by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Uncategorized
On the 22nd of March, a Zambian Army Officer in Charge of Personnel and Administration in the Zambian Army Headquarters based in Lusaka, testified as a prosecution witness against the RUF in the ongoing trials at the Special Court. A Lieutenant Colonel by rank, the Officer intimated the Court that he came to Sierra Leone in January 2000 on a recognizance mission prior to the deployment of the UN peacekeeping mission together with three officers. After the completion of the recognizance tour in the country, upon deployment, the peacekeepers were warned to use minimum force except where there was a threat to life. However, according to the Witness, the RUF did hold the peacekeepers hostage for reasons unclear at the time. Suffice it to say that such acts, are contained in the Indictment against the RUF (Counts 15-18). This is viewed as a state violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II punishable under Article 3.c of the Statute of the Special Court.
On the 22nd May, 2000 the Zambian Lieutenant Colonel according to his narration was scheduled to go to Makeni under escort from two other officers, and left Lungi through Port Loko to Lunsar where they were halted by the RUF. At that point, they were made to understand that RUF had put road blocks along the way. Upon receipt of this information, the officer intimated the Court that he dropped off the Logistical Support men and the convoy largely comprised of fighting men with a total strength of two hundred divided into two companies.
In Lunsar, the Lieutenant Colonel communicated with the Force Commander to send an Indian Battalion to link up with them in Makeni. Hardly did the convoy cover twelve kilometers after Lunsar when the Company Commander reported to his military superior to have heard unaimed gunshots and have seen a road block in view. The Lientenant Colonel further continued that all of a sudden, the peacekeepers in entirety were surrounded by over 100 RUF soldiers after covering a further five hundred kilometers in a town called Moria and had disarmed them. This was the start of isolation from his men according to the Lieutenant Colonel as he was taken later into a bush whilst the men stayed behind. He further stated that children as young as between ten and twelve were also armed with rocket launchers, grenades, or rifles of some sort.
The Witness narrated an incidence in which he came in contact with Morris Kallon (2nd accused) who held him at gun point demanding that he communicates with his second- in- command who had stayed behind to send along five landrovers, and three amoured vehicles. After a period of time, the Witness reported that he was later driven in a van by the RUF in the company of Morris Kallon. Upon arrival in Makeni, he found that the Zambian soldiers who had left behind had been completely stripped off their uniforms as well as arms and ammunitions. According to the Lt. Col, at that point in time, General Issa Sesay (first accused) resided in Makeni and was taken to his house where he observed a huge number of armed RUF men. Mr. Sesay thereupon instructed the witness at about 9p.m to leave Makeni in a vehicle driven by RUF fighters and heading towards Yengema. At Yengema, the Zambian soldiers were housed in a school block whilst the Lieutenant Colonel, and a Kenyan General, Molinge were taken to a house where a woman named Colonel Monica resided, and therein cohabited for a twenty-three-day period.
On the question of the purpose of Issa Sesay and Morris Kallon’s visits to Colonel Monica’s house in Yengema, Counsel for Mr. Sesay raised an objection that it is not for the Witness to say what he (Issa Sesay) did at the house and it was not up to the Witness to speculate. Counsel repudiated the overall examination in chief as not proper and fair. Key questions according to him did trigger the Witness’s response to the Prosecution. This proposition falls in line with the objection raised by Counsel that if his client did not explain his purpose of his frequent visits to Monica’s house, then the Witness would be merely invited to speculate on that subject. C.O. Lansana was reported to have been the Brigade Commander for the Kono area where such acts were carried out against the peacekeepers whilst Morris Kallon (2nd accused) was said to be directly reporting to General Issa Sesay (1st accused).
Whilst in captivity, the Witness intimated the Court that the situation deteriorated as time elapsed. There were no beddings, no shoes to put on, and bathing was disallowed. Threats of being killed or incarcerated as long as Foday Sankoh, leader of the RUF was imprisoned in Freetown frequently fell in their ears.
