The 56th day of public hearings resumed on Friday, 26th October in Finland.

Defense Witness [FNM-192] is Heard

The Defense questions the witness 

The Witness had already testified on June 17. 

The Witness confirmed that she and Gibril Massaquoi moved together to Munsor after Massaquoi’s release from prison on the 6th of January 1999. The Defense asked if they or Massaquoi had ever lived in Magburok and the witness responded that they had not and she had not heard of it. When they lived together, Massaquoi had a wine-red jeep car but no truck. The witness could not remember the make of the car. She did not know whether Massaquoi transported goods between Liberia and Sierra Leone between 2001 and 2003.

The Witness and Gibril Massaquoi got married on Friday, the 26th of July 2002 on the East side of Freetown. She remembers that date because her birthday is in July and so is her daughter [FNM-231]’s birthday, and their son died near that time. Following the wedding, the Witness and Massaquoi mourned their son and Massaquoi did not travel anywhere for a month or two.

The Witness confirmed that she, Massaquoi and their children went to a safe house first in March 2003 which was arranged by the Special Court. They lived in four safe houses before leaving Sierra Leone. The first was the Pipeline safe house where they stayed for less than a year. She remembered that this safe house was light or light brown in color and had a gate and a fence around it. She asserted that she would recognize it in a picture. When a picture was shown on the big screen the Witness confirmed that that was the house they were in. 

The Defense asked about the safe house’s security. The witness said that the house had tight security, with guards present 24 hours a day. The guards worked in two shifts, switching in the morning. The outgoing guard would inform the incoming guard about anything that happened in the previous shift. Then, the incoming guard would conduct an inspection of the living room, check everyone was there, inspect the backyard and inquire about the whereabouts of the children. The Witness indicated that they had no visitors in the first safe house.

The Witness explained that she left the safe house to do shopping accompanied with a security guard, while Massaquoi stayed at the house with the children and security guards. The money for shopping was delivered by a person from the Special Court in cash every Friday, or if needed more frequently, Massaquoi called to make a request. Massaquoi had to sign a document to receive it each time. If they needed to see a doctor, the Special Court would send one to the house. 

The witness said that Massaquoi did not leave the safe house in the first six months apart from when the Special Court needed him.

The Special Court would call Massaquoi, allow him 10 to 15 minutes to get ready, then send a car and security guards to pick him up. These visits would approximately last 20 to 30 minutes, and then they would return him back to the safe house. The witness said that Massaquoi was always available when they called. She couldn’t remember how many times he went to the Special Court in those months.

The Witness said that it was impossible that Massaquoi could have left the safe house without the security guards or the Special Court noticing because they had the keys to the gate.

The safe house had one floor; there was one room downstairs for the guards and three rooms and a living room upstairs. The Witness and Massaquoi slept in one of the rooms and the witness spent every night with him.

The Prosecution questions the witness 

The Prosecution returned to the photo of the safe house. The witness could not confirm whether it depicted the first or the second safe house because, she said, they both had similar gates and fences, and the color of the first safe house in Pipeline was white which was similar in color to the second house. 

The Witness reiterated that she did not think Massaquoi was involved in organizing transportation because she did not see him with a truck. The Prosecution asked the witness how much she knew about Massaquoi’s travel prior to staying in the safe house. The witness said that, to her knowledge, Massaquoi did not travel before their stay at the safe house. In 2002 they travelled to Go to pick up their son who died two weeks after. The Prosecution asked the witness how much she knew about what Massaquoi was doing when they were not together, and the witness responded that they only talked about their kids and family matters.

The Witness said that she was still unwilling to speak about Massaquoi’s relationships with other women. She confirmed that in her previous testimony she had said that it was possible that he travelled to Liberia to meet his girlfriend there.

In relation to the first safe house the Witness affirmed that they had no visitors. She also repeated that she went shopping with security guards, starting from two months after they moved in. 

The Witness confirmed that she knew one of the security guards, [FNM-328], who was with them from the beginning. He was a security guard and after his shifts he worked at an office. He worked Monday to Friday and occasionally took time off on weekends. He also drove the Special Court car on the weekends. When he worked in the office, he collected Massaquoi and drove him to Special Court when Massaquoi was requested to be there. The Witness confirmed she knew [FNM-243] who was at the Special Court and said the guards reported to him, but that Massaquoi knows more about him.  

The Prosecution turned to the previous testimonies about the attack on a safe house. The Witness said that she was absent. She had left that day in the morning and the house was attacked late at night. Massaquoi told her afterwards how Massaquoi and the children managed to escape with the help of [FNM-178]. It happened one evening when Massaquoi was praying. There was a punch on the door and a window was broken. [FNM-178] told Massaquoi to stop praying and helped him and the children through the door and to cross over the fence to escape, after which she thought they called the Special Court. 

The Witness did not know if there was a secure exit at the first safe house in Pipeline. She said there was only one gate. 

The Defense questions the witness 

The Witness said that the attack on the house took place in 2005. At the time they had three children and [FNM-178] was with them. 

The Prosecution questions the witness 

Returning to the security guard, the Witness confirmed that the guard, [FNM-328], and Massaquoi became friends, but also that Massaquoi was friends with everyone. The Witness did not think that Massaquoi remained in contact with him or other security guards after they left Sierra Leone because he had not told her anything about that. 

The Court discusses technical details

The Defense requested the return of a 6-page document. The Defense had sent the document to the Central Criminal Police to determine the authenticity of the document. The document was the Special Court of Sierra Leone (SCSL)’s memoranda of an interview with [GJRP-1], which the Defense said was important when evaluating [GJRP-1]’s witness statement. However, the Central Criminal Police were refusing to return the document to the Defense because the SCSL told the Police not to do so. Lastly, the Defense said that they already had a copy of the document, and the Special Court was not entitled to decide which documents could be used as evidence.

The Prosecution opposed the request and requested its dismissal. The Prosecution said the Defense was requesting the return of a document that they had obtained illegally. The Prosecution said that on each page of that document, it was written in the footnotes that the document was the property of the Prosecutor of the SCSL. The Prosecution accused the Defense of obtaining the document illegally from someone who had the document legally but delivered it illegally, so the Police could not return it. The correct way to obtain the document would have been to request it from the SCSL but that request was not made so the Police were avoiding acting wrongfully. The only way the document could be returned to the Defense was if it were requested from the SCSL.

The Defense responded that the SCSL had handed over the document and that their rules were not the law and did not prevail, repeating that the document had not been obtained illegally. The Court asked the Defense what was stopping the Defense from handing in their copy of the document, and the Defense responded that nothing was, but they wanted to act cooperatively. The Court agreed to resolve the issue later.

The Court asked if there should be restrictions on communications. The Prosecution asked if all the witnesses were known, and the Defense replied that if someone contacted him, he would go through them, but could not say for sure. The Prosecution agreed to discuss it with the chief of investigations.

The Defense asked for the restrictions on communications to be raised for two people, [FNM-327]. They were coming to Finland and wanted to meet with Massaquoi once. The Court said to discuss the matter with the chief of investigations and that they would give a ruling on the matter later that week. The Prosecution said they were ok with one meeting but said the question was whether all restrictions would be removed.

Finally, the Court said that they had the US authorities’ permission to hear [FNM-201].

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *