Report 59 – The testimony of Christopher Chiangjal Bol

This week the court heard testimony from Christopher Chiangjal Bol. He appeared via video link, alongside Ian Lundin and Alexander Schneiter. The representatives of each party were present in court. Christopher told the court about his early life and the subsequent government attacks which displaced and killed civilians within the borders of Block 5A.  

The testimony of Christopher Chiangjal Bol 

Annika Wennerström, the prosecutor who led the examination in chief, opened the hearing by explaining that the questions would focus on Christopher’s experiences between 1999 and 2003, but that he would have the opportunity to speak more freely once the examination had concluded. Before the prosecution commenced their examination, they displayed three photographs on the four screens located in the courtroom. The images depicted a leg, from the knee and down, with a big scar located just below the knee. Christopher confirmed the three images were all of his left leg, the scar a reminder of the violence he experienced as a child. 

Background and relevant events 1999 – 2000 

Christopher told the court that he was born on 20 August 1989 in Tkuiruot, a village in the Bentiu area where he lived together with his family. He belongs to the Leek Nuer tribe of the same area. The village was small and situated by a river which connected to the Nile River, near Rupnagyai. He recalled that life in the village was simple until 1999, when the government of Sudan launched a violent attack against the villagers. Christopher told the court that the attack came from the ground and by air. Arriving at the village by boat, ground troops would fire their weapons at the villagers while Antonov planes and helicopters conducted aerial attacks from above. He said, “When this happened, it was not something we could stop and look at. They were killing and we had to run and escape from that place. We did not stop to watch.” The villagers would flee to the surrounding forest or hide amongst the corn fields in hopes of evading the attackers. The tactic of surprise attacks utilized by the Sudanese government would take civilians by surprise and render them unable to prepare, leading to significant harm to people and property.  

Christopher recalled that military attacks were constant. Sometimes they occurred twice a day and they would often be conducted in the early hours of the morning when civilians were the least prepared. When asked by Percy Bratt, counsel for the plaintiff, whether he could provide an estimate of how many attacks he had witnessed, he was unable to provide a number, only that there were many.  

The prosecution then asked Christopher about subsequent events, querying where he went after the attack. He told the court that his family, along with surviving villagers, fled to Nhialdiu, another village within Block 5A and the home of Peter Gadet’s headquarters. The court heard about the horrible wounds sustained by those who had survived, including gunshot wounds and missing legs, and how they had to get to Nhialdiu by foot as there was no other transportation available.  

Peter Gadet, who was an SPLA commander at the time, was often in conflict with the Sudanese government and government-allied militias such as the one led by Paulino Matiep.  Christopher recalled a violent conflict which broke out in 2000 between the government forces and SPLA. The military conducted a surprise attack against the village in an attempt to seize the area, causing the SPLA to try to counter the attack. The violent fight for territory between them went on amidst the civilian population in the area which resulted in many dead and displaced. His testimony contended that Peter Gadet and his men were eventually pushed out of Nhialdiu and the government resumed control of the area. 

During the 2000 Nhialdiu attack, Christopher was shot in the leg. As he described the event, he leaned back in his chair to show the courtroom the scar on his leg. The military and rebel forces were firing weapons indiscriminately despite the many civilians being caught in the middle. He recalls the pain as he fled, and how they had to use a knife in order to remove fluid buildup and manage the swelling of his leg.  

Christopher testified about the harsh conditions he and his family experienced after fleeing Nhialdiu. As they left for the Dinka area, passing through Mankien and Bol, they were unable to find food and were forced to turn back. By the time they made it back to Nhialdiu, the military forces had left the area, but not before burning down huts, eating the crops and killing the cattle. He told the court that they “could see skulls and human remains everywhere.” 

The prosecutor attempted to clarify details surrounding the events throughout the hearing. Christopher explained that he remembered experiencing these events; however, the details surrounding the exact years and the identity of his attackers had been told to him by his parents and elders as he grew older.  

The final line of questioning from the prosecution focused on the events prior to Christopher moving to Kenya in 2003, specifically on the government led attack on Nhialdiu in the early 2000s. 

Returning to Nhialdiu 

The prosecutor asked Christopher about the events that took place after he and his family returned to Nhialdiu and what life was like after returning to a village that had in large part been destroyed. He told the court how they rebuilt the huts but had no cattle as they had been lost in various conflicts. He had lost his brother, sister and uncle in the prior attacks, but was only told about their deaths sometime after. In Nuer culture, he explained, children should be protected from death. 

He then described a situation where government soldiers conducted another attack in Nhialdiu in 2002 or 2003. The government utilized the same tactics in this attack as they had previously. Christopher described how an attack took place in the early morning where he woke up “to the sound of shots and just ran.” The fighting that ensued was between the government army and Peter Gadet’s rebel forces; however, as in the previous attack, both forces were firing indiscriminately at soldiers as civilians. He testified that Nhialdiu, being within the border of Block 5A and so close to Thar Jath, was Peter Gadet’s home base and control of the area was therefore one reason why the military forces attacked. Another reason which went hand in hand, he said, was the oil. “They wanted to have oil and did everything to take over the oil area”. His experience supports a narrative heard in many testimonies so far: that the oil operations in the area did influence the violence directed at civilians. Christopher was separated by his parents after the fighting commenced and was taken to Khartoum with other children without families. He was later reunited with them with the help of the Red Cross organization and left for Kenya in April 2003. 

When the prosecutor, Annika Wennerström, asked him about the road construction that had commenced and been completed a year or two before, Christopher told the court that he had not seen any road construction himself.  He said, however, that he knew about the road as his parents and elders had told him about it. We have heard earlier testimony from memory experts discussing the impact of trauma on memory and how memory is stored. This does play a role in the ability to reiterate dates and circumstances of an event. We have heard Christopher describe various attacks he and other civilians have suffered through, however, there is also an element of collective information shared by others. We see this in the way Christopher describes how his parents and elders have spoken about who attacked the village and when attacks have taken place. The court has also heard about possible cultural differences affecting the retelling of events, such as how one retells a story in time and place. These are aspects we have witnessed during some plaintiff testimonies. 

It was made clear to the court, by Christopher, that he thought it important that the “truth comes out” and that appreciated the opportunity to retell what he had experienced during the relevant years in Sudan. 

The defense counsel for Ian Lundin asked Christopher one question in their cross examination: which Nuer clan did he belong to, to which he replied the Leek Nuer. 

Counsel for Alexandre Schneitre did not have any questions for Christopher at the conclusion of the prosecution’s examination and so the hearing was concluded. 

Next week 

This week, the court only heard the testimony of Christopher Chiangjal Bol. Next week, the court will hear from various journalists who published information on the conflict in Sudan during the relevant time.