Report 35 – The testimonies of plaintiffs Cure Gatdet Dhor & Lam Puak Triguar
This week’s hearing was distinguished by one of the plaintiffs being unlawfully detained at the passport control in Kigali. As a result, plaintiff’s counsel Anders Sjögren arrived at the detention facility to have him released. Similar to earlier hearings, the prosecution and the defense had an argument regarding the procedural arrangement of how to present the investigation correctly.
Hearing with Cure Gatdet Dhor
The hearing on the 15th of October started with a discussion regarding the procedural arrangement of the trial.
Chief prosecutor Henrik Attorps objected to the supplementary evidence submitted by the defense the previous day. Alexandre Schneiter’s defense team had submitted the defense’s own translation of the primary investigation. Attorps stressed that allowing the evidence would be a violation of the principle of orality. After a short discussion between the parties, Judge Zander connected the participants from Kigali, who appeared on the presentation screens. As the hearing was about to start, one of the Nuer interpreters zoomed in a bit too close to the plaintiff’s face. Since it was impossible to zoom out once zoomed in, Judge Zander had to restart the process. After this slight delay, the hearing could finally start.
Judge Zander started by welcoming the plaintiff, then gave the floor to prosecutor Martina Winslow. In accordance with the usual procedure, the questioning began with asking the plaintiff to speak of his background. Compared to the previous plaintiffs, Cure Gadet’s testimony turned out to be remarkably detailed. In addition, Cure appeared very confident in his statements throughout the entire testimony.
Cure Gatdet Dhor Pech was born in 1972 in a small village called Ker, situated in Rubkona County. In 1997, Cure and his family lived in Mankwai, northeast of Rubkona County. In addition to Nuer, Cure speaks English and Arabic. Cure was the oldest of five siblings, but clarified in his testimony that he was unaware of the siblings’ exact ages since it is not common in the Nuer culture to focus on dates of birth. The family lived a peaceful life in Mankwai with their settlement and herd of cattle, which consisted of over one hundred cows. Cure stated that he attended school until the peace came to an end in 1997.
Aerial bombardment in Mankwai
Cure continued his story, stating that life became difficult in 1997 when regime-allied militia leader Paulino Matiep came into conflict with Peter Gadet, the rebel leader of SPLA. The prosecution asked how life was before the war started, seemingly wanting to elicit more details before addressing the attacks. Cure briefly explained that the family received necessities from the UN aid mission before continuing to speak of the attack.
As the violence intensified with gunship and Antonov attacks, Cure lost two family members. Cure’s younger sister was shot in the back as she was running to seek protection and was instantly killed. As the rest of the family was still in urgent danger, they were forced to leave her body behind. When asked what age his sister was at the time of her death, Cure replied that she was old enough to walk by herself.
During his escape, Cure himself was shot in the knee, possibly by a gunship considering the form of the wound. He was unsure since he ran and did not see what was happening behind him. According to Cure, the injury could also have been caused by ground troops who were shooting at the fleeing civilians. Although he was severely injured, he continued running until he reached safety. Cure’s father was shot in the chest by ground forces. Cure and his remaining siblings carried their wounded father to Nyieng, where he later died. Cure thoroughly counted all the villages they passed during their walk.
Air strikes in Nyieng
When asked to elaborate on the aerial bombardment, Cure explained that the Antonov planes dropped barrels that exploded. The inhabitants knew when the planes were coming because they had a distinct sound. When they heard the approaching planes, the civilians ran to hide in holes in the ground and under trees. Cure further explained that the gunships were helicopters that flew close to the ground in order to target civilians. Cure had experienced gunship attacks himself in Mankwai before walking to Nyieng. Prosecutor Winslow asked how many times Cure had experienced gunships attacks in Nyieng, to which Cure replied that he was unable to count the number of times, seemingly implying that it happened frequently.
Cure emphasized that he experienced the attack personally, saying that it was Sudanese government and the militias carrying out the attacks. When the prosecution asked what clothes the soldiers wore, Cure stated that they usually had green uniforms of different colours. Some of them wore civilian clothing.
When he arrived in Nhialdiu in 1999, there was nothing left. Since the hospitals in Nhialdiu were destroyed, Cure could not obtain medical care for his wounds. Luckily, the injury healed by itself. Cure continued to Leer with other civilians, walking along a big road. Cure described this by saying that they were not allowed to cross the road during the daytime – civilians who were caught walking on the road were instantly killed by the soldiers guarding it.
