The Coroner, Justice Nevin Dawson, found that the VMF officers who were present during the arrest or interrogation of the deceased were unimpressive witnesses who were often non-responsive, evasive and self-serving.
The Coroner said the VMF officers contradicted themselves and each other as to who was present during the interrogation, who asked questions and as to what actions the deceased took during the course of the interrogation. “This process of obfuscation appeared to be an attempt to maintain a continuation of the obfuscation that has been evident since the death of the deceased. It is difficult to accept that any of these officers told the whole truth.” Below are the statements of the officers and others who gave evidence as recorded by the Coroner.
Lieutenant Roy Fred Saule
Lt Seule was the senior officer present during the interrogation of the deceased. Under the principles associated with the chain of command structure in a paramilitary organization such as the VMF, he must shoulder primary responsibility both for his own actions, and for the actions of the officers under his command on 29th March 2009.
Lt Seule clearly attended the inquest under sufferance. He initially demonstrated an aggressive and contemptuous attitude to the proceedings. He gave every appearance of feeling aggrieved at having to attend in accordance with his summons. He was defensive and evasive and frequently his evidence was less than frank. There were substantial conflicts between his oral testimony and the contents of the statement he made in April 2009. There were substantial conflicts between his testimony and the testimony of other officers who gave evidence after he was excused.
Lieutenant Seule was present in the classroom right throughout the time the deceased was in that room for interrogation. In his April statement, he revealed that he ordered all officers present to whip the deceased on his arms and legs. In testimony, he declined to answer many questions on the basis of privilege against self-incrimination. He attempted to rely on the same privilege when asked if he saw any other officer(s) beat the deceased. When required to answer the question, he maintained that the only person he saw hit the deceased was Esley Charley, who he said struck the deceased with a police baton once only to each arms. Clearly such limited instances of blunt trauma are not consistent with the autopsy findings. Much of his evidence was self serving, inaccurate and probably dishonest.
Lt Seule testified that a legitimate interrogation of the deceased took place within the classroom at the Cook Barracks. He stated that Kenneth Siro acted as scribe, recording by hand the questions asked by the VMF members and answers given by the deceased. That evidence was directly contradicted by Kenneth Siro who testified that he was never inside the interrogation room.
Lt Seule testified that the deceased headbutted Joshua Bong (Junior) in an attempt to escape through the door to the classroom. Pte Bong contradicted this evidence, testified that the deceased merely pushed him with his hands.
Lt Seule testified that verbal orders were given by Commander Vira that recaptured detainees were to be beaten upon recapture. This aspect of his evidence could be accepted as true and correct, as it was corroborated by a number of other officers. A further reason for acceptance of this fact, is the number of recaptured detainees who presented at Vila Central Hospital with similar injuries as those sustained by the deceased. The hierarchy of the VPF/VMF must have been aware of this course of events. This supports the assertion by Lt Seule that orders from above were given in the way he described.
Lance Corporal Kenneth Siro
L Cpl testified that he never entered the classroom, but remained at all times on the verandah outside. He testified that he had no idea as to how the deceased sustained his injuries. He gave no explanation as to why he did not participate in the interrogation. It is noted that he was not identified by Mrs Esther Olul as one of the VMF officers who assaulted the deceased outside, but in the precincts of, the classroom. Either he was inside the classroom, at which time he must have either participated in the beating witnessed by Mrs Olul, or at least observed it as she did.
Sam Abraham
Sam Abraham was an unimpressive witness who was at best, forgetful and unprofessional. At worst he committed perjury in the way he changed his evidence.
Initially Sam Abraham testified that he was aware that orders had been given by Commander Vira that recaptured detainees were to be beaten upon recapture. He further testified that Lt Seule have such orders to officers under his command. He was very clear that such orders had been given and that he was present at the time they were given.
Subsequently, Abraham resiled from his evidence, testifying that he was completely unaware that any such orders had been made by any of his superior officers.
Mala Anfalo
Mala Anfalo was directly implicated in an assault on the deceased outside, but in the immediate precincts of, the classroom in which the interrogation took place. Mrs Esther Olul testified that she witnessed Anfalo beat the deceased with a large wooden implement that was reqularly used on recaptured escapees. Anfalo conceded that Mrs Olul would have no basis to be untruthful or to falsely accuse him of committing a criminal offence. He agreed that he had worked with her husband for three years. He denied using any weapon to assault the deceased.
Joshua Bong (Junior)
Pte Bong could not adequately explain why he deserted his post as a sentry on the front gate of the VMF camp as to attend the interrogation room merely so he could observe the Deceased so as to be able to identify him at any stage in the future. His testimony as to what had occurred inside the interrogation room appeared fanciful and clearly downplayed the level of violence used by VMF officers. He also testified that Esley Charlie had struck the deceased with a baton and only once on each arm. As stated previously, that level of violence alone cannot have contributed to the extensive injuries observed in the post-mortem examination.
