by Ross, Hamish
This was the political background against which the man many people in Sierra Leone regarded as the champion of democracy was arrested in his office on 10 March.
But the Chief Prosecutor, before deciding whom he would indict, must have taken advice from a range of people; one of whom was Peter Penfold who advised against indicting members of the CDF.
And I said, ‘Hang on’ I said, ‘the CDF are the good guys’ I said, ‘they are the guys who were fighting for the restoration of Kabbah’s government; they were fighting for democracy.’ And Crane said, ‘Yes but I’ve got to be seen to be even-handed,’ these were the exact words he said, ‘when I come to issue the indictments.’14
It certainly is surprising that such consideration by way of even-handedness came into the reckoning in the aftermath of such a brutal war and the overwhelming imbalance of violation of human rights. But then there were some in Sierra Leone and further afield who benefited from the blood diamond wars.
There are others, and there are always others, who have their own agenda for wanting the conflict to continue. There were clearly people in the country who were living off the back of all the turmoil created by the RUF, not least when it comes to diamond mining and so on. Now in that group as well there will be some of those do-gooding NGOs [Non-governmental organization] who, because they would want to work in say RUF areas, would turn a blind eye to all the nasty things that the RUF were doing. But equally, they would focus more and more on the nasty things that were being done to the RUF by these Kamajors. So this created a bit of a lobby so that when it came to looking at the human rights violations people would be saying, in the corridors in New York and London and so on – it’s not just the RUF, there’ve been terrible things committed by the other side as well, so that if you’re going to set up a court, make sure that you get everybody.15
In his prison cell, the man who had cause to feel wronged and abandoned was allowed a notebook and pen; his first entry was made four days later. In it, and in the earliest entries, he writes not expressing feelings of self-pity or outrage at his plight: he describes his dreams. And in some of them, he goes into great detail. In the first dream he had in prison, he was looking for directions.
I dreamt I was walking, and finding me looking at many roads in a green field and while wondering which way to take, I saw some people far away from where I was standing. I enquired from the people which way to take and someone among them told me that whichever way I took would take me to where I was going, and as soon as I started moving, I woke up.16
It was only after he had been there 30 days that there are entries of draft letters that show the conditions at Bonthe. On 10 April, he wrote to the registrar for the Special Court, through the Commander Detention Unit Bonthe, headed – Request for Legal Action. He argued that it was exactly 30 days since he was arrested and,
taken into detention under very appalling conditions 22 hours 20 minutes of continuous lock-up in a very hot cell with very small vent holes, no fresh air and in ISOLATION in blatant contravention of the following (A) Rules of Detention.17
He lists rules, 5, 25, 43 and 47; then (B) Article 17 (3) of the Statute of the Special Court, arguing that he is being treated worse that a convicted person. The paragraph of the Statute he referred to simply stated that defendants were to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.
There had been allegations in the press, and in an interview that Hinga Norman’s daughter gave to the BBC, that he was being mistreated while in custody. These allegations were refuted by the registrar, who, it was reported, in a statement insisted that those in custody were being treated in accordance with international standards.18
Well, from what Hinga Norman recorded, it is evident that international standards had slipped over the years: top Nazi officials awaiting trial in Nuremberg at the end of the Second World War received more consideration for their spiritual needs than did Hinga Norman and his fellow detainees. In 1945, at Nuremberg,
Before the beginning of the trial, the defendants remained in solitary confinement, their only whispered contact during the half-hour walks around the prison courtyard, one behind the other at a distance of four feet, or during the Sunday church services which all of them (except Hess, Rosenberg and Streicher) attended.19
But in the case of the detainees of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, a different regime operated; it comes to light on the approach of Easter, when Hinga Norman took it upon himself to make a request for an Easter service. The tone of his draft is less a complaint and more an assumption of oversight on the part of the Special Court officials. On 14 April 2003 he wrote,
Dear Sir
Urgent Request – Spiritual Welfare
Today makes me 34 days in detention and although none of us has met with the other detainees, but I believe that the others may also have been held for as long as 34 days to date without attending common religious services, neither among ourselves nor by any qualified religious authority or representative. I have recently forwarded a request for common prayers and I am still awaiting response. I am however making this URGENT REQUEST for the services of a Religious Representative (Christian) Non Roman Catholic to hold an Easter Sunday (20/4/03) service at the Detention Unit between daylight and darkness.
We missed the Palm Sunday (13/4/03) service probably because there was no request.
Although, as a prisoner, my status is no higher than my colleagues, being a Government Minister and a Traditional Ruler and being 63 years of age, I believe I bear some responsibility under the Geneva Convention and, while in detention, the additional Protocol II, to seek the welfare of others considered subordinate.
In light, therefore, I am appealing to you to make arrangements for us (Christian Detainees) to attend a Common Easter Sunday service on 20th April and to continue attending religious services thereafter.
