AMMAN, Dec 9: Former US attorney general Ramsey Clark, part of a team of lawyers defending Saddam Hussein against charges of crimes against humanity, on Friday accused witnesses in the trial of false testimony.

Mr Clark said the prosecution was battling to present a coherent case, with the nine witnesses who have testified so far either speaking from behind a curtain to hide their identities or reading from papers as if their testimony was pre-written.

He also questioned the wisdom of combining their evidence with their civil claims for compensation from the defendants.

“Some of the witnesses’ testimony seemed entirely fabricated and some seemed to be assisted, and those who appeared all had paper in front of them,” Mr Clark, 77, who has attended the trial since it resumed on Nov 28, said in an interview.

“They were reading. Who do you know who wrote what? You cannot tell whether it’s something they saw or something they heard or read in a newspaper,” he said.

The trial was adjourned until Dec 21 on Wednesday after a highly charged day in which Saddam Hussein refused to attend the court after telling the judge the evening before to ‘go to hell’.

Mr Clark, a controversial figure who has represented other jailed former leaders in the past, including Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic, said the inability of the defence to confront witnesses was a serious flaw in Iraq’s justice system.

Of the nine witnesses to testify so far, only two have stood in open court. The others have not only been hidden behind a high curtain but have also had their voices computer modified.

“You have a right to confront your witness to see what he is doing — if someone is whispering in his ears or a text under the table,” Mr Clark said.

Two defence lawyers were murdered in the days after the trial began on Oct 19 and many witnesses are too scared to appear, even with their identities concealed. Some of those who have testified have been verbally threatened by the defendants.

WRONG MOTIVE TO TESTIFY: Much of the testimony so far has been harrowing, with witnesses describing detentions, torture, near starvation and sexual assault at the hands of Saddam’s intelligence services following a failed attempt on the president’s life in 1982.

But there have also been many inconsistencies in the stories the witnesses have told, and the judge has repeatedly warned some of them not to ramble, and to clarify their thoughts. Several were barely teenagers when the events took place.

“This is one of the amazing things,” said Mr Clark. “How does a 10 or 12-year-old remember details and names, and sits there and recites 18 names after how many years now we are talking? Going back to 1982 or 1980?” he said.

“That’s ridiculous ... Somebody gave them those names.”

Mr Clark also assailed Iraq’s legal system for letting witnesses press claims for monetary compensation in a criminal court, something that normally happens in a civil court in US-style, English-based legal systems.

All of the witnesses to appear so far are officially known as complaining witnesses and at the end of their testimony the judge asks them who they are complaining against and what recompense they are seeking as part of their complaint.

Later, eyewitnesses and witnesses directly called by the prosecution will be called, as will defence witnesses.

However, Mr Clark said the court’s reputation was being tarnished by witnesses seeking monetary compensation, something he said gave them an improper motive to testify.

“Here you are in a criminal case of historic importance in which a fair trial and truth are essential to historic truth and public justice ... and you get people asking for money.

“I think that corrupts the trial itself,” he said. —Reuters