Upon reaching a consensual methodology to remove the peacekeepers from Kono, the RUF had the Lieutenant Colonel and the Kenyan General driven in two separate vehicles to Koidu where they met the Second in Command of the Zambian soldiers. All of them later set off to an unknown destination which was later found out to be Pendembu where a Liberian military helicopter was waiting to fly them to Monrovia Airport. At the airport the soldiers received physical medical examination. The soldiers were eventually flown over to Lungi in Sierra Leone after a night in Monrovia on board a UN helicopter. In the Witness’s testimony, he mentioned that he later came to find out that three soldiers went missing but one reappeared quite later and two have since been declared dead. The lieutenant Colonel, during the disarmament period confirmed to have deployed troops in Lungiroi, Mabom, and later on in Kenema where he was stationed for the entire disarmament process.
During cross examination, Counsel for Issa Sesay enquired into the first contacts the Witness had with the Prosecution which the Witness confirmed that it was through a phone call, and gave his statement using that medium. On the question posed by Counsel on why other Zambians have not been forthcoming to testify on the same experience, the Witness said he would not be in a position to determine why exactly that was so. The Bench thereupon interjected and ruled that Counsel was inviting the Witness to speculate and therefore he has now been hoisted by his own petard as he had earlier on made an objection to such questioning techniques. Largely questions by Mr. Wayne Jordhash sought perhaps to establish that since the Witness was granted liberty to visit his troops to know their state of health, and did receive foodstuffs from the local inhabitants such as mangoes, then they were also fed. And also that since all the troops were retained back to Lungi unharmed, the RUF did have regard for peacekeepers lives.
Still under cross examination, but from Counsel for second accused, the Witness denied knowledge of any information regarding the taking of a pass before going through RUF territories. The Lieutenant Colonel said General Jettly; the Force Commander never briefed him about security risks involved in executing his mandate. Counsel suggested therefore that the RUF were basically at the time acting in preemptive self defence especially when the peacekeepers were determined to bulldoze their way through.
Counsel for the third accused adopted his colleague’s submissions. In reexamination, Mr. Harrison read a portion of the witness’s testimony relating to use of child soldiers, and some local inhabitants in Kono intimating the Lieutenant Colonel of sexual harassment by RUF especially in Yengema. The Witness answered in the affirmative, and confirmed the incidence to be correct.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Uncategorized
On the 22nd of March, a Zambian Army Officer in Charge of Personnel and Administration in the Zambian Army Headquarters based in Lusaka, testified as a prosecution witness against the RUF in the ongoing trials at the Special Court. A Lieutenant Colonel by rank, the Officer intimated the Court that he came to Sierra Leone in January 2000 on a recognizance mission prior to the deployment of the UN peacekeeping mission together with three officers. After the completion of the recognizance tour in the country, upon deployment, the peacekeepers were warned to use minimum force except where there was a threat to life. However, according to the Witness, the RUF did hold the peacekeepers hostage for reasons unclear at the time. Suffice it to say that such acts, are contained in the Indictment against the RUF (Counts 15-18). This is viewed as a state violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II punishable under Article 3.c of the Statute of the Special Court.
On the 22nd May, 2000 the Zambian Lieutenant Colonel according to his narration was scheduled to go to Makeni under escort from two other officers, and left Lungi through Port Loko to Lunsar where they were halted by the RUF. At that point, they were made to understand that RUF had put road blocks along the way. Upon receipt of this information, the officer intimated the Court that he dropped off the Logistical Support men and the convoy largely comprised of fighting men with a total strength of two hundred divided into two companies.
