March 15, 2023 [Liberia] Day 31: An investigator explains
Witness Employee 1 is heard
The prosecution questions Employee 1
The prosecution began by asking what Employee 1 does when he is not working the Finnish authorities. He testified that he is a human rights investigator, not a police officer. He works for an NGO called the Global Justice Research Project (GJRP) that works in co-operation with other international and human rights organizations. He also works with the US Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other branches of the US government, as well as with various other governments. He described his co-operation with foreign governments as having always been quite similar to his work in this case, he looks for perpetrators. He is contacted because of his experience, governments want to work with his NGO. Employee 1 testified that he has worked on the cases of Martina Johnson with the Belgians, Jungle Jabbah with US authorities and Kunti K with the French. They all participated in the Liberian civil war.
Employee 1 testified that he began working for GJRP in 2002, estimating that it was founded in late 2002 or 2003. GJRP co-operates with other international organizations and with various jurisdictions abroad. GJRP has a sister organization, Civitas Maxima, in Switzerland. According to the investigator, Background 1 founded GJRP and a lawyer called Alain Werner founded CM.
The investigator had received training for his job as an investigator. He had been to the International Institute of Forensic Science in the Hague. He had also received training in Liberia before going to the Hague. He had been to a military institute in the Netherlands, where he had studied working in a hostile environment, dealing with checkpoints, identifying mass graves, understanding the behavior of rebels, and the use of different weapons and ammunition. He had provided copies of the diplomas and certificates that he had received from these training courses, which had been submitted as written evidence.
Employee 1 explained that the Finnish police had requested him to look for witnesses. He was to ask limited questions, such as whether the person was in a certain area when the war started or whether they were aware of the RUF’s operations there. He was instructed not to discuss this work with anyone else. He testified that he was removed from his own organization while he worked for the Finnish police, did not visit the GJRP nor spoke with anyone there. He was only involved with the Finnish police. The police officers who gave him assignments included Thomas, Mikko, Juha and Markus. The first time Employee 1 met them was in Lofa county. He was at the Nascor Hotel in Voinjama with a Brazilian lady and met them there. He saw them, went to introduce himself and they chatted about monkeys. He told the Finnish police that he works for GJRP. The police officers had visited GJRP during their trip and they discussed Liberia’s work for founding a war crimes court.
The investigator gave the Finnish police his contact information and left. A few months later, the GJRP received an email asking for him to work with the Finnish police. There were two investigators at GJRP who the police wanted to work with. After a few months, the police came to Liberia again. Their first meeting was at Royal Hotel. They signed a contract, which specified Employee 1’s duties. The police then moved to Kendeja and a few days later, they had a meeting there.
Employee 1 confirmed that the meeting they had in Voinjama was completely random, he just happened to run into the Finnish police. The first meeting in Monrovia was in 2019. He received some maps and locations where he was to go and ask questions. Questions that he should ask included whether houses had been burned in the area, whether there was RUF or other military activity there, and whether civilians had been killed. The locations Employee 1 was to cover included Kolahun, Kortohun Tahamba, Sevelahun and Foya. He went first, the police went afterwards and then returned to Finland.
The investigator was not sure when he found out that the investigation was about Gibril Massaquoi. After their first trip, the police returned to Finland and sent him an email that they had missed an area. They sent him a list of villages in Lofa county, towards Vahun and Sierra Leone. When the police came to Liberia for the first time, they had photographs that they used to ask the witnesses to identify the perpetrator. At the time, they had not mentioned Gibril Massaquoi’s name to him, they only spoke of the RUF and government troops. On the second trip, when Employee 1 went to Kamatahun Hassala, Kortohun and Vahun he began to hear the names of Gibril or Gabriel Massaquoi, Zigzag Marzah and Stanley. He found this interesting as he had investigated these people himself before. Employee 1 clarified to the court that he had conducted some investigations in Lofa related to these persons before the Finnish arrived and at the moment, he is also conducting an investigation related to some of these names. He found out that the Finnish were interested in Gibril Massaquoi after their second visit, when they went to Kamatahun. The police were investigating and Employee 1 was sitting in a Palava Hut. Some people came over and began talking about their interviews and that is how Employee 1 started to hear these names.
