In the AFRC trials at the Special Court, the Prosecution called on two key insider witnesses, George Johnson (a.k.a. Junior Lion) and Gibril Massaquoi. They are former members of the AFRC and RUF factions respectively and both held key positions within their organizations. They took active part in the war with respect to the positions they held. Consequently, the Prosecution relied on them as insiders to prove the actual facts that the accused persons are culpable of the charges in the indictments. In addition to that, their evidence may help the Trial Chamber in determining the nature of the alleged crimes perpetrated and how such testimony corresponds with the deposition given initially.
The article recounts key aspects of the evidence proffered by these insider witnesses and the corresponding attempt of rebuttal by the Defence. The impact their evidence may have on the trial process is also put into focus.
Who is an Insider Witness?
An insider witness is a person that is somehow collectively responsible with the criminal party or organization to commit an act. Sometimes the insider witness is not charged along with others because the evidence against him is not substantial enough to warrant conviction as a principal in the first degree even though there is evidence that may lead to his conviction as an accomplice, aider or abettor. In other instances, the prosecution may not have sufficient evidence to institute charges against him. In that light, they resort to the tactics of luring in such insider to testify for them as a prime witness.
Most times evidence of insider witnesses are accurate and precise, as they may try to say the whole truth just for them to escape similar charges. The defence counsel too uses insider witnesses. In criminal trials, the defence may sometimes use the accused as they are believed to have first-hand information. A typical of that is Hinga Norman’s testimony in the current CDF trials at the Special Court.
George Johnson (a.k.a. Junior Lion) as an Insider Witness
Around mid-September, 2005, George Johnson (Junior Lion) testified as a Group 1 Category C witness and was tagged as Witness TF1-167. The Witnesses and Victims Support Unit (WVSU) granted him protection but he decided to disclose his identity and testified in open court sessions. Initially, he had testified for the prosecution in Trial Chamber 1 during the RUF Trials. He rose within the rank and file of the AFRC, from Chief Security Officer to Colonel and Operations Commander.
The Prosecution wanted him to throw light on the AFRC command structure and control, and to prove the existence and extent of the relationship between the RUF and AFRC during the war. The Prosecution further led the witness to give detailed account of the alleged crimes perpetrated by the AFRC during the retreat from Freetown after the ECOMOG intervention in February, 1998. This testimony may also support the allegations of individual and command responsibility for the crimes in the charges against the AFRC.
In his testimony, he identified the 1st and 3rd Accused persons (Brima and Kanu respectively) as they were members of the sixteen-man group that staged the coup on the 25 May 1997 and they were Principal Liaison Officers in the AFRC Junta Government. The witness testified that he was present at the point where Johnny Paul Koroma radioed a message to Sam Bockarie (a.k.a. Mosquito) inviting the RUF to join the AFRC Junta. He outlined how the AFRC collaborated with the RUF to attack civilian population and that the AFRC accused persons were responsible for the attacks as both individual and superior commanders. Junior Lion’s testimony was particularly notable because he was directly involved and was able to give insider information.
During cross-examinations, the defence centered their arguments on undermining the credibility of Junior Lion as an insider witness. They questioned his motive of giving testimony on behalf of the prosecution as he was not subpoenaed especially when he was a team player with the indictees. He described particular incidents with precision though he refrained from giving proper numerical estimations. The Defence used the discrepancies in figures of his testimony with the original deposition to counter his evidence. The Defence further questioned the reliability of his testimony since he could not correlate it with previous statements made to investigators. He was said to be unreliable and have instances of psychological instability.
That notwithstanding, Junior Lion refuted the Defence’s proposition that he had received any sort of prosecutorial immunity or assistance in exchange for his testimony before the Special Court.
Gibril Massaquoi Testified as an Insider Witness
Gibril Massaquoi was also a Group 1 Category C Witness and was tagged as Witness TF1-046. He was initially abducted by the RUF in Pujehun around 1991 but later joined them and rose to the RUF rank of Lieutenant Colonel. He later became Personal Assistant to Foday Sankoh and was made RUF Spokesman. Like Junior Lion, he publicly disclosed his identity and testified in open court and focused his testimony basically on the relationship between the AFRC Junta and RUF. He also pointed out the command structure and operational strategy of both the AFRC and RUF at various intervals during the war.
