September 23, 2008
Death of Bonnie Wailer
The witness testified to the following: Bonnie Wailer was arrested and taken to the police station. Allegedly he was found on the roof of a house breaking in. There were four, three ran away, Wailer was arrested by civilians, handed over to soldiers who took him to the police station. Hyde did not see him until the next morning when he came to the police station where Wailer had already spent the night in jail. Wailer was covered in blood and had wounds, but Hyde can not testify whom had inflicted those wounds. Hyde confirmed that Wailer had no criminal record but the civilians who arrested him purported him as the leader of a criminal gang and named Sydney Cole and a certain Bangura as members of that gang. Hyde has never seen prove of the alleged crime nor has he knowledge of looted items at a junction close to were Bangura was living. That morning Wailer was dressed in military fatigue. The soldier of the SLA and the RUF were concerned that they themselves could be identified as looters, and that this might give them a bad name. They decided to execute Wailer and the other men in order to set an example, as a deterrent to other would be looters. Hyde was present at the execution as the shooting commenced.
Death of BS Massaquoi and others
Griffiths took the witness to the incident on January 22, 1998 when seven members of the civilian society were arrested: BS Massaquoi, Brima Kpaka and five others.
The witness testified to the following: Dr. Momoh was not arrested together with these men. They were arrested on suspicion of collaborating with the Kamajors. Up until that moment, from May 1997 until January 1998 there had been war activity between the SLA and the RUF on one hand and the Kamajors on the other hand. The Kamajors were in the bush, came to the outskirts of Kenema Town but had so far never reached the centre of the town. The six individuals were arrested by the AFRC/RUF and kept at the AFRC secretariat for six days. Then they were brought to the police station where their statements were taken. The CPO of the CID conducted the investigation for alleged collaboration with the Kamajors. Hyde personally interviewed BS Massaquoi and Brima Kpaka. There was no evidence they had links with the Kamajors in the bush. On January 30th, 1998 came the order by the Secretary of State to release them on bail. Only two were released on bail, Massaquoi and Kpaka, the other four had no one to bail them out.
The witness is now shown the diary of the CID in Kenema. Griffiths asked him what open detention means, as it is written in this diary. Hyde explained that open detention means that a detainee will not be put in a cell due to his medical condition, but can stay for example in th hospital, so he can be treated. This way he is not released, as he is still suspected of a criminal offence. The diary stated that on January 31, 1998 Massaquoi and Kpaka reported themselves at the police station as ordered by the authorities. That same evening at 19.10 hours Massaquoi was brought in as he was rearrested. According to the Secretary of State Sam Bockarie had given the order to re-arrest him. According to rumour the Kamajors were close by. On February 6, 1998 an MP of the SLA came and the six suspects were handed over to him. Kpaka was still in the hospital in company of a police guard. When the SLA and RUF went to look for him, he had escaped with the help of a police officer and ran to the Kamajors. The Kamajors attacked the police station about two days later. According to Hyde the Kamajors took out police documents from the station and scattered them around, it was the dry season, so the documents remained dry. However he stated (in contradiction with the testimony of sergeant Alex Bao) that the documents were not burned.
Hyde maintained that there was no proof that Massaquoi, being the Mayor of Kenema Town, or any of the others were Kamajor sympathisers but he heard later that the six were executed by Mosquito, a resident of Kenema. Griffiths established that there were no RUF members involved in taking the six from custody, only MP’s.
Griffiths asked Hyde how the diary was obtained, recovered and preserved for this Court. Hyde answered that after the Kamajor intervention it was recovered from the trash scattered outside the police station. It remained there until it was found by investigators of the Special Court. They saw Hyde’s name and he was contacted by them, at the time he was living in Pujehun. The original diary was intact, Hyde has not seen smoke or firemarks.
Re-examination in chief
Prosecutor Bangura inquired after the condition of Massaquoi and the six others when they were brought to the police station. Hyde replied that Massaquoi and Kpaka both had wounds on the inside of their elbows. They had been detained for six days at the AFRC secretariat and said they had been tied and flocked. The tying caused wounds, the rope went in the flesh, without medical attention the wound will decay.
The Bench (this means: the judges) has no questions for this witness and subsequently the witness is dismissed.
This witness has the status of a Rule 92bis witness, so will only be introduced and not examined by the Prosecution. The Defense will cross-examine. This witness has testified in the AFRC trial, the CDF trial and the RUF trial. The witness was subject to protective measures: pseudonym and screen. This is a category 1 witness. Protective measures do not apply to category 1 witnesses, only to witnesses with category A, B and C. In the AFRC trial this witness was granted protective measures because the Defense did not object. In the CDF trial and the RUF trial this witnesses was granted protective measures because the Chamber assumed the decision was in place and, according to Rule 75F(i) of the SCSL Rules of Procedure of Evidence: Once protective measures have been ordered in respect of a witness or victim in any proceedings before the Special Court (the “first proceedings”), such protective measures shall continue to have effect mutatis mutandis in any other proceedings before the Special Court (the “second proceedings”) unless and until they are rescinded…
The Defense objected to the protective measures for this witness and added the Defense will always oppose protective measures unless stated otherwise.
After conferring, the judges decided that this witness does not enjoy protective measures.
Subsequently the Prosecution announced that witness TF1-062 is not prepared to testify without protective measures.
Witness TF1-065 will testify in open Court tomorrow. Court is adjourned until tomorrow 9.30 a.m.