to wrap up our activities,” Judge Itoe said. The Second Trial Chamber will begin hearing the case of the Prosecutor v. Alex Tamba Brima, Brima Bazzy Kamara and Santigie Borbor Kanu. The three alleged former leaders of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) are charged with 18 counts of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. The setting-up of the Second Trial Chamber also gives the Special Court options with regard to the envisaged trial of another accused, former Liberian President Charles Taylor. #END The Special Court is an independent tribunal established jointly by the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone. It is mandated to bring to justice those who bear the greatest responsibility for atrocities committed in Sierra Leone after 30 November 1996. To date, the Prosecutor has indicted eleven persons on various charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. Nine indictees are currently in the custody of the Court. INFORMATION FOR MEDIA – NOT FOR ADVERTISING Produced by the Press and Public Affairs Office Special Court for Sierra Leone Mobile: 232 76 655 237 Email: [email protected] Visit our website at www.sc-sl.org BLUNDERS BY THE PROSECUTION COULD SEND HINGA NORMAN HOME EARLY TO HIS FAMILY Monday November 29, 2004 The Prosecution Team of the Special Court for Sierra Leone could hand Chief Hinga Norman an unexpected and easy victory through elementary blunders . This fact is obvious to anybody who has darkened the walls of a Law School. According to The Law of Criminal Procedure, the Judge in a criminal case could grant a defence’s motion for dismissal on the following grounds : Insufficient evidence to support a charge, evidence illegally obtained, errors in the conduct of a proceeding , failure to proceed as quickly as required and failure of a jury to agree on a verdict. And the Special Court is edging closer to the likelihood of a dismissal of the case against Chief Norman. The blunders made so far are rectifiable through re-ammendment of the charges and the throwing out of evidence rlated to the ammended portions , but the danger facing the Prosecution is that with these elementary mistakes, they too cannot be sure where more telling blunders would arise next that could jeopardize the whole case. There are so many legal precedents about the Prosecution losing once compact-looking cases because of repeated mistakes .The O.J.Simpson , William Kennedy Smith and the most recent Koby Bryant cases are brilliant examples of defence victories arising out of mistakes by the Prosecution. Today’s ruling by Judge Benjamin Itoe in the matter of the consolidated ammendment is not only a major victory for the Hinga Norman Defence but it is also a red flag that the Special Court Prosecution could undermine their own case through procedural mistakes. It also demonstrates that the Chief, after all, is moving shrewdly with his defence and is capable of scoring valuable points that could boost his chances of victory . Many Sierra Leoneans held a dim view of the boycott of the court proceedings by the Chief and other defendants .People thought that their action that they would no longer attend court was just a delaying tactic. As it is now known, the men’s boycott was built on sound legal contention. When the Prosecution was granted its request that the indictment against the three men be consolidated into a single indictment on January 27, 2004 , they did not personally serve the consolidated indictment on Chief Norman, nor was he legally arraigned on the consolidated indictment , as he contended , especially as the consolidated indictment had extended by 20 months the time covered by the first indictment and added more geographic locations.Norman wanted the original indictment on which he had pleaded not guilty thrown out. The Prosecution goofed Rules 50 and 52., Rule 50 among many things , clearly states that : “The Prosecution may ammend an indictment ….If the ammendment includes new charges and the accused has already made his initial appearance in accordance with Rule 61, a further appearance shall be held as soon as practicable to enable the accused to enter a plea on the new charges ” Rule 52 states that Service of the indictment shall be effected personally on the accused at the time the accused is taken The Trial Chamber has ordered that the consolidated indictment be served on the accused in accordance with Rule 52 .The Chamber also concluded that “Upon detailed comparative analysis of the differences between the initial indictment …and the Consolidated indictment..the factual allegations …have been expanded and elaborated upon and that, furthermore, some substantive elements of the charges have been added .” More significantly, the consolidated indictment contained new factual allegations and new substantive elements of the charges which could prejudice the accused’s right to a fee trial , if there was no ammendment to the