Employee 1 specified that the Finnish police had never mentioned the name of the suspect, they only mentioned the RUF. He estimated that this visit to Kamatahun was in 2020. Another time was when the defense sent him the name of witness Defense 14 for him to locate. He called Defense 14 and escorted him to the hotel in Monrovia. On the way to the hotel, he told Defense 14 that the Finnish wanted to ask him questions, but he did not know what about. Defense 14 then told him that it was probably about Gibril Massaquoi, because he was with him at the safe house. It was through this that Employee 1 became aware that the investigation was about Gibril Massaquoi. This happened during the second police trip to Liberia. The police sent him the name before they arrived.
The investigator testified further that he had heard the name of Gabriel Massaquoi or Massaquoi before the police asked him to work for them. He knew the name Sam Bockarie, that he was from Sierra Leone and a member of the RUF, and had also heard of a spokesman called Massaquoi. Employee 1 used to live near ELWA junction and was running a currency exchange. A Sierra Leonean ex-fighter wanted to borrow money from him and took him to his house so that Employee 1 could verify his home address. He took Employee 1 to Twelve Houses. There was a group of fighters staying there, most of them Sierra Leoneans. Employee 1 got to know these people and heard about the names of the Sierra Leonean commanders. He was shown around Twelve Houses and was shown where Sam Bockarie and Gibril Massaquoi used to be. The investigator explained that many Liberians knew of these people before the investigation. He himself had not heard the name Massaquoi before working for the Finnish police, not even during the investigations he had conducted beforehand. During those investigations, they focused only on Yeaten, and Sam Bockarie’s name would come up in connection with the RUF.
Employee 1 described how he searched for witnesses for the Finnish police. The police would send him a list of villages to visit. He would get to a village and there would be certain formalities that he had to carry out to be able to get in contact with the people living there. He had to meet with village elders or chiefs first and explain to them the reason for his visit. To help him with this task, Employee 1 needed to work together with Interpreter 4, who could speak Gbandi, the language spoken in many of the villages. Employee 1 had met Interpreter 4 at the Ministry of Health. Interpreter 4 used to do relief work in the region, so Employee 1 called Thomas from Voinjama and explained why they would need his help. The police wanted to come to Voinjama to interview Interpreter 4 first. Mikko then came to Voinjama and interviewed him.
He then explained how the formalities in the villages work. In Kamatahun, they all met with the deputy village chief because the chief was not present. Employee 1 told him that they were there to look for people, who witnessed fighting between LURD, RUF and government troops in the area. The deputy chief told them that there were a lot of people in the village who had witnessed it, but most of them were not present at the time. The police were told to come back the next day so that they could gather the right people in the village. They came back the next day and the village elders had compiled a list of people. Most of the people on the list were there, but some had fled to Guinea or Sierra Leone. According to Employee 1, this list was given to the police who then conducted interviews without him. The same procedure took place in other locations such as Kamathaun, Kortohun and Masambolahun. Employee 1 stated: “To sum up, these village elders and chiefs were telling people ‘you can tell your stories’, but I don’t know much about them”.
Employee 1 testified that the lists consisted only of the inhabitants of that particular village. Kiantahun was different, because when Employee 1 and Interpreter 4 got there, there was nobody there. He found out from an elderly person that the village had seen war. That day, the police arrived in Voinjama and the next day, they all went to Kiantahun to interview the inhabitants right away. Employee 1 was not sure whether there was a list of people in Kiantahun, because they started the interviews immediately after arriving. Employee 1 and Interpreter 4 went there first on a motorcycle. Interpreter 4 told Employee 1 to leave their phone numbers and come back later when the villagers returned. The villagers then called and Employee 1 informed the police. Thomas decided to go to Kiantahun straight away and told Employee 1 and Interpreter 4 to go somewhere else while they did the interviews. He therefore did not know how those interviews were conducted. He found out about the people who had been interviewed by the police in Kiantahun only once the police gave him a list of people that they wanted to meet in Monrovia, when the court was on its way to Liberia. He did not write the names of the people from Kiantahun in his notebook, he had only written down names from Kamatahun.
