Site icon Civitas Maxima

Week in Review – Week 6

Week in Review – Week 6

Introduction to Week 6’s hearings and witnesses

The sixth week of the Gibril Massaquoi trial ended on 19 March 2021 after three days of hearings in Monrovia, Liberia. Hearings focused on the testimony of ten witnesses, the first of whom returned to finalise his testimony about his experiences in Waterside during the Second Civil War, after first appearing during the previous week’s hearings.

With the end of Witness 17’s testimony, the focus of the proceedings shifted to events that are alleged to have occurred in Lofa County. The final witness of the week spoke of her connection to the RUF between 2000-2002 – providing information about Mr. Gibril Massaquoi’s alleged involvement in the events in Lofa County. The other eight witnesses described their experiences during the fighting between rebel groups. As with prior witnesses, their identities were concealed.

The witnesses were heard in the following order and are described as follows:

Trial Monitoring Day 16 (16 March 2021)

Trial Monitoring Day 17 (17 March 2021)

Trial Monitoring Day 18 (19 March 2021)

Lofa County Testimony 

The witnesses testified about different events occurring in Lofa County, between 2000 and 2003, relating to several charges in the indictment. There were commonalities in their testimonies, and some witnesses provided distinct and notable details, which emerged as they spoke of the events and their interactions with the Finnish police:

Description of the events in Lofa County 

The timing of events

Connections to prominent figures

Identifying remarks 

Interactions with the Finnish police

Emerging themes for Prosecution and Defense

During Week 6, the trial shifted to a different series of events, relevant to the crimes that are alleged to have occurred in Lofa County. As in previous weeks, both the Prosecution and the Defense focused on establishing the timing of the incidents, though there appeared to be less confusion with respect to the year among these witnesses, compared to those who spoke of the events in Monrovia, and there were limited references to World Wars I, II, or III.

The Prosecution opened its questioning by asking witnesses to describe the arrival of soldiers in different villages in Lofa County. Witnesses stated that the soldiers would loot and burn village homes, and then force the villagers to carry the looted goods elsewhere, with several witnesses indicating that the soldiers directed them to travel towards Foya. In addition to the description of the acts relevant to the charge of forced labor, the witness narratives also included facts relevant to the charges of murder, rape, aggravated assault, and the infringement on the dignity of deceased persons through cannibalism. 

The Prosecution attempted to establish the identity of the Accused as a commander who was involved in the events, and to provide clarity as to why there were variations in the names used to describe the commander. Five witnesses testified hearing the name “Gibril Massaquoi,” either because a person introduced himself that way or another addressed him by that name. Two other witnesses said that the commander introduced himself as “Angel Gabriel.” Other witnesses recognized the names “Gibril Massaquoi,” “Gabriel Massaquoi,” “Angel Gabriel,” “Angel Michael,” and “Angel Gabriel Massaquoi”. Witnesses explained these variations by stating that the person they were speaking of was called by multiple names, and maintaining that each of these names referred to the same person.

The Prosecution further focused on the knowledge of the Accused, particularly as it related to the charge of forced labor. Witnesses 26 and 27 both stated that the commander in Foya saw the people carrying the loads, and Witness 26 added that the people carrying loads stood out, as they did not have shoes or shirts. Witness 26 identified this commander as “Angel Gabriel”, whereas Witness 27 said the soldier who brought him to Foya reported to “C.O. Massaquoi”.

Witness 30 provided unique testimony, stating that she had been a close friend of one of Mr. Massaquoi’s former girlfriends, and thus was in contact with members of the RUF in Monrovia at the time of the alleged crimes in Lofa County. Through her testimony, the Prosecution sought to establish Mr. Massaquoi’s movements between Monrovia and Lofa County. Witness 30 stated that she spent time at a guest house in Monrovia with Mr. Massaquoi and other members of the RUF, and travelled with them to Lofa County on three occasions: twice in 2000 and once in 2001. She described that she and her friend were told to stay at a house in Voinjama while the men went out for three to six days, sometimes returning with injured soldiers. She further testified that she had seen weapons in this house in Lofa County.

As with the witnesses to the Waterside incident, the Defense raised alleged inconsistencies and highlighted alleged discrepancies in the details provided in their police statements compared to their testimony. The Defense further sought clarity as to whether witnesses personally saw or only heard of the particular events they were describing. 

The Defense called into question the identity of the commander that allegedly gave the orders for the acts described. Defense counsel appeared to suggest that other commanders had given the orders to commit the acts alleged. For example, the Defense asked Witness 23 whether Zigzag Marzah ordered a house to be burned, and asked Witness 26 whether the commander was in fact named “Edward”, following confusion regarding the meaning of Witness 26’s police statement. To further support the proposition that the Accused was not in fact present or responsible for any of the acts alleged, the Defense raised several alleged inconsistencies regarding the names stated by witnesses in their police interviews and at trial. 

In line with prior questioning, the Defense continued suggesting that there may have been flaws in the police investigation which led some of the witnesses to mistakenly identify the accused as the person responsible for the events they described. For example, the Defense suggested that Witness 24 only used the name “Angel Gabriel” after it had been stated by the police. Likewise, Defense counsel questioned whether Witness 30 had been told prior to her police interview that she was being asked to provide information on Gibril Massaquoi, and sought to clarify at what point the police showed her photographs for the purposes of identifying the man she described.

The Defense also continued to question the way in which the witnesses became party to the Finnish investigation and this trial. Specifically, Defense counsel asked Witness 28 whether he had been promised any financial incentive to testify, as his police statement referenced some connection between his testimony and a scholarship, but the Witness denied having any financial motivation for testifying. The Defense also noted that Witness 27 was referenced in a report written by Employee 1, thereby suggesting that Witness 27 and Employee 1 knew one another, which Witness 27 denied. 

With respect to the witnesses that were put in touch with the police through their town chiefs, Defense counsel sought to clarify the different groups of people who went to the villages to inquire about these events, the length of time between when the town chiefs were first approached and when the witnesses were interviewed, and whether the witnesses discussed the events they were describing with other villagers or organisations. The Defense highlighted the fact that Witnesses 26 and 27 gave the police the same specific date for one incident, seemingly suggesting that these witnesses may have spoken to one another about this date.

Consistent with previous testimony, the witnesses frequently attributed inconsistent statements between their police interviews and court testimony to nerves, the passage of time, or the chance to reflect on their experiences so that they could now recall additional details.

The trial will resume in Monrovia for its seventh week on 22 March 2020.

Exit mobile version