The case of the State v. Yusuf Turay et al is a matter that has attracted massive attention from the members of the public in general, and the media in particular. It relates to the alleged swindling of a Korean national of $38,000. The accused persons face various charges relating to their alleged role in the fraudulent conduct. The 2nd and 3rdaccused persons were charged with conspiracy to defraud by the making false representations, while the first accused Yusuf Turay was charged on all the five counts. The first count was conspiracy to defraud. Counts 2 to 4 relate to obtaining $38,000 by false pretences. The preliminary investigation (PI) lasted for only one month (January 29 till February 26), which is quite remarkable.
It is worth commending the exceptional speed with which the court, particularly the Magistrate proceeded with the matter. On 29th January 2013, for instance, the Magistrate ordered the proceedings to be stood down on two occasions only to ensure that defence lawyers representing the accused were all present in order to continue cross examining the complainant. The Magistrate was so determined to expedite the proceedings that he had warned that he would allow the accused persons to do the cross examination themselves should the lawyers fail to appear in court.
It seems like the Magistrate has busted the trick. He kept warning that he would not accept any unnecessary applications for adjournment as it had been a ploy for defence counsel to seek unnecessary adjournments during the preliminary investigation phase of such cases just so the victims, who are mostly foreigners, would lose patience and hope in the matter. The victims have often had to abandon their case to return to their countries of origin. He warned that it would not happen on his watch.
The Magistrate was very helpful in terms of maintaining a balance between the prosecution and the defence as this was a case where CARL observed a clear mismatch in skills, knowledge and experience between legal practitioners and police prosecutors. On some occasions, the Magistrate had to stop the prosecution witness from responding to unfair questions posed by the defence because the prosecutor was apparently not competent enough to do it. Unfortunately, the knowledge gap between lawyers and police prosecutors is always evident in court. In some instances, it seems like the Magistrates double as assistant prosecutors. Otherwise, lawyers would take undue advantage of weak and untrained police investigators who lack training on a number of procedural issues. Magistrates have had to warn lawyers that although cross examination is a tool, they should not abuse it by posing self-incriminating and leading questions to witness which is odious in law. It is recommended that the Law Officers Department consider organizing workshops with police prosecutors on issues of procedural law. Alternatively, they should develop modules either within the University system or privately on special law courses so they can address these loopholes.
The Magistrate has committed the matter to the High Court for trial, despite the submissions by defence counsel that 1st and 2nd accused persons should be discharged. They argued that the actus reus for conspiracy is agreement in furtherance of a common design, and that there was no evidence before the court to show that the accused persons did conspire with one another to commit the alleged offence. They further argued that the second and third accused persons only came into the scene after the substantive offence – obtaining money by false pretences – had been committed. In his ruling, the Magistrate said, among other things, that the evidence before him was not only sufficient but overwhelming that the 1st accused obtained the sum of $38,000 from the complainant for purposes which were not accomplished. He said it was not a trial but a mere preliminary inquiry such that the prosecution need only prove slightly that the 2nd and 3rd accused persons did conspire which they did and it is then left to them to defend themselves in the high court. There’s still a long way to go in this matter, of course, but CARL would like to commend the court for expeditious manner in which the proceedings were held in this matter. If all preliminary investigation matters were disposed of with such speed and commitment, Sierra Leone’s criminal justice sector would be competitive across the globe. Whatever the outcome of the trial, the victim would certainly leave a very good impression of the justice landscape of the country. There is so much the justice sector can do to promote the confidence of investors.
Another unit of the judiciary that has been helping to promote investor confidence is the Fast Track Commercial Court. The court has remained generally committed to its stated objective of expeditiously disposing of claims. In the month of February 2013, for instance, the Court concluded twelve commercial-related cases. That sounds impressive, but a lot more needs to be to build citizens’ confidence in the justice sector as well as highlight the some of the gains made by various units of the justice sector.
