Report 32 – Testimony of Andrew Jagei Hon Diet
This week’s hearing was characterized by disputes regarding procedural arrangements. The defense insisted on using their own translated version of the investigation, while the prosecution claimed that this would be procedurally incorrect since those versions had not been submitted to the Court in advance. Apart from testifying about the brutal attacks executed by ground troops and Antonov planes, this week’s plaintiff made important statements in the parallel case regarding obstructing the course of justice.
Hearing with Andrew Jagei Hon Diet
On Wednesday the 18th of September, it was time for plaintiff Andrew Jagei Hon Diet to enter Courtroom 34. After informing the plaintiff of the day’s agenda, Judge Tomas Zander gave the floor to the prosecution. The prosecution, led by prosecutor Ewa Korpi, initiated the main hearing by expressing their gratitude for Andrew’s participation. After emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between what he himself had seen and what he had heard from others, the prosecution continued by asking Andrew to briefly speak about his background.
The attacks in Nhorbor
Andrew Jagei Hon Diet was born in 1974 in Nhorbor, a small village situated near Koch County. Andrew’s family practiced a traditional farming life, living in peace with their settlement and cattle. At the age of thirteen, Andrew was abducted to Ethiopia, where he was recruited as a child solider by the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA). When he was released from the SPLA, Andrew returned to Nhorbor in 1995, only to discover that his father had passed away and his mother had fled to Khartoum. Andrew was once again forcibly recruited, this time by the South Sudan Independence Movement (SSIM), which was later renamed South Sudan Defense Forces (SSDF).
Upon being freed in 1997, Andrew moved to Bentiu to study. His studies were interrupted by the outbreak of conflict between the commander of SSDF, Tito Biel Choul, and rebel leader Paulino Matiep. Andrew described the conflict in Bentiu as brutal. Young men were killed and girls were raped. Since the entire area where Andrew stayed was occupied by militias, the inhabitants were forced to build rafts and stay on the nearby river. Due to the plundering of cattle, the local inhabitants suffered from severe starvation. Andrew himself lost 86 cows belonging to his family. By August 1998, the war had spread to Nhialdiu. The violence escalated even further when troops led by Paulino Matiep returned to Nhorbor in September 1999. Allegedly, the Matiep soldiers received ammunition from the government. As Andrew related these events, prosecutor Ewa Korpi appeared to struggle with placing the attacks in chronological order.
Atrocities in Nhialdiu
When asked to elaborate on the attack in Nhialdiu, Andrew stated that the troops arrived during nighttime. This was in accordance with the testimony of previous plaintiffs, who had also described the surprise attacks as a warfare tactic. The violence became even more brutal. Elderly people were locked in their homes while the ground troops set fire to the houses. Civilians were displaced from the area, fleeing to the nearby forest. Approximately 42 people lost their lives. According to Andrew, the inhabitants, suffering from severe starvation, considered eating the dead cows laying on the ground. However, when they discovered that the remains of the cows were mixed with human remains, they abstained.
During the rainy season in April 2000, Andrew’s family decided to flee to Andrew’s brother in Bentiu, along with their relatives. Andrew had recently become a parent and carried his toddler while walking through heavy rain. The only food available was waterlilies and fish. It was during this time that Andrew became familiar with the distinctive sound of the Antonov planes. When they heard this sound, people instantly began running, seeking protection from the bombs they knew were coming.
Prosecutor Ewa Korpi then asked Andrew to give further details regarding the Antonov attack in Nhorbor. He testified that when he returned to Nhorbor, there was nothing left. Andrew found undetonated bombs, which he described as dark blue barrels and which the inhabitants surrounded with trees that they had cut down, to protect themselves from bomb shrapnel. Andrew suddenly became emotional when speaking of a specific event. He testified that he had seen a pregnant woman being “cut in half” by bomb shrapnel. Before she died, Andrew had screamed, warning her of an Antonov plane approaching. At this point in his testimony, Andrew burst into tears. His counsel, Percy Bratt, put his hand on Andrew’s shoulder, comforting him. The prosecutor suggested that the hearing could resume the following day, noting that the prosecution would be able to use some of the time allotted for questioning by the plaintiff’s counsel. Alexandre Schneiter’s lawyer Per E. Samuelsson broke in, stating that the defense objected to the proposed schedule change. This objection appeared remarkably cold given that the plaintiff was openly sobbing at this point. Judge Zander asked the parties to leave the courtroom while he evaluated the situation.
