by Ross, Hamish
had been pressured by the UN and Kabbah to become ‘RUF interim leader’ in order to ensure that the RUF complied with the disarmament and demobilization of the RUF as part of the peace process.’45
Now labelled as a leader, Issa Sesay was arrested. And on Easter Sunday, Hinga Norman wrote, ‘Easter Service – I preached to Issa Sesay in the morning.’46 He preached to him – not preached at him. Some sort of reconciliation seemed to be at work, because three month later, he wrote, ‘Chief Norman met with the 3 SCSL (RUF) indictees and offered prayers and had discussion with them.’47 Then later in the year he, ‘went and prayed with my Moslem colleagues.’ On 2 May, he conducted a service and preached, ‘about four parts of the man called Peter.’ He was emerging not only as the leader but a spiritual mentor to the group of detainees. And in the evening of a day that he spoke out strongly in court for what he saw as his rights, only to have the judges refuse him, he wrote:
Later at evening prayers God reminded me of (S. M. & A.) in the Bible [Shadrach, Mishach and Abednego, tested in the fiery furnace, Daniel, 3.]48
At various points in his notebook or diaries, he brought his own situation to his reading of the Bible: in one place he wrote of God’s assurance, ‘His forgiveness for wrongful acts with genuine intentions. Math 12: 1–5’; and on 16 May, he wrote, ‘God gave me psalm 62 as my personal psalm.’ Certainly the psalm contains poetic expressions that he applied to his situation: ‘For God alone my soul waits in silence/… He only is my rock and my salvation/… How long will you set upon a man to shatter him, all of you, like a leaning wall, a tottering fence?/ They only plan to thrust him down/… They take pleasure in falsehood.’
But hand in hand with his belief in a merciful God there runs a very strong fighting spirit. The court process had begun, and he was intent on defending himself. He had no legal training, but he was adamant. The existing papers for much of what follows come from Fred’s collection and are typed, because, for some months of 2004, Hinga Norman was given access to a computer and printer as part of his defence requirements. He could not pass these papers to Fred directly when he came to visit, for Fred was searched on the way in and out, so Hinga Norman gave them to an Investigator, who had been allocated by the Special Court to the Defence to contact witnesses; the Investigator was instructed to pass them to Fred.
Hinga Norman’s first major hurdle was faced on 15 June 2004; though the signed copy passed to Fred was dated 23 July. It is headed’
‘The Address.’
I am Samuel Hinga Norman
The facts about me are that I joined the Army at the age of fourteen and a half years and at the interview before the General Officer Commander-In-Chief, West Africa, I said this; that I was joining the army to defend Her Majesty’s Empire. I was asked, at this age what can you do? I said I will grow up and I would do a lot of things. I am in the process of doing those things.
I have been under tremendous stress, like I was when I was deciding to take up battle against my colleagues, the soldiers and against my brothers and sisters, the RUF, for the honour of Sierra Leone. In the process, I am standing here again in that same way, taking up to defend myself in response to what is facing Sierra Leone today.
I cannot, I should not and I will not respond to anything the Prosecution may have said before this Court as constituted and before your Lordships sitting as a Trial Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone under the presidency of Your Honour, Justice Itoe, and Your Honours, Justice Bankole Thompson and Justice Boutet, as members of the Trial Chamber for the following reasons:
There is or are no charge or charges legally placed before this Chamber against me. If there is or are charges against me before this Chamber, then I submit that by law I have not taken any plea before this Chamber, or on any Indictment against me before Your Honours. I will state the reasons when I hear the response from Your Lordships.
This Court, operating as a Trial Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, does not have the Constitutional Authority to try me and indeed, any Sierra Leonean, pursuant to Article 8 of the Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone over all the courts of Sierra Leone, which, in effect, has taken away the constitutional powers of the Chief Justice of Sierra Leone, which is entrenched in the Constitution and cannot, I repeat, cannot be taken by any other means except the means provided for in the Constitution of Sierra Leone.