Esley Charley
Despite being warned that he was not obliged to answer any question(s) that may incriminate him, Esley Charley agreed that he struck the Deceased with his baton, once to each arm. The consistency of the account that was originally given in evidence by Lt.Seule and Pte.Bong is suggestive of concoction. This is particularly so in the case of Esley Charley as, in his April statement to the Inquiry team, he denied striking the Deceased at all. As to that consistency, Esley Charley asserted that he had been pressured into giving his statement to Police, fearing he would be locked if he did not cooperate with the investigators. This assertion can hardly be true-the investigation was inadequate, limited and unprofessional. Also it cannot be accepted that the investigators used unfair pressure in order to coerce VMF officers to give statements when they did not interview any of the VMF officers concerned, including not interviewing Mr. Charley.
Esley Charley testified that he was present in a VMF operations room when Commander Vira gave orders to beat recaptured detainees.
Sergeant Tekol Masteia
Sgt.Masteia (who held the rank of Corporal as at 29 March,2009) was the senior officer on sentry duty at the front gate of the VMF camp on 29 March 2009.As with Pte.Bong ,Sgt.Masteia gave an unconvincing reason as to why he deserted his post to go to the classroom where the Deceased was being interrogated (so as to identify him on any future occasion).This is particularly so as the sentry unit was one officer short on the day due to the fact that one officer failed to show up for duty .Further ,Sgt.Masteia testified that he ordered Pte.Bong to remain at the gate, but took no action against him he (Bong) also deserted his post. Out of four officers who were rostered to remain on sentry duty at that gate, only one remained at his post.
Jean-Pierre Tom (Department of Corrective Services evidence)
The Acting Director of the Department of Correctional Services, Jean-Pierre Tom, gave formal evidence as to the involvement of Correctional Services staff. His evidence was given frankly and openly, and no adverse comment can be made about the actions of Correctional Services staff in their dealings with the Deceased. It was, however unfortunate , that the table particularizing the dates on which the dates on which detainees escaped form custody, dates of recapture and particulars of injuries sustained (Exhibit 20) was inaccurate due to omissions in the records as they were taken at that time in Febrauary,2009.
To his credit Mr. Tom after giving his evidence realized that he had produced some documents that were inaccurate, and on his own volition contacted Counsel to Assist the Inquest, advised him of the error and requested opportunity to reappear at the Inquest so he could correct his mistake. It should also be noted that Correctional Services have made major improvements to their systems and record keeping since that time.
Civilian evidence
The evidence given by civilian witnesses was generally impressive. There is no basis to reject their evidence as being either incredible or unreliable. While some witnesses had a personal interest in the proceedings (such as the father of the Deceased, John Kalo) they did not appear to embellish their evidence or allow themselves to become overly emotional. Most of the witnesses provided contemporaneous statements to the Police Inquiry Team and their testimony remained consistent with their earlier statements.
Some of the civilian evidence assumed particular significance. The evidence of Hosea Rarua appeared to be reliable and credible. He testified that at least two members of the VMF (persons he described as “Titus” and “Eslee”) spoke with him on the Wednesday prior to the death of the Deceased ,at which time they stated words to the effect of :
“If we find him (Bule), we will break every bone in his body .We‘re not sure if he will live or end up being handicapped.”
Peter Robert Saul testified that he was the person who telephoned the authorities to provide them with the information as to the Deceased’s location on 29 March 2009.Clearly he did not anticipate that the provisions of such information would lead to the death of the Deceased.
Esther Olul was a particularly remarkable and brave witness. As the wife of a serving VMF officer, she demonstrated enormous courage in testifying as to her observations of what occurred inside the Cook Barracks on 29 March 2009.She gave clear and unequivocal evidence that she observed Mala Anfalo, a person she knew well and could clearly recognize, assault the Deceased with a large wooden implement, in the immediate precincts of the classroom in which the Deceased was interrogated. She testified that he did so in the company of at least three other VMF officers who she could not identify because their faces were partially covered by their headwear. These officers she said also participated in the assault of the Deceased.
In her evidence she said it was common knowledge amongst those who lived and worked at the Cooks Barracks that the VMF kept “stick” in the classroom to beat recaptured escapees during interrogation. She described the stick as being approximately one metre long, 25 centimeters in circumference and required a person to use two hands to pick it up and hit another person. The use of such a stick in a beating of a person would be consistent with the broken bones and bruise patterns on the body of the Deceased.