After the short break, Judge Zander asked Andrew if he felt comfortable continuing for the last hour of the day’s hearing, to which Andrew replied yes. The plaintiff’s counsel, Karl Harling, then broke in, stating that he perceived Andrew as being too emotionally exhausted to continue. Despite this, Judge Zander decided that the hearing would continue as scheduled.
Working for Lundin Oil
In September 2001, Andrew was employed by Lundin Oil, working as a radio operator. Andrew stressed that he was unaware that Lundin Oil had a connection to the killings when he started the job. Last week’s witness, Stephen Gatlueng Kuoh, was already employed there when Andrew started. Andrew’s main task was to be responsible for the communication between the base camp and the deployed cars used by the militias. Furthermore, Andrew took notes regarding everyone that entered and left the camp. The notes were later sent to the managers responsible for the base camp, usually by fax.
The prosecution now focused on the radio correspondence, asking about the equipment. Andrew explained he had a small radio and that only employees in possession of a radio had access to the communications between the militias and the company. On one occasion in 2002, Andrew witnessed Paulino Matiep and the manager Seliman Biel arriving at the base camp late at night. According to Andrew, Seliman Biel carried a bag filled with bundles of dinar bills and asked Andrew to keep an eye on the bag while he went to the bathroom. The money had arrived by planes from Khartoum, which Andrew knew because he managed the communications with the planes. Andrew saw when the money was handed over from the planes. The regime-led Matiep militias collected the money. Furthermore, from his office, Andrew could also see gunships being refuelled during the night.
Obstructing the course of justice
The prosecution’s attempt to conclude the main hearing on schedule turned out to be unsuccessful as Andrew suddenly began testifying about circumstances relevant to the parallel case regarding obstructing the course of justice.
This part of Andrew’s testimony was particularly fragmented and unclear as he did not go into much detail or provide thorough explanations. Andrew alleged that two representatives from Lundin Oil, Mark Redding and a women named Margaret, searched for him for six or seven months. Unsure of their agenda, Andrew avoided them. Andrew was later approached by an acquaintance named Isaac Ramadan. Isaac asked Andrew if white people had tried to approach him, to which he replied yes. Isaac then warned Andrew that the representatives of the company would threaten him to coerce him not to participate in the case. According to Isaac, Andrew would be offered 250 000 dollars and housing for his children in exchange for not participating. The prosecution concluded the hearing by asking if Andrew had been influenced to be untruthful. Andrew answered that he had participated today to tell the truth, stating that no one could affect him.
Questioning led by Per E. Samuelsson
On the second day of the hearing, it was time for Per E. Samuelsson to lead the cross-examination on behalf of Alexandre Schneiter’s defense team. Moreover, prosecutor Henrik Attorps had returned to Courtroom 34. During this phase of the trial, he has tended to be present during the defense’s cross-examination of plaintiffs who have made what seem to be significant observations, including observations that particularly strengthen the indictment.
Per E. Samuelsson asked Andrew to elaborate on his acquaintaince with rebel leader Riek Machar. Andrew stated that he had been arrested by Riek Machar when he was recruited by the SPLA. Per E. Samuelsson appeared confused – how could he have been arrested by his ally? Andrew explained that he had been forcibly recruited by Riek Machar and was later arrested when he expressed his intention to leave. When asked if he had received information regarding Lundin Oil being responsible for the armed conflict, Andrew responded that he had heard that oil companies were responsible, although he did not get more detailed information. As the courtroom’s projector screens were lowered, Samuelsson claimed that Andrew had given conflicting information in the investigation.
When it became clear that the defense was presenting their own translation of the transcript of Andrew’s interrogation, Henrik Attorps objected, arguing that it was procedurally incorrect to use material that had not been submitted in advance. This led to an argument between the parties. Per E. Samuelsson stated that they had simply translated the parts of the audio recording of the interrogation that were inaudible, adding that the prosecution could go through the tapes themselves if they wanted to. Attorps responded: “Or you could just submit what you are supposed to submit?” Judge Zander ended the discussion, deciding it was time for a short break while he made a decision.
