Special Court for Sierra Leone, CDF Trial, Update 79a

CDF Trial

Special Court for Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone

English

This final week of the CDF trial session saw proceedings reconvene on June 15th, due to difficulty in locating the few remaining witnesses in the Norman defence case. Upon recommencement of the trial, the Trial Chamber issued its long awaited decision on the Fofana and Norman joint Defence motion to issue a subpoena to President Kabbah.1 Kabbah is currently listed as the first witness in the Norman defence case. In the majority decision (Thompson J dissenting) the Trial Chamber dismissed the Defence’s motion, representing a major setback for the defence of the first and second accused. It is rumoured that Chief Norman, the first accused, maintained President Kabbah’s supreme importance as a witness by saying that if he testified there would be no need to call any other witnesses in his defence case.

Recommencement on Thursday was somewhat short-lived as Dr. Jabbi, lead counsel for the first accused, requested that the Trial Chamber adjourn until the following morning to give the judges time to discuss certain outstanding issues of concern regarding Norman’s health, a point of major speculation within the local media. Jabbi indicated that the Court’s doctor had examined Norman and that he was now in a position to recommend immediate action for his client’s condition. According to counsel, Norman requires a hip replacement operation, a form of surgery that is only available outside of Sierra Leone. Jabbi further indicated that, thus far, the team had not received a satisfactory response from either the detention facility officials or the Registrar with respect to organizing proper arrangements for the necessary treatment. Counsel again indicated that if the surgery were organized in an expedient fashion, disruptions to future trial sessions could be avoided by having the procedure performed during the upcoming summer recess. The Presiding Judge reminded Jabbi that, given the accused’s detention, there were administrative as well as legal obstacles to counsel’s recommended course of action. The Chamber also noted that they would prefer for Jabbi to outline a specific, feasible judicial action he desired from the bench as recourse to the difficulties he faces in arranging for his clients proper medical treatment