Whatever took place in Sierra Leone as an incident since 1991 to the date under review, has not been defined whether it is war or conflict. If it is war, What type of war; Conventional or Civil? If it is conflict, what type of Conflict; International or National?
This much I know, as a soldier, well trained in the British Army and as a Minister of Internal Affairs in Sierra Leone, having privilege to documents, that Sierra Leone acceded to the Geneva Convention in 1986. And in that Convention under Protocol 1, the conflict in Sierra Leone would be well described as International and so, if International, then, the Geneva Convention stipulates that Article 90 of Protocol 1 should be applied and that a Commission of Inquiry should be instituted in Sierra Leone to investigate the happenings in Sierra Leone and submit a conclusion, with recommendation for those who did WHAT and to WHAT EXTENT and at WHAT GRAVE LEVEL; for Parties to the conflict to compensate Sierra Leoneans who may have lost lives, limbs, blood, property, dignity and opportunity and those Parties to the conflict are Governments and Organizations that sent their Agents, the Armies/Auxiliary Forces, that dealt with the situation in excess of the fire-power that was required. Any other way of doing it will be a CYNICAL MANIPULATION of the process of law in Sierra Leone.
For these reasons I have chosen to defend myself, that in the area of self-defence, there is no time limitation whether you should start it or, you should apply it in the middle or in the end. There is no age limit, whether you are a baby or an old person or a young one; that there is no qualification, whether you are educated or not.
These are my reasons for not responding to whatever DRAMATIC THESIS the Prosecution had proffered here before Your Lordships and this court intending to incite your sentiments on issues that they are sure, as I am, that they do not have any reason to hold against HINGA NORMAN!
I thank you, Your Lordships.
SAMUEL HINGA NORMAN – JP
Self-Defending Accused
15th June, 2004.49
When he returned to his cell after his appearance in court, he wrote in his diary:
Self-Defending Accused.
I delivered my speech to the Bench at the SCSL, which lasted for not more than 15 minutes, and received thunderous applause. But, the Judges forced the start of the Trial by calling the 1st witness a Mr I. Bah. Later at evening prayers God reminded me of (S M & A) in the Bible.50
And so he persevered, and recorded in an entry on 23 June, ‘A mixture of yes and no composed the decision on my defence requirements.’ The Special Court went into recess until 8 September.
Two days before the proceedings were due to resume, Peter Penfold was in touch with him by phone. When the proceedings got underway, Hinga Norman was forthright as before in his next statement to the Court bearing his name and role as Justice of the Peace. Long before the political undertow dragged him into the shoals of the Special Court, at a time when there was widespread admiration for his initiative during the 1997 coup, Hinga Norman had been asked in an interview about the contribution of the CDF in restoring Kabbah’s government; and perhaps unsurprisingly for someone of his age trained in the British army, he compared it with an allusion to Winston Churchill’s tribute to the RAF during the Battle of Britain – ‘the few’. However, Hinga Norman developed it:
Now in Sierra Leone I would go further to say ‘never was so much owed by so many to so few for nothing’. In the case of Britain, these were men who had been hired on salaries, they were paid. They did more than their salary required. In Sierra Leone they did more than what the ordinary man could ever do for another person – laying down your life not on any bet or any favo
ur whatsoever – just laying down your life so that the other man can live in freedom. That is what the Civil Defence has been doing.51
Now here, before the Special Court, his own words in his second paragraph have a Churchillian ring to them. The paper is headed
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW
I believe it was under the Rule of Law and NOT by FORCE OF ARMS or INFLUENCE of any sort from any quarter whatsoever, that I was arrested in the Ministerial Office of Internal Affairs and led away in HANDCUFFS (as a Minister of the SLLP Government) in the Cell of an old SLAVES’ DUNGEON in Bonthe, on the 10th of March, 2003, on the orders of a Judge of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, His Honour Justice Bankole Thompson, who signed the single Indictment against me, dated 7th March 2003 and on which Indictment I was held in very deplorable and inhuman conditions for a considerable period of time before I and others were transferred to the present Special Court Detention Facility in Freetown, where I am still being held awaiting Trial and being forced to use a Plastic Bucket in the Cell for toileting purposes at night. Several complaints for inhuman treatment have been lodged in the form of Court Motions before the Trial Chamber but the Trial Chamber has done nothing to address the situation to Date. We still continue to [have] the Toilet Buckets in our Cells which we know and believe is inhuman under Fundamental Human Right Law.