The investigator was asked how he had managed to find the witnesses that were not based in Lofa. He explained that he has various methods to locate people. One is to go to tea shops, where people play games and discuss current events, football, politics and past wars. He would go to these tea shops and listen to the conversations, especially when civilians would talk about their experiences. He would then approach someone in confidence, tell them about his investigation and say and that he would be interested in hearing more. Another method is to listen to people when travelling from one place to another, for example in buses. He explained that he might go out of his way to follow a person just to listen to their story and to find new witnesses. His final method is to use the stories of other witnesses to locate new potential witnesses. The original witness might provide the contact information for others or he might search for them himself. Employee 1 explained that whenever he hears an interesting conversation, he takes the person to a quieter place and ask verify that they are speaking of an event that they had witnessed themselves. He would then tell them that there are people interested in what they are talking about and ask if they would be willing to speak of their experience to others.
Employee 1 clarified that even if he is not actively investigating the event that the person is speaking of, he may still take their contact information in case it would be useful in future investigations. He testified that he never mentions the name of the alleged perpetrator, notes are never edited, names are not mentioned and potential witnesses are not shown any photographs. He only tells them that there are some people interested and asks whether they would like to meet them. He had also met people who were not willing to talk about their experiences, especially before a court or police officers. He still takes their contact information, in case he might need it in the future. Occasionally, he has tried to persuade people to come testify, but the ultimate decision to remains with the witness. He gave an example of a person who had requested money for their testimony. The investigator explained that he only tells a witness that their expenses will be paid but no reward can be given for a testimony. He explains to the person why it is important for justice that they come forward with their testimonies. Some witnesses are scared of their safety, so Employee 1 describes security measures that are in place and how they can ensure their own safety by not telling others that they are providing such information.
Employee 1 further testified that he is not aware of the crimes Gibril Massaquoi is charged with, but he knows he’s under investigation for war crimes. He had not attempted to figure out what witnesses have told the police or the court, and had not become aware of the contents of witness testimonies in any other way. He does not have any of the case material and the police took his notebooks. For transparency, he had decided to share his notes with the court. He had not told anyone in GJRP or in CM who he had met during his investigations and nobody from these organizations asks him about the investigation. He had not been asked to instruct the witnesses what to say by anyone. He never became aware of which witnesses were being called by the prosecution and which by the defense.
The investigator explained that his duties during the court phase included contacting the witnesses and inviting them to court on the correct date. He would instruct the witnesses on their accommodation and sometimes escorted them to it. Sometimes, he had to travel to look for a witness who could not be reached. He had not discussed the case with them. If witnesses ask him what they will be asked, he tells them that he doesn’t know.
The defense questions Employee 1
The defense began by asking about the founding of GJRP. Employee 1 estimated that he began working there in 2002, which he then corrected to 2012 after a further question. Employee 1 explained that he had completed the International Investigator Course in the Hague, and had given his diplomas to the court. This course lasted for three weeks. Most of the training that he had done had taken place in Liberia.