In Lunsar, the Lieutenant Colonel communicated with the Force Commander to send an Indian Battalion to link up with them in Makeni. Hardly did the convoy cover twelve kilometers after Lunsar when the Company Commander reported to his military superior to have heard unaimed gunshots and have seen a road block in view. The Lientenant Colonel further continued that all of a sudden, the peacekeepers in entirety were surrounded by over 100 RUF soldiers after covering a further five hundred kilometers in a town called Moria and had disarmed them. This was the start of isolation from his men according to the Lieutenant Colonel as he was taken later into a bush whilst the men stayed behind. He further stated that children as young as between ten and twelve were also armed with rocket launchers, grenades, or rifles of some sort.
The Witness narrated an incidence in which he came in contact with Morris Kallon (2nd accused) who held him at gun point demanding that he communicates with his second- in- command who had stayed behind to send along five landrovers, and three amoured vehicles. After a period of time, the Witness reported that he was later driven in a van by the RUF in the company of Morris Kallon. Upon arrival in Makeni, he found that the Zambian soldiers who had left behind had been completely stripped off their uniforms as well as arms and ammunitions. According to the Lt. Col, at that point in time, General Issa Sesay (first accused) resided in Makeni and was taken to his house where he observed a huge number of armed RUF men. Mr. Sesay thereupon instructed the witness at about 9p.m to leave Makeni in a vehicle driven by RUF fighters and heading towards Yengema. At Yengema, the Zambian soldiers were housed in a school block whilst the Lieutenant Colonel, and a Kenyan General, Molinge were taken to a house where a woman named Colonel Monica resided, and therein cohabited for a twenty-three-day period.
On the question of the purpose of Issa Sesay and Morris Kallon’s visits to Colonel Monica’s house in Yengema, Counsel for Mr. Sesay raised an objection that it is not for the Witness to say what he (Issa Sesay) did at the house and it was not up to the Witness to speculate. Counsel repudiated the overall examination in chief as not proper and fair. Key questions according to him did trigger the Witness’s response to the Prosecution. This proposition falls in line with the objection raised by Counsel that if his client did not explain his purpose of his frequent visits to Monica’s house, then the Witness would be merely invited to speculate on that subject. C.O. Lansana was reported to have been the Brigade Commander for the Kono area where such acts were carried out against the peacekeepers whilst Morris Kallon (2nd accused) was said to be directly reporting to General Issa Sesay (1st accused).
Whilst in captivity, the Witness intimated the Court that the situation deteriorated as time elapsed. There were no beddings, no shoes to put on, and bathing was disallowed. Threats of being killed or incarcerated as long as Foday Sankoh, leader of the RUF was imprisoned in Freetown frequently fell in their ears.
Upon reaching a consensual methodology to remove the peacekeepers from Kono, the RUF had the Lieutenant Colonel and the Kenyan General driven in two separate vehicles to Koidu where they met the Second in Command of the Zambian soldiers. All of them later set off to an unknown destination which was later found out to be Pendembu where a Liberian military helicopter was waiting to fly them to Monrovia Airport. At the airport the soldiers received physical medical examination. The soldiers were eventually flown over to Lungi in Sierra Leone after a night in Monrovia on board a UN helicopter. In the Witness’s testimony, he mentioned that he later came to find out that three soldiers went missing but one reappeared quite later and two have since been declared dead. The lieutenant Colonel, during the disarmament period confirmed to have deployed troops in Lungiroi, Mabom, and later on in Kenema where he was stationed for the entire disarmament process.
During cross examination, Counsel for Issa Sesay enquired into the first contacts the Witness had with the Prosecution which the Witness confirmed that it was through a phone call, and gave his statement using that medium. On the question posed by Counsel on why other Zambians have not been forthcoming to testify on the same experience, the Witness said he would not be in a position to determine why exactly that was so. The Bench thereupon interjected and ruled that Counsel was inviting the Witness to speculate and therefore he has now been hoisted by his own petard as he had earlier on made an objection to such questioning techniques. Largely questions by Mr. Wayne Jordhash sought perhaps to establish that since the Witness was granted liberty to visit his troops to know their state of health, and did receive foodstuffs from the local inhabitants such as mangoes, then they were also fed. And also that since all the troops were retained back to Lungi unharmed, the RUF did have regard for peacekeepers lives.
