Report 29 – Testimony of the plaintiffs Steven Gawar Tungwar & David Lieth Dador
During this week’s hearing, the seventh and the eight plaintiffs testified regarding their observations of the situation in and around Block 5A. The defense mainly focused on the lack of individualization which they claimed has been a weakness in the indictment. More precisely, the defense alleged that the majority of the statements made by the plaintiffs were contradictory. The prosecution was challenged to add details to the indictment during their questioning.
Hearing with plaintiff Steven Gawar Tungwar
On the 20th of August it was time for the seventh plaintiff to enter Stockholm District Court. Judge Tomas Zander opened the hearing by welcoming Steven Gawar Tungwar before giving the floor to the prosecution.
The hearing opened with the prosecution invoking additional evidence that had been submitted the previous day. The evidence presented consisted of a picture of the plaintiff Steven Gawar Tungwar’s upper arm with a cut. The prosecution then initiated the questioning by asking the plaintiff to explain the cause of the injury, upon which he replied that he was abused by the Sudanese government. Steven would specify the details of this event later in the hearing.
The prosecution asked the plaintiff to briefly describe his background, which he did through vivid and free storytelling. Steven recounted that he was born in 1988 in the Nhialdiu area, situated in Rubkona, Unity State. Steven’s father, Kung War, was the Paramount Chief of the Nhialdiu area, which meant he was the highest local leader of the region. In accordance with his father’s high-status position, the family had many cows, more than others in the region. Similar to other plaintiffs in this case, Steven’s family belongs to the Nuer tribe. Steven’s father had many wives with whom he had an estimated thirty-seven children. Upon being asked by the prosecution, Steven added that it is common in his culture not to ask about the exact number of wives, since this is considered rude.
The displacement and abduction of civilians
Steven moved on to testify about the atrocities caused by the Sudanese government and associated militias. In August 1999, the Sudanese government and regimented militia groups consisting of ground troops attacked civilians and their property in the Nhialdiu area. In addition to being abducted and displaced, the inhabitants of Nhialdiu were subsequently killed and their cattle plundered. The violence escalated when the area was attacked by helicopter gunships combined with aerial bombardments. It was during these attacks that Steven’s two older brothers were killed.
The atmosphere in the court suddenly became emotional when Steven shared his experience of being abused by the Sudanese regime. The soldiers had abducted a number of children in order to abuse them with knives. Steven witnessed several children being brutally killed during the assault. As Steven himself was about to be harmed, another soldier, also with the Sudanese government, suddenly entered the room they were in and protested, stating that the aim was to depopulate the area rather than executing civilians. As a result, the protesting solider was instantly killed by the others. Here, the prosecution broke in to suggest that a short break might be suitable since the plaintiff at this point had burst into tears. Steven carried on with his story, stating his firm belief that he was saved by God in that specific situation in order to share his story today in court.
Antonov attacks on Nyaromni
Steven continued his testimony, outlining that after being displaced from Nhialdiu, he sought safety in the village of Nyaromni, situated in Block 5A. Steven was subjected to aerial bombardment by Antonov aircraft during the attack on Nyaromni. The Antonov planes were outfitted with explosives loaded onto barrels in order to be released over targeted areas and detonate upon impact. The prosecution asked Steven to specify how civilians died from the aerial bombardment, to which he responded that they were brutally cut in their throats and stomachs from the bomb shrapnel. Moreover, Steven had observed children playing near an undetonated bomb that suddenly exploded, killing them instantly.
Steven’s family returned to Nhialdiu after the dry period, whereby the area was repeatedly attacked by regimented militia mark troops. When asked by the prosecution to further identify the perpetrators, Steven admitted to having difficulty distinguishing the militia troops from the Sudanese government since the militias were led by the regime.