When Employee 1 met the Finnish police for the first time in Lofa, they had interpreters or guides with them. He knew one of them because he also used to work at GJRP. Employee 1 did not know why the Finnish police wanted him to work for them in this investigation. He was aware that GJRP and CM had investigated alleged crimes committed by Gibril Massaquoi beforehand, but they never completed their investigation. He had not participated directly in this previous investigation, but he was aware of it. He estimated that when he had joined the Massaquoi case, the information had been already sent to Finland, this was before the Finnish police came to Monrovia for the first time. Employee 1 then went to Mount Barclay, near Montserrado county, to meet a man related to this case. He could not remember the name of this man but recalled that he was tall. He could not say what information had been delivered to Finland or whether this information was still with CM. Two women from CM came to interview people in Monrovia and Employee 1 estimated that they relayed their findings to Finland. He was not interviewed by them. The investigator explained that he was involved with an interview about Gibril Massaquoi with the man he met in Mount Barclay. This man was interviewed by an employee of CM, Employee 1 just found him and brought him to the interview. His role and methods were similar with this man as with the rest of the witnesses he found for the Finnish police.
The investigator did not conduct any actual interviews before CM came to Liberia to interview people, he would only ask some basic questions as to the witness’ location and their experience. He described this as a ‘preliminary interview’. Employee 1 recalled being involved in three ‘background hearings’. He spoke with two women on the phone and met one man in Mount Barclay. These interviews or hearings were reported to the Finnish police when they first arrived in Liberia. He was not certain how the police had obtained these documents. One of the policemen, Mikko, had told him that CM has a case that had been reported to them. According to Employee 1 this was not a standard procedure, because usually governments would conduct their investigations in Liberia either through the Liberian government or GJRP instead of sending their own officials.
Employee 1 did not know whether CM had sent the information that they had on Massaquoi to the Finnish police, he just assumed so when he saw them in Liberia. He also assumed that the background hearings or preliminary interviews had been sent to the Finnish police. When the police were in Finland, he still did not know who the suspect in the case was. He assumed that the police had been sent information about Massaquoi, but he could not be certain and did not ask. The defense pointed out that Mikael Vairio, one of the police officers involved in the case, had told the court that they wanted Employee 1 to be involved in their investigation because he had been involved in Gibril Massaquoi investigations from the beginning, even before the Finnish police received the case. Employee 1 confirmed this, but stated that the police did not mention this to him personally.
The investigator had not discussed how the witnesses were found in the CM investigation with any of the CM employees, including with [REDACTED], who was involved in the early phases of the case. The defense showed Employee 1 a written memorandum, which he explained was about an investigation into the RUF. He explained that it was possible that names such as Gibril Massaquoi, Sam Bockarie, and others were mentioned. The person referred to in this document was the man he had met in Mount Barclay. Employee 1 described how the interviews were conducted with this man and the two other people mentioned in the document. He had spoken to one of them only on the phone and speculated that GJRP might have interviewed this person further.
There was then a discussion as to whether Employee 1 had previously testified whether he had taken part in any preliminary interviews.
According to Employee 1, when he was working for the Finnish police, he could not work at GJRP at the same time, for transparency. He was not sure whether it was the Finnish police or GJRP that requested this arrangement. Sometimes when he worked with other authorities, he could work with GJRP at the same time, and sometimes he could not. Apart from the Gibril Massaquoi case, the investigator did not know of any other case where GJRP or one its employees was a victim.
For the next part of the hearings, extracts from Employee 1’s notebook were analyzed in court.
When the investigator travelled to Lofa for the first time for the Finnish police in 2019 and made notes about the trip in his notebook. He testified that he did not speak with Background 1 about finding [REDACTED] while working for the Finnish police. He confirmed that he did not ask anyone about the clothing that RUF soldiers wore, as he thought that was up to the police.
The defense asked about some names and contact information noted as collected between 6 April to 12 April 2019. The investigator explained that he had written this information down after they had been to a village meeting and the police had conducted interviews. The police wanted him to remain in contact with these potential witnesses about their location and logistics, so he tried to compile this information in his notes. He had received these names from Interpreter 4, who had been interpreting most of the interviews in Lofa. According to Employee 1, the date 6 April to 12 April 2019 indicates the time when these names were gathered. When the defense pointed out that the police conducted interviews in Kortohun in 14 April 2019, he confirmed this and explained that they received this list from the village elders two days before arriving to the village and he gave the list to the police.