Still under cross examination, but from Counsel for second accused, the Witness denied knowledge of any information regarding the taking of a pass before going through RUF territories. The Lieutenant Colonel said General Jettly; the Force Commander never briefed him about security risks involved in executing his mandate. Counsel suggested therefore that the RUF were basically at the time acting in preemptive self defence especially when the peacekeepers were determined to bulldoze their way through.
Counsel for the third accused adopted his colleague’s submissions. In reexamination, Mr. Harrison read a portion of the witness’s testimony relating to use of child soldiers, and some local inhabitants in Kono intimating the Lieutenant Colonel of sexual harassment by RUF especially in Yengema. The Witness answered in the affirmative, and confirmed the incidence to be correct.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Uncategorized
It could be recalled that Omrie Golley, the former Revolutionary United Front (RUF) Spokesman was arrested on the 12th January, 2006. The allegations were that he and two others, Mohamed Bah and David Kai Tombie were planning to overthrow the Government of Sierra Leone and to assassinate the Vice President.
On the 23rd January 2006, Golley and the two others were charged to the Magistrate Court No. 1 of Principal Magistrate Sam Margai. This happened on the 11th day after his arrest and detention. Golley and two others have been charged with treason, a capital offence that bears the death penalty. The case was initially heard in the Magistrate Court on Preliminary Investigations. Upon adducing various evidence, the Magistrate ruled that the accused persons had a case to answer, which saw the remittal of the matter to the High Court No. 1 before Justice Samuel Ademusu.
The matter upon reaching the High court, various protractions emerged immediately. In fact, even at the Magistrate Court, there was an occasion when the case was called but the accused persons had not been brought from the prison. The Court waited for about two hours before the accused persons were brought which by then, the lead counsel for the Defence, Mr. Charles F. Margai had left the Court.
Technical hitches heightened at the High Court. At this stage, Charles Margai objected to the eligibility of the presiding Judge, Justice Samuel Ademusu. Mr. Margai’s objection was premised on the fact that the Judge had passed the retirement age and was on contract with the President which does not give him the security of tenure of office. This in Mr. Margai’s opinion places the Judge on a pliable seat wherein he could not be free from a jaundiced eye especially for a treason trial.
Insisting on the claim that Justice Ademusu is incredible to sit on the matter, Mr. Margai filed a motion on the 24th February 2006 to the Supreme Court (Ex parte Motion) for clarification of the constitutionality and eligibility of Justice Ademusu to sit on the substantive matter. In light of Mr. Margai’s application, the Supreme Court sat on the 7th March, 2006. However, on the 6th March 2006, a day before the Supreme Court met, Mr. Margai filed another motion.
Therefore, when the Supreme Court met on the 7th March 2006, primarily to hear arguments on the eligibility or ineligibility of Justice Ademusu presiding over the Omrie Golley treason trial, Mr. Margai immediately made an application to the Bench that in view of the motion he filed on the 6th March 2006, the hearing on the motion he filed on the 24th February 2006 should be deferred pending the hearing and determination of motion dated 6th march 2006. The 6th March 2006 motion filed by Mr. Margai was for the Chief Justice of the Republic of Sierra Leone, Justice Ade-Renner Thomas to recluse himself from the decision to be taken on the 24th February 2006 motion because he (the Chief Justice) had discussed and formed an opinion on the motion outside court.
In the same matter, so many concerns have been raised in relation to the rights of an accused person in criminal trials. On so many occasions, Omrie Golley has complained that he does not have access to his lawyer. Even though the state has provided him a Lawyer, Mr. Osho Williams, he is still insisting that he prefers Charles Margai as his counsel.
