By Aminata Phidelia Allie
As trial proper gets underway at Freetown Court Martial, a second prosecution witness says he investigated the alleged mutineers in disguise and hinted that the alleged mutineers had plans to kidnap President Ernest Bai Koroma.
The witness (PW2), Sergeant Mamadu Borbor Jalloh, a soldier attached to the 4th Infantry Battalion/Brigade at Teko Barracks in Makeni identified 10 of the 14 accused persons.
Testifying before Judge Advocate Otto During he said he was given a mandate by the head of the Forces Intelligence Security Unit (FISU), Major A.T. Kamara, to investigate rumours about an intended chaos by some soldiers within the barracks. According to him, the FISU boss mentioned the name of the 1st and 7th accused persons and entreated him to investigate them saying “it is not a political issue, if anything happens all of us will suffer the consequences”.
Later that day, he went on, he asked 7th accused, Private Gbessay Koroma whether it was true that they had an upcoming event for which they were preparing. This, the witness alleged, was confirmed by the accused who he said revealed to him that they had a civilian supporting their plan.
“He told me that that civilian man usually went to the barracks with a black jeep, bought them drinks and gave them some money. He said their mission was to get rid of all the military commanders. He added they would execute their plan at such a time when the barracks commanders’ group conference was being held, adding that he would be the one to block the entrance of the conference hall and start the killing”, PW2 told the attentive courtroom at Cockerill.
The witness went on that when he enquired of the 7th accused as to why they had such a plan, he quoted the accused as telling him that the commanders had been deducting their salaries "for so many unnecessary reasons", adding that he was also informed by the accused that an earlier execution plan had not gone through because the arms store man (6th accused) had disappointed them.
In the evening of the same day, PW2 said he was able to corner the 1st accused, Private Momoh Kargbo, who “also confirmed to me that they were planning an operation, told me about their civilian friend, and their reservations about the fact that their monies were being deducted for several reasons, leaving them with almost nothing”.
He said the accused also further revealed that their operation was aimed at executing all military commanders, and that “they had men within the barracks, Benguema and that they knew all the key points at which they would find the commanders”.
The witness said the accused clarified that they were not planning to overthrow the government, but that should their plan succeed, they would arrest the president, take him around the barracks to see for himself and then force him to give a pay rise to soldiers and release him afterwards.
All these, PW2 said he reported back to the FISU boss.
However, during his cross examination by defence lawyer Ishmael Philip Mamie, he admitted that when the FISU boss asked him to undertake the investigation and mentioned names, it was just “Gbessay” and not a specific person.
The defence team at this juncture requested an adjournment as lawyer Mamie was not feeling too well. The matter was adjourned to tomorrow, May 14 when the defence will complete their cross examination with the possibility of another witness led in evidence.
The 14 soldiers were arrested in August last year at Teko Barracks in Makeni on mutiny allegations and they have been at the Pademba Road Prisons since then. They face an 8 counts charge of conspiracy, mutiny, failure to suppress mutiny and incitement to mutiny. They denied all allegations.
At the start of the witness’ testimony, both prosecution and defence lawyers argued over how the accused persons should be identified. As the witness was having a hard time identifying the 11th-14th accused, prosecutor Gerald Soyei suggested that their names be read out for ease of reference.
Defence lawyers objected to this saying the accused were not identified by their names but by numbers before any court of law. They however agreed that their clients’ names be read out if the witness left the courtroom, to which the Judge Advocate hurriedly gave his approval.
Upon objection from the prosecution however, Judge Advocate During changed his order in favour of the prosecution who insisted that the witness would not “appreciate the identification if he is excluded from the process”.
The Judge Advocate assured thus: “as long as I am on the bench justice will prevail”.
(C) Politico 13/05/14