The atmosphere was tense when everyone returned from the break. Judge Zander was quiet for a few seconds before stating that the defense would be allowed to play the audio recordings for the court if they wished to refer to specific quotes. Since the defense had not prepared the recordings, they relied on the original investigation transcripts. The defense presented an extract where Andrew, according to the defense, had mentioned Lundin Oil’s connection to the war. The quote appeared very unclear when read out loud by the English translators “Lundin is starting operation and we… I don’t know the.. of that, there is a Lundin… because I know Lundin when I went to Lundin. I don’t know Lundin is the one who.. that cause of fighting. I did not have fear at that time.” Judge Zander questioned why the defense was claiming that this was a contradictory statement. He stated that this quote actually confirmed what Andrew had said today, rather than how the defense had interpreted it. He instructed the defense to ask the question directly to Andrew rather than referring to the quote. As he had previously mentioned, Andrew answered that he only had heard of an oil company being involved, he was not aware that Lundin Oil was responsible.
After the morning break, Per E. Samuelsson expressed his concern about not being permitted to show their translation of the investigation transcripts. Judge Zander then asked the prosecution for their standpoint, which led to a dispute between Henrik Attorps and Per E. Samuelsson over the rules of procedure. Suddenly, Judge Zander appeared to lose his patience, saying sharply: “Do not quarrel in the courtroom. Do not address each other directly, you address me.” Ultimately Judge Zander ruled that the defense could use their translations of the transcripts if they also presented the audio recordings.
The defense continued their cross-examination, focusing on Andrew’s concern regarding what he saw as his low salary at the company. Per E. Samuelsson brought up a specific event in which Andrew wanted to fly on the company plane to the nearest hospital because he had a severe stomach-ache, but his manager, Jeff Fergusson, did not allow it. This part of the cross-examination was in line with the defense’s broader strategy of implying that there was a major conflict between the plaintiffs who were previous Lundin Oil employees and the company. The goal seemed to be to portray the plaintiffs’ participation in the case as being rooted in revenge – and thereby to undermine their credibility as witnesses.
Andrew told the court about being brutally abused by the security services hired by the company, which resulted in him being unable to hear for three months. He feared that if he left his job at the company, he would be stalked by the national security forces. He had no option but to stay. Per E. Samuelsson’s follow-up question was rather humorous given the context: “So, you think you were badly treated?” To which Andrew responded: “Yes.”
After the lunch break, the defense continued with their cross-examination. As Per E. Samuelsson set up their presentation, the courtroom could see the background picture on his laptop, which consisted of flamingos on a pink background. “It wasn’t me that chose this background picture,” said Samuelsson. “You have to admit it, you simply like flamingos,” said Judge Zander, laughing. After those few moments of frivolity, the atmosphere became tense. The defense suddenly accused Andrew of demanding money to testify on behalf of the company, presenting a note that appeared to show that Andrew had asked for money to testify for Lundin Oil. This note was sent to a prosecutor in Juba. Andrew admitted to writing the note, claiming he was threatened. As he attempted to clarify the situation, Samuelsson turned towards Judge Zander, asking him to give the floor to Ian Lundin’s defense, seemingly wanting to stop the plaintiff from explaining further.
Torgny Wetterberg concluded the cross-examination by asking about the company’s seismic activities, questioning the time periods that Andrew had mentioned. At the end of his questioning, Torgny Wetterberg turned to the prosecution, asking if it was undisputed that it was Petronas that had carried out all seismic activities between the years 2002 and 2003. Henrik Attorps leaned towards the microphone with his arms crossed, saying rapidly that it had been a long day and they would return to that issue. Prosecutor Ewa Korpi held a brief re-direct in which she pointed out that Andrew had informed the Swedish police about the handwritten note as part of the parallel case regarding obstruction of justice. When asked if he had ever received any money, Andrew replied no. According to Andrew, he had asked for the note back since he regretted writing it.
Next week’s report
Next week’s report will cover the testimony of the eighteenth and nineteenth plaintiffs, Bol Maker Kor and Sara Nial Dual Diu.