At the hearing in the High Court No. 1 on 3rd March 2006, Omrie Golley raised so many objections regarding the way he is been treated in detention to the whole court audience in a bitter and desperate mood. In fact on that very day, he was brought to court together with the other two accused persons half naked. On that day, he did not want to come to court because he was ill and at the same time he did not have faith in the court but was dragged out of his cell by a group of police officers according to Mr. Golley. At the same time, he continued that he is ill and has lost 60% of his body weight but the court has disregarded all of those.
Continuing his exclamation, Mr. Golley said he has a young wife in England with two babies but since his arrest almost two months ago, he has not been given any access to phone calls. He continued that his wife gave Mr. Melron Nicole-Wilson some drugs to help treat his cholesterol but the prison authorities denied him access. In addition, he objected to the act of sending his medical report to the Attorney General and Minister of Justice and said he cannot trust that report since he should be the first person to be contacted with his medical report. On the same day, after his medical report was tendered by the AG in court, Mr. Golley objected that his medical report should not be read aloud to the court as it was against his personal dignity but this too was not regarded by the Bench.
The medical report read to the court however confirmed that Mr. Golley was infected with malaria. Up to the 7th March 2006, Mr. Golley complained that the latest test he did confirmed that his pressure level is high and he is having irregular heart beats. He further confirmed that the test result of Dr. Willoughby proves he has traces of typhoid fever and some problems affecting his kidney which is causing the swelling in his face.
Giving the current circumstances surrounding the Omrie Golley treason trials, a couple of complications have become glaring and as a result, the process is not so much of a treason trial as much as the Defence Counsels and the accused have protracted the issue to be a pending bias and non independent trial. The defence and the accused are taking advantage of some lapses in the judiciary and some judicial officials to apparently ‘frustrate’ the whole process.
The SLCMP for example has on many occasions emphasized that the scheme of having Judges on contract is a potent vestige for the perversion of justice. Now the Omrie Golley case is just one in which this much-condemned system is about to cause a deadlock and starting in this fashion, no one can tell what snags this system might cause in the future.
Furthermore, a surprising occurrence that is contributing to the protraction of the Omrie Golley Trial and which Mr. Charles Margai, the lead defence counsel has taken advantage of is the fact that no lesser person than the Chief Justice of the Republic of Sierra Leone went ahead and discussed matter pending ruling outside court. This has culminated to another motion for the Chief Justice not to participate in the whole process in order to avert premeditated judgement. In a situation that it stands wherein the Chief Justice is excluded from the Supreme Court decision, is it not a discredit to the judiciary? Let us remember that this is happening when it has been reported over the BBC by Alhassan Fofana that the Attorney General and Minister of Justice who is the Legal Adviser to the Government has also remarked unfortunately though, that any time Omrie Golley refuses coming to court, he would be dragged and brought half naked like it has happened previously.
Looking at the situation at this point, what happens now that a legal question has been raised about the credibility of the judge? Of course, an accused person or counsels have the right to object to a Judge having likelihood of reasonable bias especially when there is a probability of compromising ‘the two principles of natural justice’(Audi alter am par tem) or nemo judex causa sua (you cannot be a judge in your own case). In the case of Jury trials, one can only object to a maximum of six jurors.
With reference to the above, Omrie Golley had the right to question the Judge’s independence since this is a treason trial and the allegations are that he was planning to overthrow the Government of Sierra Leone and assassinate the Vice president. The judge being on contract, his tenure of office is highly contingent on the President’s prerogative and therefore, he might easily subject himself to judicial manipulations from the Government in order to maintain his main source of livelihood.
However, while Mr. Golley as an accused person reserves the right to object to a judge and choose his counsel (as he has succeeded to have Charles Margai represent him), he equally cannot dictate to the court the kind of Judge he wants like he is already demanding for a foreign judge. In the same vein, the second and third accused persons have also pronounced in court that they do not have faith in all the twelve jurors when in actual fact, accused persons have the right to only object to a maximum of six jurors.