The prosecutor asked Steven to elaborate on the specific event in the year of 2000 where Stevens two brothers were killed. Steven explained that his two brothers were shot when the Sudanese government attacked Nhialdiu together with regime-led militia groups. One died instantly while the other was severely injured and passed away after a few hours. Shortly after his brothers’ deaths, Steven’s family was displaced to Bentiu. When they arrived in Bentiu, Steven’s father was arrested by the leader of the rebel movement, South Sudan Liberation Army – Peter Gadet. It was during this period that Steven became a child soldier, a decision that he claimed was voluntary. Steven later added that he was a part of Peter Gadet’s troops, which appeared to create some confusion in the courtroom.
Cross examination by the defense
On the second day of the week’s hearing, Judge Tomas Zander gave the floor to Ian Lundin’s defense, who spent the majority of their cross-examination highlighting conflicting information given by Steven’s father. In 2012, Steven’s father had been heard in the Talisman court case. The defense shared excerpts from the interviews, emphasizing the fact that Steven’s father had provided information that deviated from Steven’s testimony. The defense continued, asking if Steven was aware that his father participated in the Talisman court case in order to demand accountability from the other oil companies, to which Steven responded no. This question in particular reinforced the defense’s tactics of suggesting that the information given by the plaintiffs was rooted in a conspiracy against the oil industry. The defense further addressed the aforementioned confusion – how Steven on one hand became a child soldier voluntarily, but on the other hand said that he had been recruited by the rebel leader Peter Gadet. Steven clarified that the decision initially was made voluntarily.
Ian Lundin’s defense spent the majority of the remaining cross-examination addressing discrepancies between Steven’s testimony and the responses he gave during the police interrogation in Nairobi in 2017, seemingly seeking to undermine the plaintiff’s credibility. The deviations mainly concerned details such as how many cows Stevens father had and when they disappeared, during which exact period of the year the attacks occurred, and under what circumstances Steven’s brothers died. Steven had difficulties delivering unambiguous replies. For instance, when asked when his father’s cows were taken, Steven replied it happened during a single occasion in 2000, but later changed his mind, saying it happened more frequently in 1999.
The defense continued their questioning, pointing out that Steven’s story was not consistent with the information provided in his claim for damages, nor with his father’s statements in the Talisman court case. Steven suddenly appeared confused, whereby Ian Lundin’s counsel asked whether Steven was aware of his damage claim, indicating that the claim should be withdrawn. This was later clarified by the plaintiff’s counsel by asking the complementary question whether the damage claims had been filed was in accordance with Steven’s will, to which he replied yes.
The second day, it was time for Alexandre Schneiter’s defense to start their cross-examination of the plaintiff. After initially focusing on discrepancies similar to the questioning by Ian Lundin’s counsel, the defense shifted focus asking about Steven’s relationship to the journalist Petter Bolme. As with the previous cross-examination, the defense’s questions clearly implied that they believed that Petter Bolme had influenced Steven’s testimony.
Alexandre Schneiter’s defense further questioned why Steven claimed to have become a child solider voluntarily when he also had said that he had been recruited by Peter Gadet. Steven reiterated that he already was a soldier when he was recruited by Gadet. The reason for his decision to become a soldier was based exclusively on Steven’s desire to defend the Nhialdiu area. The hearing with plaintiff Steven Gawar Tungwar concluded with the prosecution asking follow-up questions for clarification regarding details such as the age of Steven’s deceased brothers and their names. After the prosecution finished their redirect, Judge Zander expressed his gratitude for Steven’s participation in the hearing. Steven thanked the Court for being able to tell his story on behalf of himself and the victims. When exiting the court, a smile could be seen on Steven’s face as he crossed the street.
Hearing with plaintiff David Lieth Dador
On the 22nd of August, the hearing with plaintiff David Lieth Dador took place in Stockholm District Court. The plaintiff wore traditional clothes in accordance with the Nuer tribe’s culture. After being welcomed by Judge Zander, the prosecution led by Ewa Korpi started the questioning asking David to provide information about his background.