My highest regards
Sam Hinga Norman20
His urgent request was replied to; and from his response to that reply, it is clear that lack of provision for religious services was not an oversight but official policy. His letter had prompted action, and a solution was contrived which could be said to provide for a person’s spiritual welfare without allowing the detainees to meet for common worship. He refused to accept the compromise, and wrote to the Registrar, through the Commander, Detention Unit.
Dear Sir
Religious Services
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter, Ref DET/-/2003 of 16/4/03 received 17/4/03 at 1645 hours.
I wish to inform you that if the Chaplain is to pray for us on an individual basis, then I will refuse to accept that condition and shall advise my solicitor to publish your letter with the newspapers for this nation to know the type of conditions we are subjected to just to make sure that we are held in segregation and in isolation for more than 10 hrs during daylight.
May I inform you that I have already posted (through the SC) a copy of this letter to my solicitor for public information and to obtain his advice to a court action on this particular issue.21
Bureaucracy is always strong when it comes to blunt rebuttals, but revelation in the newspapers from an official’s letter is its soft underbelly; quickly, policy was changed, and common worship was permitted. The change may have taken place on 27 April, because he wrote an order of service, including hymns, psalms and readings from the Old and New Testament.
It becomes clear over the ensuing months that his stand was not a ploy to get the detainees together. What comes through from his writing in prison is that he was a complex man: certainly he was a fighter who believed in the rightness of what he had done, but at the same time he was a deeply spiritual man who walked humbly with his God. His fight against the AFRC and the RUF, he would have seen as being vindicated under the principle of the just war. He was a man who, as we shall see, was able to lead others in worship, even his former enemies. Certainly, prayer was an important part of his day. He wrote, ‘Prayed naked and put my case and the nation’s plight befo
re God and asked for a message every night, 28/29/30 April.’ Indeed, he himself, as he told his friend the Rev Alfred SamForay, felt that all three of his names predestined him to be a both a warrior and a man of God: the biblical Samuel; then Hinga, which in Mende implies a male protector of the clan or village; and Noorma, anglicized to Norman, which again in Mende means one who persists in a cause.22
For about the first two months of his record, he gives no expression to his thinking about the political reasons for his being where he is; he simply relates his dreams, and two of them are interesting. On the night of 3/4 May, he tells us,
I found myself in front of a crowd of people as if it was a church or a religious gathering, where I was invited to the front towards what appeared as an altar, and I was given a bowl of oil (like an olive oil) and I was told to pour the oil on my head, but a hand took the bowl and poured the oil on my head and in the cup of my palms joined together. I poured the oil which had been poured into my hands on my head and automatically the crowd sang out loudly this song, ‘When the battle is over you shall wear the crown, you shall wear the crown.’ And I joined in the singing. I was singing until I woke up singing the song in my bed. This was now Sunday (4/5/03) morning I realized then that I was in jail.23
Certainly the dream he recorded on 21 May is a rich source for interpretation.
I dreamt I found myself in a car driving on a highway and at a point, the car turned left and headed down a very steep fall towards what looked like the Atlantic Ocean – the view of the ocean was without limit and there seemed no turning opportunity for the car. At that point, I felt like urinating. The car stopped and I attempted climbing down another steep fall down to the water’s edge of the wave-slapping ocean.
But, at a point in my attempt to stop and urinate I found that the rocks on which I was standing were giving way under my feet – as if the next thing that would happen to me was to fall into the ocean. I was terribly afraid and I realized I was alone and struggling for something to hold on to. After some struggle, I managed and turned round and grabbed some rocks and suddenly found myself standing up on the steep pavement having been saved from falling into the sea. I then walked up to the level top of the pavement where I met two white men in military dress; one was carrying a gun and he seemed to be arguing, saying, ‘If you make that announcement we will shoot them’, pointing his gun at the back of the other white man who was already moving towards a stationary car, black in colour. We all moved to the car and I was told to go into the car. I made an attempt to enter on the right side of the car but, I found human faeces (shit) on an old palm log from the tail end to head of the car, and could not enter on that side of the car, so I passed to the other side of the car to enter on the part of the main road.
The door behind the driver was opened but the backrest of the driver’s seat was flapped down and I couldn’t enter. While I was still trying to get the seat rest up so I could enter, I took a look into the car and saw to my surprise, that President Tejan Kabbah was in the car, but trying to conceal his face and identity. There was also another person sitting in the back seat of the car. I never quite entered the car when I woke up.24
That dream inevitably raises the question, how much did Kabbah know in advance about his former Deputy Minister of Defence being indicted, and did he raise a hand to help the man who had done more than anyone in the government to restore him to power. Hinga Norman told both the Rev Alfred SamForay25 and Peter Penfold about the phone call before his arrest.