Another issue of legal concern is that Mr. Golley was arrested on the 12th of January, 2006 and was charged to court on the 23rd January, 2006. To quote Mr. Golley, he said “I was charged on the 11th hour of the 11th day after my arrest”. Overtly, section 17 (3) a of the Sierra Leone 1991 Constitution states that any person arrested or detained shall be brought before court “within ten days from the date of arrest in cases of capital offences, offences carrying life imprisonment and economic and environmental offences”. Since Omrie Golley was charged with a capital offence, it constitutionally stands that he should have been brought to court within ten days from the date of his arrest; but he was rather brought to court on the 11th day. The delay here is not very significant when compared to other cases but this still amounts to an abuse on the rights of an accused person.
The health issue of Omrie Golley is another worry one must not underestimate because he is still complaining that the court is not treating his health problems seriously. We must remember that initially he started complaining of malaria, to typhoid fever; now it is unusual heart beats and kidney infections. Slobodan Milosevic has just died in detention and his family, including his son has accused the UN War Crimes Tribunal of causing the former president’s death. The prison officials should provide medical facilities for Mr. Golley (as a matter of right) that at least fall within the ambits of the minimum standards for the treatment of prisoners and to also avoid the judicial system been netted into complications in case there is an unforeseen incidence.
The stake here is not Omrie Golley and the two other accused persons. It is basically about the rights of an accused person in criminal trials irrespective of your past or present. The fact is that any eyesores that are prevalent in the judiciary stands to negatively affect any litigant in the Sierra Leone Judiciary. This is why as a court monitoring programme, the SLCMP examines the legal provisions, applications and problems emanating from the courts so that the much hue and cry to have a very proficient judiciary in Sierra Leone will be actualised.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Uncategorized
The Judiciary, being the third arm of government is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that individual rights as provided by the constitution are protected. This role is not only crucial in the creation and preservation of a stable state, but it is also of indispensable importance in combating corruption, a weird practice that stands on the way to national development.
Ravaged by over a decade of civil unrest, plagued by a severe lack of financial resources, and politically not independent, the Sierra Leone judiciary is both structurally and institutionally unable to address all the legal issues it is presented with. In effect, it is yet a mere skeletal vestige of the past that largely gives way to the preponderance of corruption. The Sierra Leone judiciary is the most corrupt arm of government and the second most corrupt institution according to the 2000 Corruption Perception Survey. The judiciary is also one of the six Hot-spot institutions (institutions with high risks of corrupt practices based on their systems and procedures) according to the 2002 Governance and Corruption Survey.
In a bid to be down to business in fighting corruption, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) which has the prime responsibility to monitor public functionaries, in a peculiar effort has developed the National Anti-Corruption Strategy (NACS) as a vital prerequisite that embodies strategic action plans that show the way forward in combating corruption and assisting the ACC in its noble fight. This article therefore examines the NACS with specific references to its major findings and recommendations about the judiciary, which the latter is still lagging to accomplish and thus making openings for corrupt practices to prevail in the institution.
To start with, defendants in particularly magistrate courts, despite their constitutional rights to legal representation are excluded from this right because the state simply does not have enough lawyers at its disposal. Defendants are often unaware of the charges against them until the first day of trial. To this end, NACS recommends in pursuant to the constitution that defendants are given legal representation upon request and to let accused persons know the charges filed against them immediately after arrest. This practice puts accused persons at a fair footing to prepare their defence and additionally submerges the probabilities of corrupt practices within the judiciary.
With regards the judges, whilst they continue living without a very substantial salary scale and reasonable conditions of service, a couple of them are well above retirement age and they are therefore employed on contract by the government. This practice has a high penchant of employing pliable judges in cases where the government interest is at stake. Also, in as much as this is a constitutional provision, the NACS submits that with increased salaries and attractive conditions of service for judges, young energetic practitioners will be attracted to the bench which will forestall the hiring of retired judges that might be politically influenced and the soliciting and acceptance bribes.