He gave chronological developments of the RUF from the time he was captured on to the signing of the Lome Peace Accord in July 1999. In highlighting the events that led to the ‘marriage’ between the AFRC Junta and the RUF after the coup of 25 May 1997, Gibril Massaquoi testified that he received the phone call made by Johnny Paul Koroma to Foday Sankoh, extending an invitation to the RUF to join the AFRC Junta to form a government. He further explained that he was with Foday Sankoh in Nigeria when he ordered Mosquito and other RUF Commanders to join the AFRC and to take orders from Johnny Paul Koroma as Foday Sankoh puts it “join your brothers in peace”.
Gibril Massaquoi further testified that he and the AFRC Indictees were Supreme Council Members and that he attended three meetings in Freetown between August and September 1997, in which the accused was present. He said that, the Supreme Council was the policy and law making body of the AFRC. RUF members sat as representatives in the Council, some were made ministers and the other commanders were all paid by the AFRC Government. The Prosecution showed a document to be minutes from an alleged emergency Supreme Council meeting. Although the witness did not attend that particular meeting, the list contained the names of all Supreme Council Members which included the witness himself; he identified it and acceded that it was correct, so it was admitted into evidence. He outlined how the AFRC collaborated with the RUF to carry the attack on Freetown and what led to their subsequent retreat in January 1999. He emphasized on the joint military operations instituted and how strategic planning and extensive radio communications were going on effectively. He showed what led to the creation of a joint security command structure known as Western Area Security Patrol (WASP); that comprised Sierra Leone Army personnel and RUF fighters. However, he pointed that there was some amount of discord between the AFRC and RUF at some point and this led to in-fighting between the two groups.
During cross-examination, the Defence capitalized on the in-fighting as a lack of cohesion between the AFRC and RUF. The Defence tried to use it to rebut the Prosecution’s claim of a joint criminal enterprise between the AFRC and RUF. Furthermore, the Defence tried to show the anomaly in the RUF ranking system by indicating the deficient military training, disorganization and lack of effective command structure and coordination. Like the Junior Lion testimony, the Defence questioned the credibility of the Witness given that he was a key player and that he traded his testimony for freedom. The Defence further cross-examined him to prove whether the Prosecution may have used other improper means for the Witness to testify which included compensation, medical treatment and transportation reimbursement. The witness was said to be biased against the AFRC because he alleged that they unjustly detained him at Pademba Road Prisons from October 1997 to January 1999. He ultimately blamed them for his detention and became bitter with them for leaving him behind in prisons when they fled from Freetown in February 1998.
CONCLUSION
The testimony of insider witnesses may be vital to the Prosecution’s case against the AFRC accused persons because it was unique in outlook. They were able to give detailed account of the AFRC’s alleged command structure, operational strategy and possible interlink with the RUF. The number of people who possessed such knowledge could be small and most times not willing to testify in this kind of courts due to fear of either external threat or implicating themselves.
The bone of contention about insider witnesses in relation to the AFRC Trials is that, their testimony may be dangerous to both parties. Though the Prosecution is using them, the former Chief Prosecutor cautioned that working with them is like “dancing with the devil.” This confirms that he may be using them but their testimony may not always be admissible. Nevertheless, insider witnesses normally face great security risks than victims or crime-based witnesses. The imminent risk is attributed to the sensitive nature of the information they are expected to divulge in court. In most cases due to their status within the group during the war, they are bound to face rigorous tension and violent opposition from outsiders. Despite the fact that WVSU usually provides the necessary protection for witnesses, the SLCMP generally believes that it takes a lot to come forward and serve as a witness in international tribunals. Consequently, the people who have decided to do that, both on the side of the Prosecution and Defence should be commended for their efforts. Despite the fact that some people have questioned the motive of some of the witnesses, the fact remains that whatever they say may help the Court to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused persons. In other words, they are assisting the Court in the dispensation of justice in post-conflict Sierra Leone. The SLCMP respects all witnesses and therefore encourages Sierra Leoneans to emulate the good example of others.