by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
‘The greatest glory in falling is rising again.’ This sentiment generates the invaluable need for Sierra Leone to heroically recover from her ugly past. To achieve this, the nation needs to be reconstructed on the solid pillars of human dignity, peaceful co-existence and social justice. The absence of these social conditions, deserved by the people of Sierra Leone, was engendered principally by corruption and impunity in relation to corruption. It was this that triggered the decade long civil war that has left indelible negative scars upon the country.
Corruption was not only one of the prime causes of the war but also largely sustained it. During the war, senior government officials and officers of the Sierra Leone Army contributed immensely in sustaining the war by diverting logistical support intended for the war to their personal use. Consequently, they did not only undermine the defence of the country, but their corrupt practices resulted into a great deal of dissatisfaction on the parts of junior soldiers and those at the war front. This dissatisfaction ultimately erupted into rebellion on the part of the junior ranks who expressed their indignation of the system by seizing power on two occasions. Corruption went on galore!
Eventually the war came to target innocent people to an extent that the dire need for peace was cried for in every nook and cranny of this country. This culminated in the Lomé Peace Accord and the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission pursuant to Article XXVI of the Accord. The mandate of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was to create an impartial historical record of violations and abuses of human rights and international law related to the armed conflict in Sierra Leone from the beginning of the conflict in 1991 to the signing of the Lomé Peace Agreement; to address impunity, to respond to the needs of the victims, to promote healing and reconciliation and to prevent the repetition of the violations and abuses suffered.
The TRC in response to this mandate started operations in 2002 and looked at; inter alia, the causes of conflict, which mainly posited issues of bad governance and pervasive corruption as the pivot. In its report, the TRC recommended that the Government put adequate structures in place to fight corruption. It specifically recommended the disclosure of assets by ‘powerful public position holders’ including members of cabinet, judges, Parliamentarians, heads of parastatals and members of district and city councils, before and after assumption of office, in order to enhance transparency. Furthermore, the TRC recommended that Government works towards the publication of all funding allocated to the provision of services so as to ensure accountability to the people of Sierra Leone. The Commission warned against corruption that, if not arrested, will lay the grounds for further conflict, hamper the efforts towards development and sap the country of its life force. Most importantly, the TRC recommended that the Anti-Corruption Commission (‘ACC’) be “permitted to pursue its own prosecutions in the name of the Republic of Sierra Leone”, because the Attorney General has been criticized for rendering the ACC ineffective. This implies that the ACC should be permitted to determine all cases that are justiciable and prosecute them in court directly without having to be sanctioned first by the office of the Attorney General.
Without any fiber of equivocation, the ACC has been set up to make corruption history, thereby thwarting the stakes for the recurrence of war in this country. However, the Commission has not yet done enough to effect positive changes in society. This is due to certain institutional problems created chiefly by the acts and omissions of the Government. The Government of Sierra Leone has so far failed to take the requisite steps to facilitate the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) recommendations, especially the sections that have to do with the fight against corruption. In its White Paper (response to the TRC recommendations), the Government conspicuously failed to mention a word about corruption. Sufficient efforts have not been taken regarding disclosure of assets by Government officials; regarding publication of information on budget allocation, especially for social services; and most importantly in terms of enhancing the independence of ACC, with regards to the issue of justiciability and subsequent prosecution.
As for the latter, Vice President Solomon Berewa during the Development Partnership Committee Meeting in September said “…we have established a committee comprising two ACC Special Prosecutors and a Law Officer appointed by the Government. This committee will now make the decision as to whether any ACC case merits prosecution. The decision of the committee is deemed the decision of the Attorney General.” The SLCMP is not sure whether the Government was acting based on the recommendations of the TRC. Even if that is the case, this drive could only enhance the independence of the ACC if it is allowed to prosecute the cases, meaning cases should not be sent to the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP). Furthermore, like the three man committee, the cases being prosecuted should be deemed the actions of the DPP and in the name of the Government of Sierra Leone.
The recommendations made by the TRC are just minimum threshold efforts that are required of serious minded governments to enhance the fight against corruption. Realistically, the implementation of these recommendations requires little financial resources and therefore leaves the Government with no excuse not to implement them. In such a case, a government has to be extremely complacent about corruption to leave these basics in undoing corruption unattained.
