The RUF’s 7th Trial Session commenced on the 2nd March, 2006. Up till now, more than two witnesses have led evidence from the prosecution. The witnesses have also been cross-examined by counsels for the three war crimes indictees. Suffice it to say that Issa Hassan Sesay, Morris Kallon, and Augustine Gbao stand before the Special Court trial chamber one accused of crimes against humanity, violations of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II and other serious violations of international humanitarian law, in violation of Article 2, 3, and 4 of the Statute.
The thrust of this article’s argument is based on the phenomenon of forced labour, inhuman and degrading treatment allegedly meted out to civilians by the R.U.F. This thread seems to run across all the testimonies of witnesses in the R.U.F. trials. It is further alleged that such exercises included farming, beating, and carrying of heavy boxes for long distances.
Forced labour simply put is a restraint imposed on the will of a person. Whilst defence counsels have cautioned that prejudicial value of a witness’s testimony must not outweigh the probative value, the concept of forced and inhuman treatment must not be overstretched. Paragraph 43 of the Consolidated RUF Indictment buttresses the issue of forced labour by men and boys as abductees. Ancillary to forced labour is the issue of physical violence as laid in counts 10- 11 of the consolidated R.U.F. Indictment which basically entails mutilations against civilians. Count 13 of same states that forced labour includes domestic labour and use of diamond miners especially in Kenema District, where the Cyborg Pit was used for such acts.
Section 19 of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone expressly affords protection from slavery and forced labour to the extent that persons shall not be in slavery or servitude or be required to perform forced labour. Further to the above, section 20 (1) of same stipulates guarantees against any form of torture, punishment, or other inhuman or degrading treatment. Important issues of fundamental human rights nature such as freedom of movement (section 18) and of expression (section 25) are also related to persons held in captivity and forced to labour. Freedom of movement for example as stated was restricted to obtaining a pass from the RUF MPs and G5 Commanders. Except carrying goods for a commander it has been said that civilians were not permitted to move to Guinean or Liberian border.
International statutes such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 55 reinforces the view that states must work towards the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Article 5 of same, and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. This apparently also involves the issue of forced labour as persons are made to work under the threat of a penalty. Freedom from forced labour is also well-established in international law as addressed in international treaties and conventions and resolutions of the International Labour Organisation. Legal distinctions though have been made between forced and compulsory labour.
In view of the numerous local and international instruments agitating for the non acceptance of forced labour and its attendant human rights abuses, witnesses in the Special Court continue to narrate stories that seem to suggest the issue of servitude and forced labour as been a horrendous ordeal especially in the Kailiahun District.
Defence Counsels have however objected to the giving of global allegations against their clients without tendering specific factual details of the crimes alleged. But witnesses have revealed that a man named Korpohmeh actually forced and even beat civilians to farm for the R.U.F. He thereafter directly reported to Augustine Gbao (tThird accused). He was also allegedly in charge of the Internal Defence Unit.
Other issues have also emerged in the testimony of prosecution witnesses especially in the area of recruitment of child combatants under the age of 15. This act of conscripting young boys and girls as alleged is in contravention of Article 6.1 of the Geneva Convention. At Bayame, in the Kailahun District, 23 miles from Kailahun Town, there was an RUF training base for the purposes mentioned above. This base was later moved to Bunumbu according to the testimonies of witnesses. It has been said that one C/O Jah Glory was in charge of training camp ably assisted by Morris Kakua, a man of Liberian descent,
Also in Talia, Luawa Chiefdom, the witnesses asserted that innumerable houses were burnt down and certain places looted as laid down in count14 of the Indictment, and contrary to Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II. But to all these serious allegations lawyers for the accused have systematically sought to deconstruct the issues by maintaining that the RUF Agriculture Offficer in Kailahun, Fayia Musa never forced people to work but all civilians who did so performed their work out of their free volition . In addition to that, they have also suggested to the court that RUF allowed food donations from the Red Cross to civilians in Kailahun to alleviate their poverty. And thirdly, that there was enough medical facilities to care for pregnant women and aged people under the supervision of the RUF. In fact, to crown the arguments, Defence Counsels have also maintained that produces such as cocoa, palm oil, husk rice, and bush meat were given voluntarily to the RUF by civilians in Kailahun in return for protection from Kamajor invasion. In relation to that, democratic political appointments were made by the RUF according to defence lawyers for the smooth administration of RUF territories.
Rape, a crime against humanity, punishable under Article (2)g of the statute of the Special Court, has also been the thrust of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. All these acts, it is purported, were done by RUF fighters under the command of the accused persons.
Interestingly, most portions of the testimonies pursuant to Rule 78 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence that court sessions be held in public with exceptional circumstances to the contrary, the Chamber has frequently moved into closed sessions for the purposes of protecting the identity of witnesses. Before the close of the Prosecutions case, Defence counsels shall cross examine all Prosecution witnesses to destroy the credibility of their stories. Afterwards, the defence shall be granted leave as of right by the bench to call on their own witness and shall be also accordingly cross examined by the Prosecution and if necessary re-examined by the Defence. The Judges shall then evaluate the mass of evidence adduced and thereupon return a verdict of guilt or otherwise of the accused persons.
The SLCMP encourages the public to attend the Trial Sessions.