Report 34 – Testimony of the plaintiffs Angelina Nyazoala Joel and Samuel Gatjang Deng Kot
Unlike the previous hearings, this week’s plaintiffs were heard via video link from Kigali, Rwanda. The examinations were characterized by the difficulties the plaintiffs had in placing the alleged events in chronological order. When it was time for the cross-examinations, the defense had very few, or no, questions. This appeared to be in line with their overall strategy to undermine the plaintiffs’ credibility.
Hearing with plaintiff Angelina Nyazoala Joel
On Tuesday the 9th of October, it was time for plaintiff Angelina Nyazoala Joel to share her testimony via video-link from Kigali. The plaintiff’s face appeared on the four large presentation screens, which slowly descended from the ceiling. Ian Lundin was also visible on screen as he joined from Geneva. Plaintiff’s counsel Anders Sjögren, together with the Nuer interpreters, also participated from Kigali – everyone else was present in Courtroom 34.
When the main hearing started, Angelina Nyazoala Joel began by expressing her gratitude for being able to participate in the case. After going through the formalities, Judge Zander gave the floor to the prosecution, led by prosecutor Ewa Korpi. The prosecution started their direct examination by asking Angelina to speak of her background.
Angelina Nyazoala Joel was born around 1968, although she admitted to being unsure of the exact year since she never had the opportunity to go to school. Therefore, she is illiterate and unable to count. The fact that Angelina was unable to count turned out to be a challenge for the prosecution in terms of placing the events she described in chronological order to match the allegations in the indictment.
Angelina stated that she was born in a village called Gawjal, adjacent to the nearby villages Chotyiel and Thoar. When the parties appeared confused, Angelina continued, explaining that the area is situated between Bentiu and Duar. When asked about her situation in 1997, Angelina stated that she was married and had children. Angelina’s family lived a peaceful life, tending their settlement and cattle.
Air strikes against Gawjal, Chotyiel, and Thoar
The prosecution then asked Angelina to describe how the peace came to an end in 1997. Angelina stated that men invaded the area, plundering settlements and cattle. When asked who the men were, Angelina described them as Arab men dressed in black clothes, which seemed to refer to soldiers led by Omar al-Bashir. According to Angelina, the purpose of the black clothing was to make the soldiers unrecognizable. When asked what exact year the soldiers entered the area, Angelina replied 1976. Surprisingly, the prosecution did not ask further questions regarding the year, possibly because her response was obviously incorrect, but also given the context of Angelina being unable to count
Angelina stated that the rebel group Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) arrived in the area in heavily armed vehicles. Additionally, ground forces led by Paulino Matiep arrived from Bentiu. The local inhabitants were warned by letter that the troops were coming. In the ensuing fighting between the groups, the SPLM conquered Matiep’s soldiers. As a result of the attack, the local inhabitants were displaced to a swamp.
As the court was about to stop for a break, Alexandre Schneiter’s counsel Olle Kullinger suddenly broke in, asking to see a panorama picture of the courtroom in Kigali and wanting to know whose voice could be heard during the examination, seemingly implying that someone who was not supposed to be there was present in the courtroom. Judge Zander replied sharply: “One: Miriam [referring to his colleague present in Kigali to keep the minutes] is my extended arm in Kigali. Two: once you have zoomed out, you cannot zoom in. So, it’s not possible.” Judge Zander then continued saying: “Miriam, there is a suspicion that this is not being done correctly,” obviously disturbed by the defense’s apparent lack of trust. The discussion ended with the defense accepting the circumstances.
Atrocities in Borbor
After the discussion, Ewa Korpi asked Angelina to continue. Angelina stated that the ground forces targeted civilians, but that air strikes were also carried out. After being defeated by the SPLM, Matiep’s soldiers withdrew from the area. When asked to elaborate on the aerial bombardment, Angelina explained that it started in Kuach before reaching Gawjal. Civilians were killed by bomb shrapnel. Ewa Korpi seemed to struggle with Angelina’s response that “the bombs fell from the sky.” After repeating the question several times, evidently trying to get Angelina to say that planes dropped the bombs, she asked Angelina directly if the bombs fell from the sky, to which Angelina replied yes. The representatives from the company shook their heads, clearly perceiving the question as leading. The atmosphere suddenly intensified when Judge Zander interrupted Angelina’s testimony, turning towards the defense asking: “Is something funny at Alexandre Schneiter’s bench? Laughing during a plaintiff’s questioning is highly inappropriate – stop it.”