Up to date, the judicial infrastructure is starving of resources thereby rendering justice virtually inaccessible for the average Sierra Leonean. The number of cases to be tried far out way the number of available courtrooms. The already existing courtrooms do not provide a very comfortable environment for all legal participants and equally do not offer prestige to the court. In the NACS, it is made clear that there is the need to build more courts to accommodate the amount of cases awaiting trial and make the physical conditions of work much more accommodating.
Another striking problem affecting the courts is the lack of stenographers during trials, and as a result, presiding magistrates/judges have to write court transcripts in long hand. This cumbersome process does not only distract the bench from very important matters at hand, but also drains them from the energy that could be spent on the numerous cases they view per day. This is why the NACS craves for stenographers to be present in all court hearings with sufficient access to transcribing the evidence. Actually, that the only recorded accounts of cases filter through one magistrate/judge presents a monopoly of information in his/her favor and therefore an opportunity for corruption.
Therefore, for a corrupt free judiciary to exist in Sierra Leone, the above mentioned recommendations by the NACS must be implemented. That is why it was developed mainly to prevent corruption through the adoption of various institutional policies or otherwise that would restrain the tendencies of corrupt practices. However, February 2006 made the NACS one year since it was officially lunched and no tangible or feasible strides have been taken for its implementation in especially the judiciary. The implementation of the NACS will go a long way in tackling corruption instead of just the myriad of investigations and prosecutions.
The Sierra Leone Court Monitoring Programme (SLCMP) far from being against prosecution of corruption cases, also views with prudent insight that corruption prevention should equally be given time and energy especially so when a number of ACC cases have been discharged from court for want of prosecution and letting offenders get away with it. The Anti Corruption Commission should therefore follow up the National Anti-Corruption Strategy in various institutions and ensure that they are fully implemented instead of just making it a piece of an office document.
The apparent realism is that, the fight against corruption until it is abundantly accomplished in the judiciary, the hope for other institutions to be contained in practising corruption will continue to submerge. Now that the judiciary is yet to arrive at very basic practices that will prevent corruption, how then can Sierra Leoneans be guaranteed that anti-corruption cases brought to court are fairly tried?
The SLCMP continues to strongly underline that in as much as improvements have occurred in some respects, there is still an imperative need for reform in especially the areas that the NACS has pointed out so that the already 67% of households that prefer using alternative mechanisms for conflict resolution than going to court will radically trim down.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Uncategorized
The RUF’s 7th Trial Session commenced on the 2nd March, 2006. Up till now, more than two witnesses have led evidence from the prosecution. The witnesses have also been cross-examined by counsels for the three war crimes indictees. Suffice it to say that Issa Hassan Sesay, Morris Kallon, and Augustine Gbao stand before the Special Court trial chamber one accused of crimes against humanity, violations of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II and other serious violations of international humanitarian law, in violation of Article 2, 3, and 4 of the Statute.
The thrust of this article’s argument is based on the phenomenon of forced labour, inhuman and degrading treatment allegedly meted out to civilians by the R.U.F. This thread seems to run across all the testimonies of witnesses in the R.U.F. trials. It is further alleged that such exercises included farming, beating, and carrying of heavy boxes for long distances.
Forced labour simply put is a restraint imposed on the will of a person. Whilst defence counsels have cautioned that prejudicial value of a witness’s testimony must not outweigh the probative value, the concept of forced and inhuman treatment must not be overstretched. Paragraph 43 of the Consolidated RUF Indictment buttresses the issue of forced labour by men and boys as abductees. Ancillary to forced labour is the issue of physical violence as laid in counts 10- 11 of the consolidated R.U.F. Indictment which basically entails mutilations against civilians. Count 13 of same states that forced labour includes domestic labour and use of diamond miners especially in Kenema District, where the Cyborg Pit was used for such acts.