counts against the accused.or the new indictment was not served personally on him. The Trial Chamber ruled that “the identified portions of the Consolidated indictment that are material and embody new factual allegations and substantive elements of the charge” be either “expunged completely ” or the Prosecution must seek leave of the Trial Chamber to ammend the indictment. The Prosecution’s mistake this time did not rise to the level as to cause an aquittal or dismissal of the case against the accused, but it is a safe bet that more procedural or other blunders by David Crane and his team would enhace Chief Norman’s dreams of total victory. COURT EXONERATES ITSELF OF CHARGES The Special Court, meanwhile , has proved once again that Leonenet Professor Abdul Karim Bangura and like-minded ones who subscribe to the Professor’s characterization of the SCSL as an “Oyimbo” and “Yuki-Yuki” Court are clearly in sincere error. The Special Court is giving Sierra Leone and the world a free, clinical demonstration of transparent justice. The court has once again shown that it is determined to provide the alleged war criminals of Sierra Leone a fair trial and there is now hope that the innocent ones among the accused will be set free if the court fails to prove its case against them beyond a reasonable doubt. Judges Benjamin Itoe and our own Bankole Thompson have displayed such independence and impartiality of mind that many Sierra Leoneans who had their doubts will now have confidence in the court’s ability to provide transparent justice. . CDF SPOKESMAN SAMFORAY HAILS HINGA NORMAN’S VICTORY THE SPECIAL COURT IS A HOAX-FOR KABS KANU Rev. Kanu, I fully agree with Prof. Bangura that this is not only a “yuki yuki” and “Oyimbo” court; it is a morally bankrupt, inept and divisive institution which I believe is ultimately destructive to our judicial, political and social system in Sierra Leone. Prior to this ruling, everyone except Mr. Norman had assumed that by refusing to attend court he and his colleagues were playing games – a very high stakes game, for that matter. I had even been advised by many prominent citizens in our community including some legal “experts” to dissuade Mr. Norman from sitting out the case on the grounds that he could be found guilty in absentia and sent to prison for life as in the case of a defendant in the Rwanda Tribunal. I purposely refused to bring that up with Mr. Norman simply because I was personally convinced that he was right. His lawyers refused to bring the issue up with the court instead as one them told me, they would bring it up during his appeal. Apparently, Norman’s lawyers had already assumed that he would be found guilty even before they presented the Defence side of the case. With friends (or lawyers) like that, Norman obviously needs no enemies. In fact the only reason this issue made it this far is that Norman fired his original Dream Team, took up his own defence and brought the issue up with the court in September. One of the judges then asked rhetorically, if there are no charges against you, why are you in court? To which Norman replied to himself, ‘Nar wae una de see me nai mek una de ask me dat”. That was the last time the three CDF indictees went to court. Lead Counsel for Alieu Kondewa, Charles Margai, is even alleged to have assured the court that Kondewa will attend the hearings. Margai either did not consult with his client or failed to read the Kamajor Code of Conduct, or both. In short, your argument that the so-called special court “is giving Sierra Leoneans and the world a free, clinical demonstration of transparent justice“, is, with all due respect, hogwash. This court knew all along that Mr. Norman was being tried without a proper indictment. David Crane drew up the Rules of Evidence and knew what any half-way intelligent nincompoop knows: You can’t change the rules while the game is in progress without the advice and consent of the opponent. This was the case of an arrogant and over-zealous prosecutor so obsessed with its messianic goal of civilizing the Africans and, in Crane’s own words, making sure that Mr. Norman “never sees the light of day.” that it failed to see the forrest for the trees. This was not an innocent blooper; this was a well orchestrated symphony that is clearly out of harmony with justice and common sense. Crane knew all along that he was on slipery slopes on this issue, but he also realized that if he complied with Norman’s demands for a new indictment, Norman will seek financial and judicial remedies for unlawful incarceration for the period between the original araignment and the joint indictment. Norman had set a simple Kamajor trap and Crane fell into it – hook, line and sinker. No my brother, this is not a transparent court; this is just a court that got caught with its pants down and its ding dong dangling in the air. So as Justice Bankole Thompson advised, either cut it off or hide it. I believe the judge’s