Angelina continued testifying, stating she witnessed a child being hit by a bomb. When the body was found, the child’s head, legs and arms were separated from the body. Angelina and her family had been displaced to a swamp area called Borbor, approximately one and a half hours from Gawjal. The only food they could find was waterlilies and fish. When the SPLM soldiers reached Borbor, the area was being bombed. Angelina’s two sons, only four and six years old, were killed by the bombings. She found her sons’ bodies in the same condition as that of the child she had found earlier: their limbs had been blown off their bodies. Throughout her testimony, and her description of the brutal killings and atrocities she had witnessed, Angelina had been calm and collected. Even upon reaching this particularly sensitive point in her testimony, Angelina remained remarkably composed.
Air strikes against swamps in Kwergang
Angelina and her family continued to Kwergang. They reached the village only to find that the area was being subjected to further air strikes. The planes were reportedly targeted civilians, especially Christians. The white planes flew high, dropping barrels that detonated upon impact. Angelina witnessed six people being killed from the barrels. One of them was her cousin. The survivors collected the bodies that were not destroyed by the bombings buried them. Angelina’s family lost their settlement when they were again displaced from the area by militias. Angelina estimated that she was subjected to bombardments for four years in total. Her family continued to another swamp area called Biel, situated between Bentiu and Nimne. During their two weeks in Biel, their only subsistence was waterlilies.
Angelina further described how she had been attacked by gunships. Unlike the bomber planes, the gunships flew very close to the ground to target civilians. When the prosecution asked during what time period and where this happened, Angelina seemed to misunderstand, instead repeatedly describing how the gunships attacked civilians. After the prosecution repeated the questions several times, Angelina responded that the attack had been in Thoar. The prosecution tried placing the attacks in chronological order, using the fighting between Matiep and the SPLM as a point of reference. Angelina stated that the attacks happened irregularly, but systematically. Suddenly, Ian Lundin’s face disappeared from the courtroom screen. “My bad,” he said when he finally reappeared. This marked the fifth time the link to Kigali had been lost during the day’s hearing.
When the hearing continued on the 9th of October, the prosecution started their redirect by asking Angelina if it was possible that there might be some detail that she had forgotten regarding how long she stayed in Kwergang. Angelina replied that her family suffered in the swamp areas near Kwergang, and that they stayed there for two weeks. The prosecution then referred to a contradictory statement she had made in 2017 during the investigation. According to the extract presented, Angelina had claimed that she stayed in Kwergang for three years, which deviated from the two weeks that she mentioned during the previous day’s questioning. The interpreter must have misunderstood when translating during the investigation, said Angelina when confronted with this statement.
Plaintiff’s counsel Anders Sjögren asked Angelina to give additional details about of the family’s settlement, to which she said that they had had thirty cows and a luak. The luak was burned during one of the attacks. Sjögren then asked if they had had an opportunity to defend themselves – to which she replied that the local inhabitants fled where they could, running for their lives.
When the floor was given to the defense, neither Ian Lundin’s counsel Torgny Wetterberg nor Alexandre’s Schneiter’s counsel Per E. Samuelsson had any questions. Judge Zander concluded the day by thanking Angelina for participating in the case. Angelina expressed her gratitude to the court and the parties, saying that she was glad to finally see everybody.
Hearing with Samuel Gatjang Deng Kot
On Thursday the 10th of October, Samuel Gatjang Deng Kot was the next plaintiff to give testimony. When the hearing started, Samuel Gatjang Deng Kot face appeared next to his counsel Anders Sjögren and the Nuer interpreters on the large screens in the courtroom. Judge Zander began the hearing by introducing himself and the court to the plaintiff. Afterwards, the floor was given to the prosecution, today led by prosecutor Annika Wennerström. As with previous plaintiffs, Samuel was asked to speak of his background. Today, this part was done through a series of questions from the prosecution, rather than the usual arrangement where the prosecution let the plaintiff speak freely.
Samuel Gatjang Deng Kot was born in 1990 in Jagei, Kuach County. Samuel explained that Jagei was divided in four parts and the part where Samuel lived was called Jaak. The highest leader in the area was the SPLA commander Peter Gadet.
Samuel’s family consisted of his mother, his uncles, cousins, and his three siblings. When asked to describe his childhood, Samuel stated that he had a difficult time growing up. The family lost their settlement and cattle during the recurring fighting between Gadet and opposing militia groups. When asked what he meant by that, Samuel stated that the rebel troops that fought against Gadet were the South Sudan Independence Movement (SSIM) and South Sudan United Movement (SSUM), although he admitted that he was unsure.