David Lieth explained briefly that he was born in January 1979 in the village of Duar, approximately sixty kilometres from the village of Bentiu. David’s family is a part of the Nuer tribe. David stated that before the attacks, Duar was a functional society with a school and a hospital. David himself attended primary school where he learned how to read and write. During the period 1994 until 1997, David’s occupation mainly consisted of vaccinating children in the area.
The prosecution intervened, asking why he stopped working with vaccination, to which David replied that he and his family were displaced as a consequence of the conflict between the rebel military groups led by Riek Machar and Paulino Matiep in the nearby Nhialdiu area. David explained that ground troops carried out indiscriminate attacks, including burning settlements to the ground. Their goal was reportedly to depopulate areas to facilitate road construction and install pipelines for the benefit of oil companies. The prosecution stressed that David must have heard and not seen the attacks, which David confirmed. David continued, testifying that many civilians were killed and displaced. As a consequence of the atrocities in Nhialdiu, many people were forced to flee to Duar.
The attack on Duar
David testified that Matiep’s group entered Duar and executed an attack early in the morning, a description that was in accordance with previous plaintiffs’ stories of surprise assaults as a warfare tactic. When asked by the prosecution, David specified that the armed forces mainly used machine guns in their attacks. Upon arriving in Duar, the rebel groups attacked the local military camp, forcing the troops to evacuate and leave the area. The local hospitals were plundered of their equipment. The prosecutor asked David to further clarify how he knew this information, upon which David repeated that he had personally seen it.
David further stated that his uncle was shot by the rebel groups and later died from his injuries. The situation further deteriorated as the militia set fire to huts and cattle. David was forced to flee with his parents to seek protection. After the militia had burned what was left of the area, David returned to the village only to find that there were nothing left of Duar. The inhabitants that had survived the attack fled to the nearby forest seeking protection. David explained that he was forced to leave his father and their remaining cows behind and flee to Bentiu.
Judge Zander suddenly interrupted David’s testimony, asking if the plaintiff was reading from notes. David replied that he had simply written down the prosecution’s questions and pushed away the notebook on the table with one movement in the direction of the plaintiff’s counsel. Alexandre Schneiter’s counsel, who sat behind the plaintiff’s seat, instantly objected, claiming he saw that David had brought prewritten notes. Judge Zander stated that if David had brought prewritten notes to refresh his memory, it would not be an issue as long as the Court was aware that he was using them. After a few seconds of consideration, Judge Zander explained that the Court trusted David when he said that he did not have prewritten notes. Alexandre Schneiter’s defense shook their heads, clearly upset by the judge’s assessment.
After some confusion regarding the plaintiff’s notes, the hearing continued. The prosecution asked David to continue his testimony and specify the time period of the events he had described. David stated that when they arrived in Bentiu in 1997, Riek Machar’s group recruited child soldiers from the area. David stayed in Bentiu from 1997 until 1999 when he reunited with his dad. Between 1998 and 1999, the area was being explored for oil exploitation. In 1999, David witnessed gunships and Antonovs bombing the region. After depopulating the area, the oil company started building the pipelines in Block 5A. The prosecution asked the plaintiff to further explain what he had seen in terms of violence. David testified that he had seen Antonov planes dropping three barrels containing bombs, which caused massive holes in the ground upon detonation. Even cattle were killed by shrapnel from the bombs.
David continued his testimony, stating that he fled to the nearby refugee camp in Ethiopia where he stayed for a year until he returned to Rubkona to search for his family. When arriving in Male (situated in Duar) in the year of 2000, the war had escalated. During this period, the Sudanese government and the militias had entered the area to build roads as a component of the oil extraction, resulting in the expulsion of the remaining civilians.
At the end of David’s hearing, although the defense teams had the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff, both Ian Lundin’s and Alexandre Schneiter’s defenses stated that they did not wish to do so. That being the case, Judge Zander concluded the week’s hearings by thanking David for his participation.
Next report
Our next report will cover the testimonies of the tenth plaintiff Gatdiet Peter and the eleventh plaintiff Gawar Mud Wat. The ninth plaintiff’s hearing was cancelled due to unknown circumstances.