exact words were “expunge them completely …or seek an amendment in respect therof.” ***************************************************************** RESPONSE BY COCORIOKO NEWSPAPER Dear Rev. SamForay, COCORIOKO understand the concern shared by you and all supporters, friends and fans of Chief Hinga Norman for his surprising inclusion among the indictees of the Special Court , considering how much he sacrificed his life not only to overturn the disastrous April 25, 1997 AFRC military misadventure but stopping the RUF/AFRC rebels from overrunning Sierra Leone. This newspaper has often agreed with those who believe that the SLPP government should have tried to indemnify the Chief from prosecution , if the revelations of witnesses about the Chief’s alleged involvement in atrocities are false. Despite our agreement with this fact, this newspaper however holds the view that your beef should have been with the Sierra Leone government for its failure to indemnify its own militia commander as done by other countries, like the U.S. who protect their fighters from prosecution for war crimes. This paper does not agree with you that the Special Court is “ultimately divisive to our judicial, political and social system in Sierra Leone. ” .Such assertions are unfounded because the solid foundation of any society depends on the equitable dispensation of justice through the fabric of that society. Human civilization could not have been possible without justice and the Rule of Law. Anybody making these assertions will create the impression that his/her philosophy of life is antithetical to the upholding of the noble principles of justice in society. Though there is nothing wrong with your advocacy that Norman should not have been put on trial, , this paper is sure that you are aware that the war that was fought in Sierra Leone transcended all bounds of human civility . The CDF were not the only fighters in the war. How many countries have experienced wars where the combatants, with callous and devillish relish and impunity, targeted the poor, innocent, uninvolved civilians instead of their opponents on the battlefield. ? Where have you ever seen so-called freedom fighters and redeeemers turning their wrath on the very people they claim to be fighting for, perpetuating heinous and demonic atrocities on them as if their overriding motivation was infact not only to wipe the imnnocents out but to inflict such suffering and pain on survivors as to destroy and traumatize them for life ? With such satanic and malevolent battle plan, who were these gunmen fighting for ? As far as civilized people are concerned, what happened in Sierra Leone was just patent barbarism against established norms and innocent people.Are you implying that a court set up to bring the alleged perpetuators to justice is “divisive to our judicial, political and social system ? ” Is Sierra Leone’s judicial, social and political system built on the pillars of barbarism and cruelty to innocent people ? Let’s face it, Rev. Sierra Leone, Africa and many parts of the world have never seen anything like the Special Court whose various arms of justice are so independent of each other that the Trial Chamber can overrule the Prosecution .If the Special Court were an “Oyimbo” and “Yuki-Yuki” court as erroneously asserted by Professor Abdul Karim Bangura and you, the Trial Chamber would have sided with the Prosecution when it errs in law and in fact , thereby creating a charade of justice and endangering the possibility of a fair trial of the court’s indictees. Most of African nations and some countries in the world have courts that are a projection of the callous, illegal and unruly governments that appointed the State Counsels, Magistrates and Judges. Dispensing transparent justice is not the motivation of most of our courts. Our judicial systems are rotten to the core and the Special Court, indeed, by its brilliant examples of transparency and fairness stands in a unique class of its own. With all due thanks. COCORIOKO
CDF SPOKESMAN SAMFORAY HAILS HINGA NORMAN’S VICTORY Monday November 29, 2004 It is not over until the fat lady sings, but we believe the the lady is in the dressing room. Or as we say in Lugbu: Gbein i yaa njei leeni; keh taa na njei lia. I am directed by Chief Sam Hinga Norman and the CDF Defence to report that in the matter of Sam Hinga Norman, Alieu Knodewa and Moinina Fofana versus the Prosecutor regarding the the issuance of the Consolidated Indictment, the Trial Chamber in a split decision has partially sided with Mr. Norman. In so many words, we are back to square one; all prosecutiopn witnesses brought forth so far and all proceedings thus far are consequentially null and void. The Majority Decision also requires Crane to go back to the drawing board as many of the issues his paid witnesses have so far testified to are now rule inadmissible. Says Chief Norman: “The court is in diasarray as of this morning”. Then there