Section 19 of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone expressly affords protection from slavery and forced labour to the extent that persons shall not be in slavery or servitude or be required to perform forced labour. Further to the above, section 20 (1) of same stipulates guarantees against any form of torture, punishment, or other inhuman or degrading treatment. Important issues of fundamental human rights nature such as freedom of movement (section 18) and of expression (section 25) are also related to persons held in captivity and forced to labour. Freedom of movement for example as stated was restricted to obtaining a pass from the RUF MPs and G5 Commanders. Except carrying goods for a commander it has been said that civilians were not permitted to move to Guinean or Liberian border.
International statutes such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 55 reinforces the view that states must work towards the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Article 5 of same, and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. This apparently also involves the issue of forced labour as persons are made to work under the threat of a penalty. Freedom from forced labour is also well-established in international law as addressed in international treaties and conventions and resolutions of the International Labour Organisation. Legal distinctions though have been made between forced and compulsory labour.
In view of the numerous local and international instruments agitating for the non acceptance of forced labour and its attendant human rights abuses, witnesses in the Special Court continue to narrate stories that seem to suggest the issue of servitude and forced labour as been a horrendous ordeal especially in the Kailiahun District.
Defence Counsels have however objected to the giving of global allegations against their clients without tendering specific factual details of the crimes alleged. But witnesses have revealed that a man named Korpohmeh actually forced and even beat civilians to farm for the R.U.F. He thereafter directly reported to Augustine Gbao (tThird accused). He was also allegedly in charge of the Internal Defence Unit.
Other issues have also emerged in the testimony of prosecution witnesses especially in the area of recruitment of child combatants under the age of 15. This act of conscripting young boys and girls as alleged is in contravention of Article 6.1 of the Geneva Convention. At Bayame, in the Kailahun District, 23 miles from Kailahun Town, there was an RUF training base for the purposes mentioned above. This base was later moved to Bunumbu according to the testimonies of witnesses. It has been said that one C/O Jah Glory was in charge of training camp ably assisted by Morris Kakua, a man of Liberian descent,
Also in Talia, Luawa Chiefdom, the witnesses asserted that innumerable houses were burnt down and certain places looted as laid down in count14 of the Indictment, and contrary to Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II. But to all these serious allegations lawyers for the accused have systematically sought to deconstruct the issues by maintaining that the RUF Agriculture Offficer in Kailahun, Fayia Musa never forced people to work but all civilians who did so performed their work out of their free volition . In addition to that, they have also suggested to the court that RUF allowed food donations from the Red Cross to civilians in Kailahun to alleviate their poverty. And thirdly, that there was enough medical facilities to care for pregnant women and aged people under the supervision of the RUF. In fact, to crown the arguments, Defence Counsels have also maintained that produces such as cocoa, palm oil, husk rice, and bush meat were given voluntarily to the RUF by civilians in Kailahun in return for protection from Kamajor invasion. In relation to that, democratic political appointments were made by the RUF according to defence lawyers for the smooth administration of RUF territories.
Rape, a crime against humanity, punishable under Article (2)g of the statute of the Special Court, has also been the thrust of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. All these acts, it is purported, were done by RUF fighters under the command of the accused persons.
Interestingly, most portions of the testimonies pursuant to Rule 78 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence that court sessions be held in public with exceptional circumstances to the contrary, the Chamber has frequently moved into closed sessions for the purposes of protecting the identity of witnesses. Before the close of the Prosecutions case, Defence counsels shall cross examine all Prosecution witnesses to destroy the credibility of their stories. Afterwards, the defence shall be granted leave as of right by the bench to call on their own witness and shall be also accordingly cross examined by the Prosecution and if necessary re-examined by the Defence. The Judges shall then evaluate the mass of evidence adduced and thereupon return a verdict of guilt or otherwise of the accused persons.
The SLCMP encourages the public to attend the Trial Sessions.
