3rd Session: 66th Prosecution Witness Concludes His Testimony

The Hague

October 21, 2003

Amount of SLA soldiers and amount of days in Rosos

When asked how many SLA soldiers were in Rosos, excluding the civilians who were being trained, the witness answered there were none. The witness was in Rosos less than a week, five days. Munyard took the witness to his first statement in which he said there were many soldiers in Rosos. In one of his statements the witness said soldiers asked Five-Five to go on food finding missions, so there must have been soldiers. In the same statement the witness said he was in Rosos for two weeks. The witness maintained that it was five days.

Time frame of the first attack

The witness was ten years old at the time of his first capture. Before the capture Pa Kabbah was president, because the witness remembered that people were happy and celebrating when he was elected. In a statement the witness said the first attack took place after the overthrow of president Kabbah. The witness does not know when Kabbah was restored to power.

House or Mosque?

The witness stated that he stayed in the mosque until the rebels took him outside to go on their way to Rosos. In a statement the witness said that he and other civilians were locked in a house and the rebels wanted to set that house on fire. The witness said the account in the statement referred to the house where his two cousins were tied to the mattress and set on fire.
In the other trial before this Court the witness said he was in a house and the rebels said they would put the house on fire. The witness maintained it was the mosque.
Prosecutor Koumjian rose to say it might have been the translation that stated house while it should be mosque, to which Munyard rose to say that in that case all the evidence that had been given over the past eight months could be thrown away since it was all interpreted, apart from the testimony that had been given directly in English, which was testimony mostly from expert witnesses and not from factual witnesses. Koumjian maintained that in certain languages certain words can be translated in different ways so there is a certain ambiguity.
Presiding Judge Doherty pointed out that it is the rule of this Court that what is being interpreted is the official record.


In a statement the witness said that he saw the corpse of the pregnant woman and the dead baby lying beside it. The witness maintained that he saw it happening. He heard the rebels arguing over the possible gender of the baby and he has witnessed their slitting open the belly of the pregnant woman and taking the foetus out.
In a statement the witness said that he saw Adama Cuthand pointing to his father and his father was killed. This is correct according to the witness. In the other trial before this Court the witness said that the Adama soldier chopped (killed) his father. The witness said she did not do it herself, but sent others to do it.


Munyard put before the witness that his memory could have become mixed up over the years, because of the awfulness of what happened and the passing of time his memory is not very accurate. The witness said he can recall very well what happened and he will never forget it.

Changing evidence

Munyard asked: “Do you alter your evidence according to which trial you are in? Were you changing RUF into AFRC in the AFRC trial? Have you changed the rebels into Liberian speaking rebels now a Liberian is on trial, while you have never recorded before that the rebels spoke this language? Has anyone suggested this to you?” The witness maintained that nobody suggested anything to him and that he spoke the truth.

Re-examination in chief

Prosecutor Nicholas Koumjian asked the witness how the mosque in Bonoya looked like and the witness answered it is a small and old building.

Presiding Judge Doherty thanked the witness for giving his testimony and the witness was dismissed.

67th Prosecution witness TF1-023

Prosecutor Alain Werner stated that the next prosecution witness is a category A witness, a victim of sexual violence. He applied to rescind one protective measure: voice distortion. The other protective measures remain in place: pseudonym, screen and image distortion. The application is granted. Tomorrow there will be a short private session to introduce the name of the witness to the Court. She will testify in Krio.

Court is adjourned at 4.30 p.m. until tomorrow 9.30 a.m.