Employee 1 confirmed the name of Soldier 7, which was written in his notebook. The police interviewed Soldier 7 and sent him to look for [REDACTED]. He confirmed that he had asked the questions as instructed by the Finnish police, such as whether the person was in a certain place during the war and whether they would be willing to meet with the police. There was a meeting marked on 8 April 2019 that was held with the Finnish police, he was to find out whether there had been an ambush in the area and whether somebody had burned a church in the area or if there were any mass graves. He was also supposed to ask whether people were burned inside a house in Kamatahun.
The investigator was asked about some dates in his notebook that were difficult to interpret. He explained that he wrote some dates down after returning from the field and they might not be completely accurate, the real dates could be off by a few days here and there. He had brought his notebook to court, so used the original to look the dates. He confirmed that he had met the people whose names were written under a date in 2019. He had met them in a similar way as with other villages, by speaking with the elders who gave them names of potential witnesses. He had not met every person on the list personally, he just wrote down the names he had received in the village. The village chiefs would ask the preliminary questions and provide Employee 1 and Interpreter 4 with the list of names. He further clarified that the names are “a list of witnesses from all those villages, put together and made into a list. And when you know about an investigation, if he has information about an event or a person and tomorrow you need that information, then you go straight to him. One witness might see two different events or two different perpetrators. It is possible that the one witness can be used in both cases. So, when I was talking to these people, I combined all these names for my own use”.
The defense asked Employee 1 about some other names that he had written down. Employee 1 estimated that these people had spoken with their village chiefs before speaking with the police. He repeated that he had made the lists for his own use and the dates might not be accurate. He did not keep similar notes during every trip. According to Employee 1, when they got to a village and returned later, as instructed by the village elders, they would not meet all of the people whose names he had written down. The procedure for entering a village was not the same in all villages, but it always had a similar goal.
The investigator testified that he does not know the chief of Kiantahun but knew that Civilian 45 held a political position in Kamatahun. Employee 1 met them when he came to their villages with the police. He testified that he went to Kiantahun twice. The first time no one was around, apart from someone he estimated to be a teacher, so he and Interpreter 4 explained their mission and he said he would put a list together. The police were on their way to Voinjama, Interpreter 4 went to the guest house where they were staying and told them that he had received a call from Kiantahun. Thomas agreed that they should all go.
For the most part, Employee 1 did not ask direct questions about the date of the events, stating: “Once the person says I witnessed the RUF activities, I forget about the year. The year I think should be the concern of the police”.
The investigator estimated that he met Civilian 61 twice. There was discussion as to a date written next to the witness’ name: the year 2003 was first written down, and then the year 2001 was written over it. He testified that the witness first mentioned 2003 and then corrected himself with the year 2001. He asked whether the witness was sure, and wrote both years down, keeping both visible. He could not say exactly when he had met with this witness. The defense also asked about the year 2003 written next to Civilian 69. Employee 1 explained that this was to do with a different witness, who testified about something else and didn’t want to be identified. He repeated that this notebook was for his own personal research.
The defense asked about another list of names that Employee 1 had noted with a description that he had not met them. He explained that he received names from Interpreter 4 and village chiefs. He himself had not met them, but he assumed that interpreter 4 had asked them the same specific questions that the police had given to him. The original plan was for Employee 1 to ask these questions himself, but he could not speak the local language, so he needed the interpreter’s help. He would tell the interpreter that if he found any other people who could be useful, he should send their names to him, which the Finnish police was aware of. The police had not given explicit permission for the village chiefs to ask questions to witnesses, but Employee 1 explained that this was necessary in practice.
The defense asked about a note relating to witness Defense 14. The investigator explained that the defense had asked him to find the witness. The witness had told him about Gibril Massaquoi, so he had written their names next to each other. The other notes had been written down quickly, while he was trying to get all the important information down, so Employee 1 explained them to the court. He had also written down the name of witness Defense 09, because the police wanted him to find him.