is the small matter of unlawful incarceration and the attendant consequences. More about that later In a stunning and caustic disension by Camaroonean Jurist and Chamber President, Benjamin Muntanga Itoe, Itoe states that “the Accused (Sam Norman) has not been personally served with the Consolidated Indictment…and that the Consolidate Indictment contains new factual allegations…”. You may recall that the CDF Indictees have since September 20 refused to attend the hearings on the grounds that the Prosecutr had no charges against them to answer before the tribunal. So we must now wit to see where Cranea nd his overpaid legal team goes with this mess. I know that it is too childish and immature to say: We are smarter than they are….na na na na naana. So, of course, I won.t say that. But we will state our case more professionally as soon as we receive the official documents from the home fron. A. SamForay, Special Court for Sierra Leone PRESS RELEASE Interpol Discloses Red Notice for Johnny Paul Koroma The international law enforcement organisation Interpol this week made public a ?Red Notice’ calling for the arrest and transfer of indictee Johnny Paul Koroma to the custody of the Special Court. Koroma was indicted in March 2003 on 17 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, which include terrorizing the civilian population, unlawful killings, sexual violence, physical violence, use of child soldiers, abductions, forced labour and attacks of peacekeeping personnel. His current whereabouts are unknown. The Red Notice was originally issued on 20 December 2003, but for operational reasons was not made public at the request of the Special Court Prosecutor. Interpol also issued a Red Notice for the arrest of former Liberian leader Charles Taylor on 4 December 2003. Under an agreement between the Special Court and Interpol that came into force on 3 November 2003, the Court may request that Interpol publish and circulate ?Red Notices’ for persons indicted by the Prosecutor. The Registrar of the Special Court, Robin Vincent, called today for all countries to cooperate in the transfer of all indictees who are not currently in the Court’s custody. The Prosecutor, David M. Crane, said that the Interpol Red Notice will serve as a reminder that Koroma remains a fugitive from justice. He added that investigators are following all leads to find Johnny Paul Koroma or his remains. #END The Special Court is an independent tribunal established jointly by the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone. It is mandated to bring to justice those who bear the greatest responsibility for atrocities committed in Sierra Leone after 30 November 1996. To date, the Prosecutor has indicted eleven persons on various charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. Nine indictees are currently in the custody of the Court. INFORMATION FOR MEDIA – NOT FOR ADVERTISING Produced by the Visit our website at www.sc-sl.org
CDF SPOKESMAN RAISES THE STAKES IN SIERRA LEONE WAR CRIMES COURT DEBACLE : SAYS COURT VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION CRIMES AGAINST THE STATE The Agreement signed between the Government of Sierra Leone and the United Nations establishing the Special Court for Sierra Leone and for the Court to function in accordance with the provisions of the present Statue, Article 8 (2), placing the Special Court above all the national courts of Sierra Leone is unlawful, illegal, invalid and unconstitutional. The purported ratification of the Agreement by the Parliament of Sierra Leone is ultra vires the Constitution and therefore, null and void. Parliament did not follow the laid down procedure which is entrenched in the Constitution. Parliament should have saved the United Nations and the contributing countries, the embarrassment and waste of money and spared the accused persons the humiliation and pains caused by their unlawful arrest and illegal detention by the so-called Special Court. The Supreme Court of Sierra Leone is presently considering a motion by Mr. Alieu Kondewa, an indictee of the Special Court, through Counsel on the constitutionality of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. We are keenly aware that the Supreme Court faces a Catch 22 dilemma of the highest magnitude. If the court rules that the ratification of the Special Court is lawful and the Agreement establishing the Special Court is therefore legal, then the Supreme Court declares itself subordinate and, therefore, inferior to the UN established court. If the Supreme Court rules that the ratification of the Special Court is unconstitutional, then the Special Court to which the Government of Sierra Leone acceded essentially seizes to exist. Need we remind the honorable justices of the Supreme Court that the choice they make here will be debated in public for years to come either as a sell out of the people of Sierra Leone or a stand for justice and principles? Whatever the