VZCZCXYZ0004
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHKH #0599/01 1271424
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 071424Z MAY 09
FM AMEMBASSY KHARTOUM
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3715
RHMFIUU/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON DC
RHMFIUU/FBI WASHINGTON DC 0071

UNCLAS KHARTOUM 000599 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DOJ FOR NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION 
DEPT FOR M, P, L, AF, DS, S/USSES, CA AND S/CT 
DEPT FOR USAID 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ASEC PTER PGOV SU
SUBJECT: APRIL 22 SESSION OF GRANVILLE/ABBAS MURDER TRIAL 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY:  On April 22, 2009, five U.S. Embassy Foreign 
Service National (FSN) employees from the Regional Security Office, 
Political/Economic and Public Affairs sections attended the trial of 
five Sudanese men accused in the January 1, 2008 murders of USAID 
Officer John Granville and FSN driver Abdelrahman Abbas.  A Sudan 
Armed Forces (SAF) personnel officer who was expected to testify did 
not appear. Deputy Defense Chair Adil Abdelghani accused the 
Government of threatening the last two defense witnesses and 
arresting their weapons expert, SAF Captain Mohammed Abdelgader 
Abdorabbo. In a lengthy and emotional presentation to the court, 
Abdelghani accused the Government of interference in the case and 
cautioned the prosecution about the negative reflection this alleged 
intimidation of witnesses will have on Sudan's judicial system.  The 
judge ruled that under Sudan Armed Forces Law, authorization from 
the Army must first be obtained before an officer is called to 
testify in civilian court, and that the court could not force a 
military officer to  testify.  When the judge encouraged the defense 
to find a new weapons expert, the third defendant, Muhanned Osman 
Mohamed, spoke out and asserted that he did not believe another 
expert witness would be useful. Judge al-Badri set the next court 
date for April 23.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  (U) The trial of the five Sudanese men accused of the January 1, 
2008 terrorist murders of USAID Officer John Granville and FSN 
driver Abdelrahman Abbas continued on April 22, 2009.  The 
prosecution was represented by Chair Mohamed Mustafa Musa, Juma Al 
Wakul Al-Asir, Granville family attorney Taha Ibrahim, and Abbas 
family attorney, Ismail Abu Sugra.  The Defense was represented by 
Deputy Chair Adil Abdelghani, Ahmed Abu Agla, and Wajdi Salih. 
 
¶3.  (U) The defense panel called for a Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) 
personnel officer to testify, but he was not present.  After noting 
the absence of the defense witness, Deputy Chair Adil Abdelghani 
told the court that the defense's weapons expert, Captain Mohammed 
Abdelgader Abdorabbo, was arrested by members of the SAF Military 
Intelligence Directorate (MID) and had been held since he first 
testified for the defense on April 12.  In a lengthy, prepared 
speech, Abdelghani told the court that the Government's arrest of 
his witness not only impinged on the procedures of this case, but 
also had a much greater consequence on the administration of justice 
throughout Sudan.  He insisted that the Government end the practice 
of arresting defense witnesses.  "This causes people to whisper 
about our judicial system, and allows some people like 
(International Criminal Court Prosecutor Louis) Ocampo to say our 
judicial system is not capable, efficient, or transparent," 
Abdelghani told the judge. 
 
¶4.  (U) Abdelghani requested the court open a criminal case against 
the Director of Military Intelligence under Article 115/1 and 115/2 
of the Sudanese Criminal Code, and that Captain Abdorabo be released 
or brought to the court under police escort to continue his 
testimony.  Abdelghani requested the court issue an order for the 
security services "to keep their hands off the defense's case and 
stop interfering in the trial."  Before resting, Abdelghani 
cautioned that in light of the threats made against the defense's 
previous two witnesses, the judge should issue a strong and clear 
order for all security organs to respect the sovereignty of justice. 
 
 
¶5.  (U) The prosecution accused Abdelghani of grandstanding, and 
told the court they would not respond until the court rendered a 
decision on SAF's position that a military officer could not be 
compelled to testify in a civilian court without the approval of 
Army. 
 
¶6.  (U) Judge Al-Badri deliberated for more than an hour before he 
rendered a decision.  He told the court he would not open a case 
against DMI, but that the defense could do so through  normal legal 
procedures.  Referencing the Sudan Armed Forces Act, he told the 
court that only the Army can authorize an officer's testimony in a 
civilian court.  The judge also encouraged the defense to find 
another weapons expert.  Abdelghani responded that the defense would 
need ten days to identify another weapons expert.  However, t 
Mohamed, the third defendant, interrupted the discussion.  He told 
the judge he did not believe this would be useful, and did not want 
to delay the trial any further. 
 
¶7.  (U) Mohamed became visibly angered when the judge informed the 
court that the SAF personnel officer would be called to testify on 
April 23.  He told the judge that this was the same personnel 
officer who processed his termination from SAF, and that he would 
not come to court if the witness was allowed to testify.  Judge 
al-Badri did not acknowledge Mohamed's objection, but adjourned the 
court until April 23 and scheduled a session on April 30 for the 
defense to present a new weapons expert.  (Note: According to 
Granville family attorney, Taha Ibrahim, the April 23 session was 
cancelled due to the defendants threatening not to attend in protest 
against the SAF's refusal to let the weapons expert testify. In a 
closed session, the prosecution moved for the judge to disqualify 
the witness.  The judge denied that motion, and announced that he 
would make another request to the SAF to allow the weapons expert to 
testify. End Note.) 
 
FERNANDEZ