Employee 1 then explained the dates of the different trips to Lofa, but maintained that the dates, as they were written in his notebook, were not accurate. He then described how he, the police, and interpreters went together. They had two interpreters, one for English and one for Gbandi. He did not sit in the interviews but stayed in the car or walked around while they were conducted. He then re-explained his trips to Kiantahun. After some confusion as to dates, timings, and other details, the court asked the defense to move on with their questioning.
The investigator testified further that he gave all the relevant contact information he received to the police. The defense pointed out that the police had noted that they had found eight witnesses without him, but the contact information of all these witnesses was noted in his notebook. The investigator responded that he could not find all of the witnesses. Sometimes, a witness would mention another person during the interview and then the police would ask him to contact them before they spoke to them.
The defense further pointed out some witnesses that had testified that they heard the suspect’s name from Employee 1. He denied telling the suspect’s name to any witness and speculated that they heard the name from social media or from other witnesses. This was only his own speculation, he could not speak for other people.
Employee 1 explained that most of the ex-fighters were reached through other soldiers. For example, a high-ranking soldier may talk about other soldiers, would then bring them to testify. He could not say whether these soldiers would have spoken amongst themselves before he reached them.
The investigator testified that he did not rule out any witness before passing on their contact details to the police. The defense pointed out that every witness contacted through him mentioned the name Angel Gabriel, Angel, Gabriel or Gibril Massaquoi, which he could not explain. The defense also pointed out that most witnessed contacted in 2019 and 2020 placed the events in Waterside in 2003, which the investigator could not confirm or deny.
The defense then asked how he had contacted certain witnesses in 2021. For example, witness X1, whom Employee 1 reached through his wife. The investigator described how X1 was reluctant to testify because he was afraid of being prosecuted himself. One day, he met another former soldier and called X1 in his presence, explaining that he was looking for witnesses who knew about RUF activity in Liberia. X1 then agreed to meet. He also described how Thomas had gone to Sierra Leone and come back with some names of people for him to talk to, but he could not say where he had gotten the names from. There was, for example, a blind woman, who was willing to testify but her husband had stopped her from doing so. The defense asked about a man called [REDACTED], who he had been asked about in previous hearings, whom witness X2 had previously said had contacted him before Employee 1. The investigator responded that he had spoken to over 200 people altogether, he could not remember them all, and could not recall meeting [REDACTED]. The defense then asked about [REDACTED], whom witness X6 had mentioned had contacted him before Employee 1. Employee 1 could not recall this person. The defense pointed out that he had told the lower court that he met [REDACTED] in Paynesville and that he drives a motorcycle. Employee 1 then recalled being shown [REDACTED]’s name, that he drives a motorcycle, and used to live in Twelve Houses. The defense and the investigator then discussed other names that witnesses had mentioned.
Employee 1 then described how he was called by Thomas after X3’s interview. X3 had said that he had some photographs and Thomas had arranged for him to get them. When he went to collect those photographs, X3 said that he wanted to meet Thomas, stating that he could not get the photographs because they were with a former fighter and who wanted money for them. Employee 1 refused this and said that X3 could not see Thomas before bringing him the photographs. He then called Thomas to relay what X3 had said. Later on, he explained to Thomas that someone should go with X3 to verify the photographs. He then met the woman who had the photographs. She asked for money, to which he responded that he could not pay for something which he has not seen. The woman then came back with a black plastic bag, but he could not see what was inside. The defense then corrected Employee 1, as this incident was linked to witness X5 and not witness X3. He then confirmed that he had not seen any pictures in relation to X3 or X5.
The investigator confirmed that he is not related to Soldier 50.
Employee 1 ended his hearing by stating: “I believe in transparency. I work for justice. I don’t know the perpetrator. In Liberia we say: ‘I don’t have fish to fry in this oil’, meaning I don’t have anything to do with his case, I did my best to be neutral. What we do here will go a long way to deter people that abuse human rights”.
