The case of the State V Abass Chernor Bundu is a case that has brought to the spotlight the unnecessary delays experienced in court when dealing especially with matters with obvious or apparent political tinge. Mr. Abass Chernor Bundu served as Secretary General of ECOWAS and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the then National Provisional Ruling Council that toppled APC led government in 1992. He was charged on seven counts of Larceny contrary to section 17 of the Larceny Act, 1916 and conspiracy to defraud the state of Sierra Leone for his alleged role in the sale of Sierra Leonean passports to nationals of Hong Kong way back in 1995 and 1996. He was arraigned before Magistrate Komba Kamanda of Court No. 2 in the capital Freetown on the 14th of April, 2012. This matter had been brought to court during the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP)-led administration by former President Ahmed Tejan Kabbah. The matter was later on discharged.
When the matter was re-opened last year, many viewed it as a political witch hunt by the current administration to discourage him from engaging in any political activity in the just concluded multi-tier elections. That’s just rumour, of course, but the prosecution has had a very long time to present the evidence it has against the accused. Unfortunately, it’s been ten months since Dr. Abass Bundu was arraigned and there’s been no significant progress in the matter. Only one prosecution witness has testified so far. If the prosecution does not have strong evidence against the accused, the normal thing is to do right by the accused and file a motion to discharge the matter. The Magistrate has a huge role to play as well. He can ask the prosecution to wrap up his case or make a ruling based on what he has before him; Of course, after giving the defence a chance to respond to whatever is before the court. CARL believes that all the parties to a trial have a responsibility to their clients to expedite judicial proceedings, but where the Judge or Magistrate thinks that one of the parties is “playing games” with the court, we submit that the court must do the right thing by the accused or the complainant.
Others have argued, and rightly so, that a discharge is not a bar to future prosecution. Since the accused was arraigned on the 14th April 2012, little or no progress has been made. The prosecution, represented by Principal State Counsel Gerald Soyei, has applied for adjournments for five consecutive times, mostly on less than compelling reasons. The defence, led by Sulaiman Banja Tejan-sei Esq, has expressed disappointment at the snail pace of the trial.
Even after the 2012 elections, which in the view of many, prompted the re-opening of the case, it is rumoured that that the prosecution is dragging its feet on the matter to keep it in court for as long as it is politically – perhaps not judicially necessary. In the last proceeding, the prosecution came to court and continued from where the court left off: by applying an adjournment only to seek further instructions from the Attorney General. The matter was adjourned to March 27, 2013. Does the prosecution, which clearly understands the importance of expeditious trial, need nine weeks to seek instructions from the Attorney General and Minister of Justice?
Even though the accused has been released on bail, it is very clear that keeping the matter in court for almost one year has affected his businesses, family and other related activities.
It is time for the justice system, and it is important to stress that the head of the Law Officers Department is also the Minister of Justice, to continue to clean up its not-so endearing public image, preserve its stature, respect, independence and demonstrate regard for the rule of law. The accused should, according to the rule of law, be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Justice delayed is not only justice denied, it is the rule of the law undermined. It is critical that the Prosecution begins to treat the matter with utmost seriousness, by bringing forward the pieces of evidence it claims to have against the accused.
There are many reasons for undue delays in trials in Sierra Leone, and CARL has identified the frequent and the sometimes totally unnecessary grounds of application for adjournments. It is in the interest of justice, for the prosecution to be given adequate time to present its case. Of course, it is equally important for the defence to be able to respond to the prosecution’s case. The court must, however, balance these compelling demands of procedural law with the defendant’s right to fair and expeditious trial. Of course, the Sierra Leone judiciary faces numerous logistics and personnel challenges, but it must begin to address these challenges.
Undue delays erode public confidence in the justice system, and potentially creates a culture of violence. It is but proper that matters are being tried in the best interest of all and sundry and within a reasonable time frame. In order to continue on the path of sustainable reforms, justice must be accessible to everyone, regardless of their political, economic or sexual orientation.