I believe in the STAND that I and the CDF/SL (KAMAJORS) took against our Brothers and Sisters of the RUF and my Colleague Soldiers of the SLAF, in the STRUGGLE to REINSTATE the Presidency and Restore DEMOCRATIC RULE in Sierra Leone which is A DUTY EXPECTED OF EVERY CITIZEN OF Sierra Leone and THE FREE WORLD − a struggle in which many other Sierra Leoneans and other nationals joined and for which I extend thanks and appreciation to all those who offered sacrifices of all kinds. I also extend my heartfelt sympathies and APOLOGIES to all those who suffered unnecessarily in the conflict. I wish to urge all and sundry to accept what has happened to all of us as worthy SACRIFICES in the course of our Nation’s HISTORICAL JOURNEY.
My respect for the Rule of Law and acceptance of the fact that NOBODY and NO ORGANIZATION is ABOVE the Law is profound – hence, my determination for the Rule of Law to be forever respected in Sierra Leone is non-negotiable.
Therefore, if the Rule of Law has been accepted and respected by me, equally so, I would expect the same Rule of Law to be accepted and respected (with the greatest of respect to their Honours) by the Judges of the Trial Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
I was arrested under the Rule of Law and I am now requesting under the same Rule of Law that the JOINDER INDICTMENT against me should be SERVED on me pursuant to RULES 50 (A) & (52) of the Rules of Procedure of the STATUTE of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, to enable me proceed to Court and pursuant to Rule 61 (ii) of the Rules of procedure, be arraigned before the Trial Chamber to enter Plea on the charges against me, so that my trial could commence. THIS IS THE LAW and these are the LEGAL and LAWFUL conditions which should be RESPECTED by the SPECIAL COURT
– remember, that no one is ABOVE THE LAW; NOT EVEN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE.
If justice is the mission of the Special Court, then, I am simply requesting for:
a) The APPLICATION of the LAW.
b) The IMPLEMENTATION of JUSTICE.
Let Justice be Done and be Seen to be Done by the Special Court.
Samuel Hinga Norman
Self-Defending Accused
28/9/0452
Around this time he wrote to some former colleagues who had served with him in the CDF and who were now either turning their backs on him or changing sides and becoming witnesses for the prosecution. His letter to a paramount chief goes on to say,
This bearer has been to see you several times only to be told on each occasion that you were out and could not be reached. This time round, I have advised him to drop this letter which, I am sure will reach you in his stead.
You were the Chairman of the War Council of the Kamajors at Base Zero just as President Kabbah was in Conakry and for which service you were decorated; both of you holding those positions until Parliament of Sierra Leone passes another resolution to dissolve the Civil Defence Force CDF/SL. You should therefore please be in readiness to be available at any time you may be called upon to testify in court about events (criminal or otherwise), relative to CDF and Kamajors’ defensive activities in Sierra Leone for the period under review.53
But another, whom he addressed as ‘My Good Friend and Brother’ he challenges on the grounds that having been a senior member of the CDF/Kamajors, he is now an agent for the prosecution, and frequently visited the Detention Centre, but kept away from the principal CDF defendant.
During the war you were, and you still are, the Chairman of the Appointments & Promotions Committee and a member of the ‘Base Zero War Council’ your responsibility being that of recommending the most suitable members of the CDF/SL for senior commanders’ position in the battle field.54
He too was told to hold himself in readiness to be called by the defence.