Corruption still costs Sierra Leone so much and is the root cause for the difficult living conditions among the average Sierra Leonean which have consistently maintained Sierra Leone at the nadir of the UNDP Human Development Index. Crucially and shamefully, Sierra Leone recently failed to qualify as a beneficiary of the G8’s debt cancellation initiative apparently because the Government fell short of convincing the donors of its effort to fight corruption. Equally detrimentally and embarrassingly, a meeting of prospective donors in Paris to discuss the Poverty Reduction Strategy for Sierra Leone was called off in June because of Sierra Leone’s faint endeavors at addressing corruption.
That said, the SLCMP still thinks that hope is not lost. However we view with strong conviction that corruption can be made history only if there is strong political will complementing the Anti- Corruption Commission (instead of competing with it) and related civil society groups. The ACC needs its own specialized investigation, prosecution and prevention bodies. The ACC Act 2000 imperatively needs more amendments in order to incorporate the salient recommendations the TRC has made. The Attorney General and Minister of Justice has too many powers as established in sections 36,37,39,40 and 48 of the ACC Act 2000 especially when the holder of this position is a politician. The SLCMP yearns for the truth no matter who says it and for justice no matter who it is for or against, so that together, we can build a Sierra Leone that we can be proud of.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
October 2006 will be two years since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission published its findings. Some of the main findings included the following: that the war was caused by ‘bad governance, endemic corruption and the denial of basic human rights which created the deplorable conditions that made the war inevitable.’ The Report specified that young people were both perpetrators and victims; ‘women and girls suffered uniquely’, ‘chidren were singled out for some of the most brutal violations of human rights…most of the factions forced children into combat.’ The Commission also pointed fingers at external actors such as Libya and the National Patriotic Front of Liberia as key contributors to fueling the war.
In a bid to prevent another war, address impunity, respond to the needs of the victims and promote healing and reconciliation, the Commission recommended, inter alia, for the institution of reforms to protect human rights, establish the rule of law, security, promote good governance, reconciliation, and provide reparation for the victims. Although the recommendations call for non-state actors and foreign governments to contribute to the process, it is, however, important to note that the implementation of the bulk of the recommendations is the responsibility of the Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL). Furthermore, it is a fact that money is a necessary ingredient in the implementation process, nontheless, the most important resource is the political commitment of the GoSL. Unfortunately, this has not been forthcoming. For example, it took the government almost five months to issue the Whitepaper in response to the TRC Report. The response only manifested the government’s unwillingness to implement core recommendations of the TRC Report, such as repealing the death penalty and decriminalizing libel. Furthermore, just two months after the TRC issued its Report, ten people were sentenced to death. GoSL deliberately failed to issue a moratorium on all pending death sentences as recommended by the TRC Report. The question here is, why is the GoSL only enthusiastic about upholding laws that are averse to public interest?
Moreover, the Report recommended that the GoSL should provide reparation for victims. Part of the reparation should be for the establishment of a victims’ trust fund. While this is yet to happen, the government hardly deliver on aspects of the reparation that are even considered as routine governmental responsibilities; such as enhancing access to clean drinking water, regular electricity, affordable health facilities, and good roads.
With regards to legal reform, results have been too slow and far in between. The centrality of legal reform in consolidating the peace cannot be over emphasized, given the fact that distrust of the judicial system was one of the root causes of the war. Before the end of last year, civil society groups working on TRC follow-up hired the services of Sierra Leonean lawyers to draft an Omnibus Bill. The Bill was shared with some officials in the Government’s Law Officers Department. Furthermore, the Bill was presented to members of the Human Rights Committee who were expected to sponsor the Bill to be passed into law. Unfortunately, the Bill was never read in parliament. Though the recent governmental mandate to the Law Reform Commission (LRC) is deemed overdue, it is, however, a welcoming development.
The SLCMP wants to remind the GoSL and other stakeholders that the TRC recommendations did not emerge from oblivion; it is a creation of the Lome Peace Agreement. Therefore failing to implement it fully can only be seen as reneging on the terms agreed upon at Lome. Furthermore, the mere silence of guns does not fully signify peace. The presence of peace involves many things, including fully implementing peace agreement, instituting meaningful reforms, fulfilling campaign promises and combating the causes of the conflict. It is sad to note that, some of the root causes of the war still exist. That said, the SLCMP will like to encourage the GoSL to be the example of the changes Sierra Leoneans are craving for.