ruling of the Supreme Court, we propose in this article that the manner in which the so-called Special Court was established is a violation of the Section 108 (1), (2) & (8) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone and consequently, the action under Article 8 (2) constitutes TREASON and a crime against the State. To wit:- (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, Parliament may alter this Constitution. We find no where that the Bill establishing the Special Court for Sierra Leone was published in the Gazette or where Parliament authorized the Executive to circumvent the above stated provisions of the Constitution. The attention of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice is, therefore, invited by the people of Sierra Leone to the fact that an official of the Government of Sierra Leone, who signed the Agreement establishing the Special Court Statute containing Article 8 (2) which usurped the powers of the Judiciary and Chief Justice of Sierra Leone, committed an unlawful and treasonable act against the people and Republic of Sierra Leone and should be charged and brought to justice immediately. This official is none other than the former Attorney General of Sierra Leone, Mr. Solomon E. Berewa, The people of Sierra Leone are fully aware that it was this same individual, Mr. Solomon E. Berewa, who conducted the prosecution of so many people including twenty-four soldiers who were executed by firing squad for alleged treason without granting them the right of appeal under a democratic and a constitutional government. These included the first woman executed for treason in Sierra Leone, a top class Officer, Major Kula (Kallon) Samba, a beloved graduate of Bumpe High School in Mr. Berewa’s home Chiefdom. Considering also, that these and many other prominent Sierra Leoneans have in the past paid the ultimate price for alleged crimes against the Constitution, Berewa’s action is a crime that should be punished. HOW THE CONSTITUTION WAS VIOLATED Concurrent Jurisdiction & Primacy Appointment of the Registrar Composition of the Chambers Furthermore, there is no evidence anywhere that any of the judges appointed pursuant to Article 12(1) (a) & (b) above, were so appointed by the President of the Republic of Sierra Leone, acting upon the advice of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission and that such appointment received the approval of Parliament as is laid down in the Constitution of Sierra Leone. There is, however, evidence that judges appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations pursuant to Article 12 (1) (a) & (b) above, are presently sitting and presiding over courts in Sierra Leone. It is also a fact that the judges are NOT being assigned by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone, as laid in the Constitution but, by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the President of the Republic of Sierra Leone under Article 12 (1) (a) & (b) of the Statue for the Special Court for Sierra Leone. THE PEOPLE WILL NOT HOLD YOU HARMLESS Indeed, Sierra Leoneans are surprised that our sovereignty is being disregarded in this manner and that our representatives in Parliament do not seem to bother perhaps thinking that the people are going to forget to hold them accountable at the next General Elections. But they are wrong as was partly demonstrated in the recent local government elections. The people are keeping a meticulous record of each Member of Parliament, in order that they may be paid back if any party to which they may belong makes the mistake of giving any of them their symbol. The people of Sierra Leone will never tolerate the abuses of their Constitution, nor leave the violations to go unpunished. The electorate across the entire country should give this problem very serious thoughts concerning all honorable members now in Parliament for the way and manner our nation’s sovereignty has been compromised by them over the illegal establishment of the Special Court. Since the Lome Agreement has been abrogated by the Special Court, the present alleged violations must be investigated and punished. And this time round, JUSTICE MUST BE SEEN TO BE DONE and selective morality abolished ANY OTHER WAY IS UNACCEPTABLE. Only the method of a Commission of Inquiry, applied under the strict control of neutral, honest, unbiased and impartial organizations like the African Union, the European Union and the Commonwealth of Nations, could acceptably perform the job best and ( NOT THE SPECIAL COURT with its carefully SELECTED, EMPLOYED and PAID judges, prosecutors and court officials who cannot in any way perform without being perceived as biased and partial (as is already the case), since the commencement of the trials. Any other way is unacceptable. Over to you, Mr. Attorney General and Minister of Justice; over to you, Mr. Chief Justice; over to you, Mr. Ombudsman. And over to you, the People of Sierra Leone.