The prosecution continued the questioning by asking Cure to provide more details the attacks by Gadet and Matiep when they fought against the SPLA. Did Cure know why the conflict started? Cure explained that he heard of a company being present in the area. They company did not like civilians being in the area since there was oil in the ground. Cure clarified that he knew this because people in the area spoke of it, talking about the construction of a road from Rubkona to Leer and Kuach. According to him, the road construction correlated with the attacks since the government and the company collaborated. Cure knew this since the areas controlled by the government were later subject to oil exploration by the companies.
The road construction
After lunch, the prosecution focused on the road construction, asking about the road that Cure had described. Allegedly, the construction of the road started in 1997. The militias used the road between 1999 until 2001. The prosecution asked who had a conflict, to which Cure replied that it was the Sudanese government together with regime-led militias on one side, and Peter Gadet and Peter Paar (SPLA) on the other. Cure clarified that they received information regarding the road construction from the SPLA, highlighting he had not gotten this information himself. The prosecution concluded the main hearing by asking questions about the geographical placement of different nearby villages, seemingly to strengthen the plaintiff’s credibility.
Plaintiff’s counsel Anders Sjögren asked a few complementary questions, for instance when during the year the rainy period occurs, to which Cure explained that it was from May until October. During the questioning, it became clear that the Medecins Sans Frontiers (MSF) camp in Duar was burned to the ground by the Sudanese government, together with Paulino Matiep. Cure also mentioned that troops led by Riek Machar were present in Block 5A during this time period.
Cross-examination by Per E. Samuelsson
The defense’s cross-examination began on the 15th of October, starting with Alexandre Schneiter’s defense team. Per E. Samuelsson initiated the examination by asking Cure to elaborate on what he meant by rebels. Cure mentioned the SPLA led by John Garang, Peter Gadet, Riek Machar, Peter Paar, and Tito Biel. When Samuelsson asked if he sympathized with the rebels and if the local inhabitants gave the rebels food, Cure replied that he did sympathize with them, but that they did not give them food. When Samuelsson presented an extract from the investigation in which Cure had stated the opposite, Cure explained that the rebels forcibly stole food from them.
The questioning then switched focus to the bombings and how often they occurred. Cure was unable to specify how often the bombings happened, although he stated that the attacks were carried out systematically. Samuelsson then confronted Cure with a contradiction from the investigation, where Cure had said that helicopters arrived in groups of three and carried out attacks on a daily basis for two years. Cure confirmed his statements made in the investigation. Samuelsson then said: “This must mean that thousands of bombs were dropped in your village?” Cure explained that it happened in different areas and that he was referring to the entire Bentiu area. According to Cure, the troops had their headquarters in Bentiu. Naturally, they did not bomb in, or near, that area. When asked why they wanted to bomb in Mankwai, Cure answered that they were not so pleased that the civilians lived there. Cure knew for sure that they did not want villagers to be present in the villages in Block 5A – the government did not want civilians living near Rubkona.
During the cross-examination, it became clear that Cure had stated during the investigation that the attack in which his sister was killed happened in Nhialdiu, rather than in Mankwai as he stated during the day’s hearing. According to the statements he made during the investigation, Cure was wounded in his knee from bomb shrapnel from Antonov bombings. Samuelsson claimed that this was a clear contradiction to his present testimony. When the extracts where presented, Cure appeared to be genuinely surprised, saying that he meant Mankwai, not Nhialdiu. Cure explained: “By that time [seemingly referring to the investigation], we were deeply affected by the events, we were like dead people because of the starvation and systematically being attacked. Even by telling this know, I feel very sad.” Samuelsson continued questioning why Cure had made this contradictory statements. Suddenly, Cure seemed to change his mind, instead claiming that the attack happened in Nhialdiu. When asked by Judge Zander to clarify, Cure explained that he was surprised that he had said Nhialdiu. As he recalls it today, it happened in Mankwai, not in Nhialdiu.
After lunch, Samuelsson continued the cross-examination, asking if Cure and his family ever reached Male. Cure replied that they took another way around Male. They did not reach Male since Lundin Oil had oil operations there. Cure explained that the government militias killed civilians in Male so that the company could do the oil prospecting. Therefore, they did not go to Male. According to Samuelsson, however, Cure had stated in the police investigation that he and his family lived in Male for two months. Cure explained that he had been misunderstood and that he meant outside Male. Prosecutor Martina Winslow broke in, stressing that Samuelsson must read the entire page of the investigation for context, rather than excluding some parts. This became confusing for the plaintiff. Samuelsson replied: “Calm down, calm down. I am doing this at my pace. My questionings are unlike yours.”