by ibakarr | Aug 11, 2016 | Blog
One of the major causes of the decade long civil war (even though people hardly mention it) was due to the fact that we made history worthless by failing to learn from the past. On the eve of the war, virtually every aspect of the Sierra Leone society was politicized, including the application of the rule of law. The promulgation of many laws were premised on what benefit it would bring to those in power and their stooges; and how it would help entrench them in power. This shows how wicked laws, such as the infamous criminal libel law (to silence the press) and the death penalty (to eliminate the opposition) came into being and turned Sierra Leone into an oppressed society. The difference between a free and an oppressed society is that, in a free society, you need a reason to restrict liberty or make legal acts illegal. In an oppressed society, leaders are most enthusiastic about executing wicked laws. This article will look at one of those wicked laws in our statute books, the death penalty which like the criminal libel law, has continued to make our society far from being a democratic and civilized one.
It is nearly seventeen months since the High Court in Freetown convicted and sentenced to death 10 people accused of treason. When the sentences were passed in December 2004, series of articles were published within and outside Sierra Leone discussing the issue. Some of them requested the Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL) to mitigate the sentences. Human Rights organizations such as National Forum for Human Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch issued press releases to that effect and also called for the abolition of the wicked law. However, it is surprising to note that the GoSL despite these efforts, refused to mitigate the sentences. According to them, they could not conform to such requests as the death penalty is part of our laws, and that it is still practised by countries such as the United States, Japan and other African countries. Seventeen months gone, the fate of the convicts is still hanging in limbo. They are still in custody awaiting the execution of the sentences.
These death sentences were issued barely two months after the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) issued its final report. In the Report published in October 2004, the TRC recommended that human dignity and human rights can thrive only when human life is inviolable. The report called for the abolition of the death penalty and the repealing of all laws permitting it. The Report specifically recommended that section 16(1) of the 1991 Sierra Leone Constitution authorizing capital punishment be amended and provisions included to guaranteeing the respect for and inviolability of human life. The Commission said urgent steps should be taken in realizing this including the introduction of a moratorium on all pending sentences. It was not surprising when these 10 people were sentenced to death since the law is still in force. What is surprising is the GoSL’s continued reluctance to enact the Commission’s recommendations, particularly the one dealing with the death penalty. The establishment of the TRC was a continuation of the implementation of the Lome Peace Agreement (LPA) negotiated with AFRC/RUF to end the war. Therefore, its recommendations form part of that process. Accordingly, Article X of the LPA requires the GoSL to take all necessary steps, including amendment of the 1991 Constitution in accordance with Part V, Section 108 of the said Constitution. The apparent refusal of the GoSL to implement the TRC recommendations does not only show how it is reneging on the implementation of the LPA, but most importantly illustrate its enthusiasm in continuing to implement bad laws; an indication of how we are matching backwards into doldrums of an oppressed society.
The abolition of the death penalty does not require progressive realization like social and economic rights. As a matter of fact, it was not supposed to exist. The right to life is not something one realizes progressively; it is either you live or you die. This is obviously a first step through which the government can start implementing and therefore, be an example in realizing the recommendation of the Commission.
The death penalty is a form of ‘punishment’ that typifies the brutish and uncivilized nature of man to confront its problems. It was never a panacea to our problems and will never be. It is an affront to the struggle for the protection of human rights. The philosophical and rhetorical arguments of pro-death penalty campaigners are not strong enough to warrant the continued breach of life.
Supporters of death penalty have pointed at deterrence as their strongest argument. However, there is no nexus between the threat of death penalty and the commission of crime. Crimes still continue to occur in countries that apply the death penalty. The fear of death neither repairs the damages nor rehabilitates the individual convicts. All death penalty does is to feed the treacherous impression that killing is a solution to our problems. It compounds the problem by imposing an irreparable damage.
Death penalty permanently deprives people of the due process of the law. Once a death penalty is executed, it is irreversible and irrevocable. In the event of new evidence that could reverse the conviction, the convict would have been killed unfairly. Regimes in Sierra Leone have deliberately used this to their advantage in the past.
The current global trend with regards death penalty is moving towards its abolition. On the eve of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, not more than seven countries had abolished the death penalty. Since then, over hundred and eleven countries have abolished it. Based on an article published by Amnesty International, the trend became more evident in Africa in the 1990s with the institution of multi party political system and the consolidation of civil society. West Africa is part of this growing trend. Currently, over ten countries in West Africa have either de jure or de facto abolition, Senegal being the latest. On December 10, 2004 on the fifty sixth anniversary of the UDHR, the Senegalese Parliament enacted a legislation abolishing the death penalty.