CDF SPOKESMAN COMPLAINS AGAINST GOVERNMENT INTERFERANCE Friday July 30, 2004 The Spokesman of the Civil Defence Force ( CDF) , Rev.Alfred SamForay, has complained against alleged government interferance in the defence of Chief Hinga Norman and other CDF indictees. Read the full complaint below : Despite its self-declared independence of the so-called Special Court for Sierra Leone, the government of Sierra Leone continues to interfere with the defence of Chief Hinga Norman, Alieu Kondewa and Moinina Fofana. We are reliably informed that efforts by Mr. Norman’s defence to acquire investigators and witnesses in preparation for the upcoming defence case are being frustrated by back room maneuvers from State House or Hill Station or wherever government is located these days. It is highly unpleasant that our defence team has had to arm wrestle with government agents over the acquisition of investigators and defence witnesses. While government may have a vested interest in the disclosure of certain issues to the public domain, government should have thought about that before it made pacts with the Devil to indict and incarcerate the leaders of the CDF. As we have said before, and will repeat here at the risk of redundancy, the matter of Prosecutor versus Sam Hinga Norman is a no holds barred. Any and all exculpatory information in our domain relevant to the defence of the CDF leadership is fair game. As Mr. Kabbah himself had stated, there are no sacred cows. Our advice to government and all those snooping around defence headquarters or making midnight telephone calls to our colleagues is to stay with their self-acquired immunity and butt out of this case once and for all. It is further highly regrettable and a sad chapter in Sierra Leone history that the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone decided that the Attorney General of the country can moolight for a foreign court. The decision by Timbo and his colleagues to allow Eke Halloway, who did not even have the courtesy to file his papers with the court on time, to represent the so-called Special Court is quite disgraceful to our sovereignty. Indeed this is the rulling we had expected, but we thought we might give the Supreme Court a chance to redeem itself and the ever blundering government of Sierra Leone. We wait to see the court’s decision on the all-important issue of the constitutionality of the so-called Special Court. On a more positive note, we are delighted that CDF and RUF indictees, Chief Moinina Fofana and Gen. Isa Sesay, have joined Dr. Alieu Kondewa in the motion before the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone to declare the so-called Special Court unconstitutional. We trust that others in this rubbish of a trial will follow suite. A. SamForay,
FIRST PROSECUTION WITNESS ACCUSES CHIEF HINGA NORMAN OF ORDERING KILLINGS AND DESTRUCTION OF KORIBONDO BY CDF ,,,Says Kamajors threatened to cook body of dead brother Choking tears and crying bitterly and at one stage causing a brief adjournment to allow him to recover his emotions , a prosecution witness today told the Special Court that Chief Hinga Norman ordered the killings and the destruction of Koribondo , allegedly by the Kamajors during the Sierra Leone war. In a dramatic testimony, the witness Chief Norman said Hinga Norman held two meetings with the Kamajors and chided them for not carrying out his orders at Koribondo .According to his translated testimony from Mende to English , the witness alleged that Chief Norman brawled : “You have not done my word ! I told you that I wanted only three houses to remain here–The mosque, the Court Barri and my lodge. Why are you afraid of killing ? Look at all these houses ” The man, a 52-yearold Sierra Leonean, who for security reasons , testified behind a security barrier and was tagged with the identification of TF2/198 , made an emotional testimony about the alleged ordeal he and his brother suffered at the hands of the Kamajors, as he said. The witness explained how he and his brother fled Koribondo and sought refuge in Bo. He narrated that they were identified when the Kamajors attacked Bo and tied up and returned to Koribondo where they were tortured. He stated that hot plastic that had been melted were poured on him and he was flogged by the Kamajors. The witness further alleged that when he and his brother were taken to the back of a thatched house, he saw two dead bodies. Behind this house, he went on, his brother was laid on the ground and his throat was cut , severing his head. . The Kamajors, he continued, then threatened that they will cook the dead body. The witness also narrated that when Chief Norman went to Koribondo , he called a meeting during which he told the residents not to blame the Kamajors for the killings and the destruction of the town , as he had ordered them to do so. The trial continues tomorrow.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Powered by QuickBizSites Online website builder with ecommerce |
HINGA NORMAN TELLS SPECIAL COURT TO LOCK HIM UP AND GO AHEAD
He was never a spy , says Special Court spokesman
Leave a Reply