Set-backs and successes marked the end of the year. On 2 November, the computer and printer were removed from him as part of the judges’ decision revoking his self-defence; however, next day, buoyed with ideas, he spoke to Charles Margai, the son of Sir Albert Margai, a former prime minister, about the politics of the country and the formation of a ‘third force political party.’ Then on 8 November there was a prison break at Pendemba Road jail, which led to a tightening of security at the Special Court Detention Centre with all visiting banned for four weeks. Towards the end of the month he was told to expect a decision on his ‘Motion of Non Service & Arraignment.’ His diary entry for Monday 29 November reads:
The long awaited Decision was given in favour of Hinga Norman.
a) Majority Decision was partial
b) Minority Decision was totally against the Prosecution and TOTALLY in FAVOUR OF HINGA NORMAN.55
Below he wrote, ‘Messages of congratulation flowed in with prayers for total victory. Long victory prayer; Hymn 82; Psalm 3.’ The year ended for him with two visits from Peter Penfold.
Another year in prison began, and resulted in far fewer diary entries. One of the topics that recurs is his country’s politics: issues about contesting the SLPP (Sierra Leone People’s Party) were raised; an injunction was taken out against hosting the convention of the party’s delegates in Makeni; again there are references to the possibility of forming a new political party; and on 25 September, a meeting was held of representatives of the former warring groups: AFRC, RUF and the CDF with the purpose of ‘working together in a united political set-up.’56
The Special Court continued at its own pace, but Hinga Norman writes little about its deliberations. On 16 May he wrote of the Appeals Chamber releasing a confused decision; and nine days later he simply recorded that a Consequential Order was given by a majority of judges and a separate dissenting order was expected. For whatever reason – he gives no background on it – on 6 June his visits and outside communication were suspended; and a month later he writes, ‘Start of hunger strike if …’ Over the months he met with quite a few people, continuing discussions on the political framework of the country. One of his last entries for the year was on 16 November when he had another visit from Peter Penfold.
Thus far, Fred had experienced no difficulty in being allowed to visit the Chief. But that changed not long after a visit when he had a set-to with the security at the detention centre.
Your photograph was taken and a card kept on the number of times you visited your friend/relative. One day as I was coming in to the office to check in, before being searched, the security was very arrogant, and the visitors were sitting on breezeblocks because there were no chairs. I was so mad that I told the security that the visitors should have chairs instead of what was happening now. Also I said, ‘If it was not for Chief Norman and the CDF, you would not be sitting here where you are today. You all owe your freedom to the man that you have kept as a prisoner.’
They must have been recording this by a hidden camera or microphone because shortly after the exchange, an American security guy appeared and asked me what was the matter. I asked him, ‘Why do you make these women and children sit out in the sun on breezeblocks or stand out in the sun while the security sit on chairs? Where is the shelter and chairs for the visitors?’ Next time I came to visit with the Chief ’s two daughters and niece, they allocated a room in the building for the visitors to wait for their turn before being called forward to be searched. Bravo!
Fred knew several people in the business community in Freetown, and one businessman he was on very good terms with was Benjamin (Benjie) Blair, a Sierra Leonean who had had a successful career in the United States and who was invited to return home by President Kabbah to channel his energies and skills into regenerating business as the country recovered from years of conflict. Benjie was an effective operator, and he had been helpful to Fred’s company on a number of occasions. He was also a relative of Tejan Kabbah’s deceased wife, Patricia, who had died in a London clinic in 1997; he lived in the lodge with Kabbah. Shortly after Fred had visited the Chief, he and Benjie met. Benjie raised the topic, and he put the matter subtly, but unambiguously.
Not very long after my last visit, as we were talking, Benjie said that maybe it was best for me not to visit the Chief if I wanted to help the family. Nobody could accuse me of political interference. I took the warning.
Fred was in no doubt; Benjie had handled it lightly, as a friend − but the import was clear. Fred’s work visa could have been revoked at a stroke. And he was providing some financial support for Hinga Norman’s family at the time, so what he did from now on was communicate with the Chief through Mrs Norman.