The Hague

October 20, 2008

After the lunch break Lead Defense Counsel Courtenay Griffiths continued his cross-examination of the witness and established the following.

Husbands

Griffiths read from a transcript from a “previous occasion” that the witness stated that she grew fond of “husband” A and fell in love with “husband” B. Edna stated that she was together with them but not actually loved them; it was to save her life. Griffiths put before her that she was very young, at a vulnerable age and this way protected from other men and in time she grew fond of A. Edna agreed.

Why the inconsistencies?

There are many inconsistencies, if not lies, in the first statement. Edna explained that at the time of her first statement she was actually not willing to speak to the Special Court for various reasons:
• she did not know exactly what it was all about;
• she was confused, had never talked about these things before and thought that she would always want and have to keep these things inside of her; up until now she does not discuss these things even with her best friends;
• she thought at first that if she would not talk she would be arrested;
• she was afraid if she would talk that at some point it would be decided that all persons who talked about the war would be arrested;

Inconsistencies continued

While reading again from Edna’s first and second statement to the Prosecution, there were again many inconsistencies, now follow statements that pertain to linkage testimony:
• Issa Sesay spoke to the witness saying that supplies of arms came from Liberia: false statement. Issa Sesay never spoke to Edna personally, all information she ever received came through Hawah. She cannot tell where the arms came from. Rebels were sometimes asked to contribute with money from what they had looted to buy arms.
• She heard Issa Sesay talk directly on the radio: false statement.
• She sometimes heard the voice of Mosquito over the radio: false statement.
• She does not know if Charles Taylor ever visited Buedu: true statement.
• She does not know if Charles Taylor ever supplied the rebels with arms: true statement.
• Hawah told her that diamonds found by the RUF were given to Issa and taken to Charles Taylor who in turn would send ammunition to the RUF: false statement.
• She knows nothing about arms coming from Liberia: true statement.
• The rebels got their arms from attacks on Guineans and Kamajors: true statement.
• Twice she saw Issa Sesay come back from Kailahun with trucks loaded with arms and ammunition: false statement: she did not see Issa Sesay on the truck; she saw one truck and not trucks; she saw the truck once and not twice; she did not see what was in the truck, but Hawah told her about the contents.

Giving false testimony under oath

“On a previous occasion” in November 2005 while being under oath before this Court the witness stated she did not have a gun. In this Court, also under oath, Edna stated she did have a gun. Griffiths established that “through fear you have deliberately told a lie even after having taken an oath?” to which Edna answered: “Yes”.

Infighting between the rebels

Edna remembered infighting between Superman, Rambo and Issa Sesay in Makeni. She did not know why or what caused the fighting. The fighting took about two weeks, but not on a daily basis. Superman killed Rambo. It went on for two weeks, but not on a daily basis. She does not know if Superman and Issa ever spoke after that.

Law enforcement in Makeni

During her time living in Makeni Issa Sesay was in charge and had installed a Military Police. Rapists did get punished and were even killed. There was no burning, killing and raping, but there was looting. She could not tell how long this law enforcement was in place.

Payments by the OTP

Edna has received payments by the OTP for lost wages and Griffiths asked her how this was possible as since disarmament she has never worked. Edna agreed that it was a lie. She has not worked, only has received training as a nurse.
The document with payments from the OTP to the witness is marked for identification as MFI-3.

Re-examination in chief

Prosecutor Christopher Santora conducted a brief re-examination.
When asked if anyone ever got punished for raping her, Edna answered in the negative.
Several times during her testimony today the witness said that she was not willing to talk on the occasion of her first interview. Edna had thought that all these memories would just stay within her and she also had a fear for what the consequences would be if she would tell all these things, even fear of getting arrested.

The three documents marked for identification become Defense exhibits P67, P68 and P69. The first two (without the cover sheet) are dated and signed by the witness and it is ruled that they will not be confidential.

Presiding Judge Doherty thanked the witness for giving her testimony and the witness is dismissed.

Court is adjourned until tomorrow 9.30 a.m.