Samuelsson then displayed a picture of an oil rig in Male, asking if Cure could see the light of the rig as he was being subjected to bombardments. Cure explained that gunships carried out attacks, although they were not directly affected since the attacks took place nearby. Cure added that Male was a big area, and that the regime carried out attacks near where companies operated since they did not want civilians to disturb their prospecting. According to Cure, everyone who lived nearby where displaced. When Cure said this, Samuelsson presented a photograph of the oil rig surrounded by nearby busses with people while saying: “How can you explain this?” Cure replied: “I would say that if there were civilians there, they would probably be with the militias. The people living in Bentiu and Rubkona had no issues with the government and militias. It is civilians with the militias.”
Prosecutor Winslow broke in again, asking when the picture was taken. Samuelsson replied that it was from April 2001. Winslow then said to the defense: “Don’t you think it would be appropriate to inform the plaintiff of that information?” Samuelsson replied: “I put that information in the statement of fact,” to which Winslow replied: “He was not present at that time.” “Stop arguing,” said Judge Zander, firmly ending the conversation.
Samuelsson then showed a picture of the road with civilians walking on it, allegedly from April 2001. Cure stated that he did not recognize the picture shown. When he had walked along the road, people ran for their lives. Cure nodded at the picture, saying: “These people are not our people. Also, the trees in the picture do not look like our trees. Why do you not show the pictures of the places that were burned down? You only show pictures of the few places that were not?”
With that, the hearing with Cure Gatdet was concluded.
Hearing with Lam Puak Triguar
On the 17th of October, it was time for plaintiff Lam Puak Triguar to give his testimony. Judge Zander welcomed Lam Puak and apologized for not pronouncing his name correctly. Lam Puak replied by saying: “We are used to see your name and hear of you.” “That’s nice,” said Judge Zander, and explained that Lam had been called by the prosecution to be heard about the events in Block 5A during the relevant time period.
Instead of proceeding as usual, plaintiff’s counsel Anders Sjögren stated that he had some information to share. He explained that when Lam Puak had arrived at passport control at the Kigali airport, the authorities seized his phone and arrested him. The alleged legal grounds for the detention were that they did not understand the purpose of his visit to Rwanda. Sjögren explained that Lam Puak was released early in the morning when Sjögren arrived at the detention facility. Since Lam Puak was tired after this experience, it might affect his ability to testify. Sjögren asked the parties to take this into consideration during the hearing. Judge Zander expressed his sympathies to Lam Puak, adding that Lam Puak should inform the Court if he needed to take a break.
Prosecutor Martina Winslow started the main hearing by introducing herself. Lam Puak was then asked to speak briefly of his background. Lam Puak Triguar was born in 1995 in Nhialdiu, Rubkona County. He grew up with his seven sisters, four brothers, and his parents. The family belonged to the sub-Nuer tribe called Chienyamal. When asked what he remembered of his childhood in Nhialdiu, Lam Puak explained that the military entered Nhialdiu with ground and air forces. The family was displaced to Biel, fleeing to the rivers Luk and Ganj.
Since there was troops present, they continued to Nyong, an area called Tsira in Bentiu, where they stayed at Lam Puak’s uncle’s house. When the ground forces entered the area, the soldiers tried to force Lam Puak’s uncle to set fire to his own house, handling him a lit match. When his uncle refused, the soldiers burned the house to the ground. According to Lam Puak, his uncle had told the soldiers: “I cannot burn down a house that I have built myself. I am not capable.”
Lam Puak testified that the soldiers were heavily armed, killing inhabitants and plundering cattle. All of the inhabitants were displaced to the wilderness. They fled to an area called Thoarkiel, where the family was subjected to aerial bombardments. Lam Puak was warned not to wear red and black clothes, to avoid being caught. Suddenly, Lam Puak expressed he is tired and needs to take a break.
After the break, the prosecution asked Lam Puak to continue explaining what happened after Thoarkiel. According to Lam Puak, the regime-led soldiers reached that area as well and executed attacks through ground and air forces. Once again, the family was forced to flee, this time to Rubkona.