And he told me on the phone that it was about an hour beforehand that Kabbah had rung and didn’t have anything at all to say. And the way that Sam interpreted it, and I do as well, that he knew. It was obvious. The point that I always made was – and of course Kabbah denied it – that, in a way it doesn’t matter whether he did know or he didn’t know, in my view: because Kabbah is damned if he did know or he didn’t know, in my view. Because, if he did know, then he was obviously acquiescing – and that was terrible, because he knew it was happening to a person who he owed his position to; if he didn’t know, as far as I’m concerned, he’s damned because he’s the president of this country, it’s his own policemen who were going to arrest and drag out his Minister of Internal Affairs, and he should have known. So as far as I’m concerned, he had no excuse either way. He’s damned if he did know and he’s damned if he didn’t know. And he’s damned because, when it did happen, he didn’t say a thing. He didn’t say a thing. And it went on and on without him saying anything. All you could get out of him when I tackled Kabbah about it, he said, ‘Oh, I mustn’t interfere with the judicial process of an independent court.’ And all this sort of thing. Now, when he’s told me that, then I thought − you’re clearly quite happy for it to happen.26
The inaccessibility of Bonthe island meant that there were few visitors. Mostly contact was made by letter or by phone call, which was permitted. Hinga Norman had a letter from Peter Penfold on 25 May, along with several from friends abroad. Fred was in touch with the Chief by phone, and then sent him some books. And on 16 July, Hinga Norman wrote to thank him.
Fred
Thanks for the reading materials. Please assist bearer to enable him to copy the documents and transportation to distribute.
If in doubt, please try and ring.
Highest regards
Chief Sam Hinga Norman27
Fred had left Air Wing the previous year and set up a security company, Vanguard International Protection West Africa (VIPWA), registered in the UK and in Freetown. Fred was Managing Director, and his partner with a limited amount of money was the American actor Jeffrey Wright. Fred had been invited, when he was still with the Air Wing to carry out a reconnaissance in Mozambique for the shooting of Michael Mann’s film Ali. Fred spent ten days in the country in November 2000; he went back again for about six weeks the following year, and provided security for the director, Michael Mann. After the shooting wrap, Fred took Jeffrey to see Sierra Leone. The upshot was that Jeffrey was interested in investing some money in the country, and so the company was formed, but with a modest level of financing. Fred also asked his friend from Lifeguard days, TT De Abreu, to join them. The new company was in a strong position; Fred knew the country and he knew a lot of people; and they won an important contract with BHPB (Broken Hill Proprietary Billiton Ltd); and, ironically, they won the contract to provide security for the Special Court of Sierra Leone. That is, until, after Hinga Norman’s arrest, Fred’s relationship with him was discovered, when, quite properly, it was revoked. Perhaps it was just as well; had the contract gone ahead, over time, with Fred’s sense of commitment to the Chief and TT’s experience of leading a break-out from AFRC/ RUF-held Kono, it might have landed them in deep trouble.
Among those who contacted Hinga Norman by phone was Col Roelf van Heerden. Executive Outcomes had been disbanded as a private military company, and Roelf was back in the country again, working for a mining company, African Gold and Diamond SL.
I called him while he was still in Bonthe Island and had a brief chat with him, as the guards were all over him; and he and I could not say much. He was sad, but still had hope and was very much encouraged by the call.28
A few days after he wrote to Fred thanking him for reading material, Hinga Norman came across in it a statement by Benjamin Franklin that he found relevant to his own situation, for he chose to write it up that afternoon of 19 July at 3.45pm in one of the blank introductory pages of the notebook he had started writing in four months earlier.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Although he felt abandoned by president and party, he had many supporters. The international action group, SLAM-CDF, was reactivated under its Secretary-General, the Rev Alfred SamForay, to set up the Hinga Norman Defence Fund of SLAM. As early as 24 March, the group had established where he was being kept prisoner and, in a press statement announced that, through his counsel, Hinga Norman indicated that he
would not accept any financial or legal aid from the government of Sierra Leone or the SLPP (Sierra Leone People’s Party); he would rely entirely on ‘support from his friends and relatives at home and abroad to finance his legal defence.’29
Meanwhile, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), the separate body created with a specific role in the post-conflict, was taking statements from interested parties; the Commission wanted Hinga Norman to appear, and he very much wanted to speak to the Commission in public as others had done. Judge Thompson of the Special Court ruled against it. His interpretation was that the TRC could take statements from three categories of people: perpetrators, victims and interested parties. He ruled that because Hinga Norman was a central figure in the conflict, it must be interpreted that he would come under the category of perpetrator and if he made a statement it would offend against the basic principle that an indictee is innocent until the court proves him be to be guilty. His judgment went to appeal.
In what looks like a first draft disputing the Court’s decision, Hinga Norman, takes the role of leader for all the other detainees in his position – CDF, RUF and AFRC – and argues that the right to be heard and recorded by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was negotiated by representatives of the parties to the conflict in Sierra Leone, whereas the Special Court was imposed by an agreement in which representatives of the conflict did not participate. And he concluded his thoughts:
Since for many reasons the impartiality of the SCSL is in serious doubt and that there are clear indications that the Court has every potentiality of being biased, we, the indictees, having no faith in the fair trial and justice, have decided on the following, a) that until we are allowed to appear and publicly testify before the TRC we have decided not to appear before the SCSL.30