In 1997, ground forces led by Rup Nagai and Peter Gadet were present in the area. As part of their strategy to gain control over Kuach, they plundered cattle and attacked local settlements. Furthermore, the oil company Chevron was also present in the area, building roads. When the UN aid mission reached Kuach in 2004, Samuel was finally given the opportunity to start his studies.
Aerial bombardment in Mir Mir
Samuel recalled experiencing Antonov and gunship attacks sometime during 2000 to 2003. Samuel and his family were displaced to a village called Mir Mir, where they were told they would receive supplies and food from the UN aid mission there. However, when they arrived in Mir Mir, Samuel’s family was subjected to gunship attacks. The prosecution asked Samuel to elaborate, leading him to explain that the camouflaged gunships flew very close to the ground. He described the helicopters opening fire on civilians, who had no opportunity to defend themselves. Many people were injured and killed, and Samuel himself lost his uncle in the attack.
Samuel then testified about being attacked by Antonov planes during the harvesting period. Although he was unsure of the year, Samuel placed the attack before the gunship attack was carried out. He said that the Antonov planes had a distinct sound, unique amongst the many planes circulating in the area. When they heard that sound, the locals immediately fled, seeking protection. Samuel witnessed one bomb landing, although it did not detonate instantly. The Antonov attacks happened in several villages, such as Bauw and Koch, all of which Samuel said that he had witnessed personally. When asked if he was aware of the purpose of the attacks, Samuel said that the attacked meant that the people were not allowed to stay in their villages, which affected them negatively.
When asked who were responsible for the attack, Samuel responded it was the “Arabs,” seemingly referring to the troops led by military officer Omar al-Bashir. Allegedly, the Arabs did not only attack civilians, they also attacked the troops led by Peter Gadet. Samuel then mentioned that at the age eleven, he was forcibly recruited in the village Gang to be a child solider. When the prosecution did not ask for further details about this, Samuel continued, stating that he walked to Leer upon being released, later continuing to a swamp area called Thornyor where he stayed for four months. After some time, Samuel fled to Kakuma in Kenya.
The road construction
The prosecution then wanted Samuel to elaborate on what he meant when he said that Chevron was present in the area. According to Samuel, the roads were built without consent from the inhabitants living in the affected area. If the inhabitants protested, they were targeted and killed by the Arabs through aerial bombardment. The oil drilling process followed specific steps: a bulldozer made the ground even, followed by a machine that dug holes, and then later drilling in the holes where the pipelines were to be placed. Samuel stated that he was not aware of which companies were present during the time and only later learned that it was Lundin, Chevron and Espoc.
The prosecution concluded their questioning by asking if Samuel knew any of the other plaintiffs or witnesses in the case. Seemingly miscomprehending the question, Samuel responded: “If we tell truth, we get trouble from other people in the society. I am afraid since participating in this trial.” Surprisingly, the prosecution did not ask any questions regarding the parallel case involving obstructing the course of justice.
When returning after lunch, plaintiff’s counsel Anders Sjögren asked additional questions regarding Samuel’s background, initially asking him to speak of his father. Samuel explained that his father was a chief in a village called Kwei. His main tasks were to solve conflicts that arose in the area, but also to collect cows from convicted felons. The cows were then handed to the victims’ families. Sjögren then asked if Samuel knew of a man named Matthew Deng, whereby Samuel explained that he was a priest in Jagei when Samuel was a child. Sjögren’s purpose in asking these questions seemed to be to strengthen Samuel’s credibility by showing the court that Samuel knew specific people and circumstances from the relevant time period.
Cross-examination by the defense
Since Ian Lundin’s counsel Torgny Wetterberg did not have any questions, the floor was given to Alexandre Schneiter’s counsel, Per E. Samuelsson.
Per E. Samuelsson held a remarkably short cross-examination, which he initiated by asking if Samuel sought protection from the ground troops present in the area. Samuel stated that the local children, including himself, were close to some of the militias. As previously mentioned, these included the SSIM, SSUM and the Arabs. Samuel sought protection from the Arabs that did not plunder their settlement and cattle. It appeared the purpose of these questions was to show that Samuel in fact sympathized with some of the militias.
Furthermore, Samuel was confronted with the fact that he had not mentioned the attacks in which his relatives were killed during the investigation. Samuel replied that he did not tell the investigators about that out of fear. Samuelsson then asked Samuel to talk about his little brother who was poisoned. Samuel explained that his brother was poisoned by unsanitary water that was supposed to be carried to the road construction area. When this turned out to be Samuelsson’s final question, the purpose of his asking this question was very unclear.
Next report
Our next report will cover the testimony of the twenty-second and the twenty-third plaintiffs, Kur Gatdet Dhor & Lam Puak Triguar.
