The Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL) today hailed the recent indictment of 7 medical practitioners and 22 others for various corruption-related offences, following the release of audited financial statements by Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI Alliance) and the Audit Service Commission of Sierra Leone. CARL considers the indictments by the Anti-Corruption Commission as a further indication of the country’s commitment to combating corruption, which is still rampant in the country.
CARL is, however, concerned about the uneven nature of the bail conditions imposed on the accused persons by two separate judges of the High Court. Specifically, in the matter of the State v. Dr. Mathew Micheal Amara who is charged with 27 counts of conflict of interest and misappropriation of donor funds, the judge imposed a number of bail conditions, including a cash deposit of Le50 million Leones (approximately USD11,000) and 2 sureties who must be owners of property, among others. The accused was unable to meet the bail conditions immediately, and was therefore held in detention for two days. In similar corruption-related cases concerning Dr. Kizito Daoh, Dr. Francis Smart et al, however, the bail conditions imposed by a different Judge did not include a cash deposit.
This appears to be the first time that an accused has been asked to purchase bail in clear variance to the commonly held belief that bail is free. This has implications for fair hearing rights of accused persons and is a cause for concern:
First, the accused’s right to prepare a good defence may have been adversely affected not only by his continued detention, but his ability to raise the required funds to pay for legal representation may have been undermined. Also, this decision seems to be in variance in a cardinal principle of English Law – the presumption of innocence. It seems that the accused has been punished by withholding his liberty even before the trial starts.
Section 79 of the CPA 1965 which deals with the issue of bail does not expressly provide for the purchase of bail by the accused. It provides for the procurement of sureties. The bail policy which may have been relied upon is of questionable legal status and purports to import a practice from the UK which the CPA does not provide for and which is alien to our jurisdiction. Besides, the UK practice is expressly backed by statute and is imposed in specific circumstances. The judiciary runs the risk of being accused of usurping the powers of parliament, which could have serious implications for the integrity of the judicial process.