The family stayed in Rubkona for a few months, later returning to their old village in Nhialdiu. During their escape, Lam Puak’s sister was killed in an attack. When asked how old she was when she died, and where the incident occurred, Lam Puak stated that it happened behind their house. Unsure of her age, Lam Puak explained that his sister was old enough to walk by herself.
Martina Winslow broke in, asking who the soldiers that carried out the first attack were. Lam Puak explained that they were Arabs, seemingly referring to the troops led by Omar Al Bashir. When asked what year this happened, Lam Puak explained that he has heard it was in 2002.
Furthermore, Lam Puak elaborated on what happened during the aerial bombardment, explaining that it happened during the dry period in Biel, near the road. When the airplanes dropped the bombs, civilians had no opportunity to protect themselves. The planes that bombed were the same colour as the military uniforms. When the bomb “spread”, the shrapnel killed local inhabitants and cattle.
When asked if he remember how long it took for his family to reach Thoarkiel, Lam Puak answered a few days. Winslow seemed to struggle to place the villages and the attacks in chronological order. Lam Puak continued, stating that the bombs dropped outside people’s houses in Thoarkiel, although they did not detonate instantly. Therefore, no one was killed since the area quickly emptied as people fled. According to Lam Puak, what he described as the “vehicles” dropping the bombs had a distinct sound that civilians recognized. When asked if the bombs were dropped from the air or on the ground, Lam Puak answered the air, adding that the vehicles flew very close to the ground. Lam Puak stressed that he had not discussed this event with his parents since he has not seen them for over ten years.
Martina Winslow then turned to the parallel case regarding obstructing the course of justice. When asked if he had been pressured by anyone to testify in a certain way, Lam Puak replied that he was threatened when “they” became aware that he was going to testify. Some of the witnesses had fled to the west since they were threatened – Lam Puak himself had thought about escaping Juba. Winslow then asked if these threats had affected Lam Puak’s testimony today. Lam Puak answered that if “they” find out about his participation, there will be consequences.
Cross-examination by Ian Lundin’s defense
After the lunch break, the defense began the cross-examination, which turned out to consist of reading remarkably long passages from the police investigation transcripts. Ian Lundin’s counsel Torgny Wetterberg started by repeating some of the events mentioned by the plaintiff.
Wetterberg asked if it was correct that Lam Puak’s father was with him when he fled to Thoar Kiel, not his mother. Furthermore, Lam Puak was ten years old by the time he reached Nhialdiu. When Lam Puak confirmed these statements, Wetterberg replied: “There is a concern – almost everything you have said is contradictory to the statements made in Nairobi in 2016. We will go through some of these.” The transcript was displayed on the projector screens as Wetterberg began reading.
According to the transcript, Lam Puak had stated that he lived in Biel while growing up, not in Nhialdiu. Lam Puak smiled while pointing towards the documents, asking what document he referred to, to which Wetterberg replied that it was the investigation from 2016. Lam Puak claimed that the interpreter was angry at him, although he was unsure as to why. He testified that he has never stated that he lived in Biel.
Wetterberg then read the description that Lam Puak gave during the investigation regarding the family’s displacement from Biel (not Nhialdiu). It became clear that Lam Puak had claimed that he had fled to Bentiu, where he went to school for four years. When given the opportunity to comment, Lam Puak stated that the investigation transcript was wrong and that the interpreter had misunderstood. Wetterberg then pointed out that the defense had access to the recordings from the investigation.
Furthermore, Lam Puak had stated that his father was left in Biel when the family was displaced, and that he did not know the cause of his father’s death. The children had fled with their mother. This was a clear contradiction to the statements made now during the hearing. When given the opportunity to comment, Lam Puak replied that his father died in 2014.
Lastly, plaintiff’s counsel Anders Sjögren was given the floor. In the courtroom in Kigali, Sjögren turned towards Lam Puak, asking if he had been given the opportunity to read the transcript of the investigation, and if he had been offered a chance to listen the recordings. Lam Puak replied no. Sjögren’s short questioning was followed by Judge Zander expressing his gratitude to Lam Puak for participating, especially considering the circumstances of his recent detention “Thank you, I am very happy and thankful,” said Lam Puak. With that, the hearing with Lam Puak Tiguar concluded.
Next report
The next report will cover the testimony of Stephen Matut Gatpan, the 28th plaintiff in the case against Lundin Oil at Stockholm District Court.