Sierra Leone has a bad track record of continued executions. Recently in 1997 during the interregnum, the AFRC/RUF regime embarked on summary killings to ‘curb’ crimes. The reinstated government of President Tejan Kabbah continued this process. In 1998, the Kabbah regime instituted a military tribunal whose findings resulted in the shooting of 24 military officers for their involvement in the coup of 1997. Sierra Leoneans have witnessed the execution of series of death sentences passed in the 1970s and 1980s, most of them based on fictitious evidence and political motivations. In fact, most of the killings that have taken place were political. The governments hardly killed convicts because of committing crimes like murder. As in previous ones, the 1998 executions too never solved the problems, they only compounded them.
GoSL have not given convincing reasons to continue to keep the death penalty in our law books. Is United States and others cited as countries still practicing the death penalty infallible? The United State is not a perfect country. Any bright mind or at least someone with some knowledge of international law knows that the United States circumvented all basic principles of international law to invade Iraq. Furthermore, the United States had initially abolished the death penalty. In 1972, the United States Supreme Court under the then existing laws and in the case of Furman v. Georgia (408 U.S. 238) declared that “the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty… constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Many death sentences were reversed. However, this did not last longer as Congress enacted another legislation that required a dual system. I do not think I should delve further into the United States legal system to prove that death penalty is a wicked law. All I want to make clear is that just because the United States is using it does not make it right. If this is going to be the reason for the GoSL to continue to keep the death penalty in our law books, then it should as well be the same reason why the GoSL must decriminalize libel, promulgate a bill on access to information, gender parity related issues, child rights, ensure the supremacy of the law, keeps to its campaign promises etc. In as much as we would want to emulate examples of leading democracies, those emulations should only include the good ones. The continued presence of the death penalty in our law books means reversing the gains Sierra Leone is making in consolidating the peace.
Sierra Leone is at cross roads at the moment with a huge opportunity to rejuvenate the legal system. We should take the current opportunity to revitalize our systems and bring them in line with international standards. The Special Court for Sierra Leone is a good example we have. Even though its jurisdiction
involves trying people for the worst crimes; war crimes, crimes against humanity, the framers did not include the death penalty; because it is not the universal trend of the rule of law. It would therefore be ironical to have those in the Special Court who are alleged to have committed far worse crimes (if found guilty) serving prison sentences and those convicted of relatively lesser crimes being sentenced to death.
Sierra Leone should learn from history; so many killings have taken place and have not helped us. As one writer puts it, “the death penalty is a relic of the earliest days of penology, when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were commonplace.” The death penalty is therefore a wicked law and cannot be administered impartially, it only destroys anybody it touches. It diminishes the rule of law and devalues our collective humanity.
by ibakarr | Dec 8, 2014 | Blog
Brief Case History
It could be recalled that sometime in August 2013 the Sierra Leone Police arrested 18 personnel of the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF)
on suspicion that they were planning a mutiny against the government. The personnel, including Private Momoh Kargbo, Warrant Officer Frederick Johnson, Private Abdulai Coker Suma, Corporal Momoh Conteh, Private Alpha Mansaray, Corporal Alex Jibao Koroma, Private Mustapha Quee, Private Kellie Kamara, Private Musa Fabai, Private Bobor Rogers, and Captain Prince Sesay, were detained for nearly eight months (August 10, 2013 to March 2014), without appearing before a court to respond to allegations against them.
Human rights groups, including the Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law
(CARL), criticized the government for violating the rights of the detainees (detaining them beyond the constitutionally-mandated period of 10 days without arraigning them in court). The Justice Ministry gave a number of excuses for the delay in commencing their trial, including the lack of resources to fund the judicial process. CARL described the prolonged detention of the personnel as a breach of their constitutionally guaranteed rights, and urged the state to either ensure a speedy trial for the accused persons or release them without delay. Consequently, in March 2014, the government announced the establishment of a Court Martial to try 14 of the 18 personnel who had been arrested. In the absence of information regarding the whereabouts of the others, CARL pressed the government to provide more information on the four others. In April 2014, the government decided to release the four personnel.
The trial is being presided over by Judge Advocate Justice Otto During, who is being assisted by a jury of five advocates, namely: Lt. Colonel B. Jusu; Presiding, Major M. Koroma, Captain S.M. Kanu, WO I. Jalloh and WO I. Ken-Marrah as members. The state is represented by Senior State Counsel Gerald J. Soyei, Mark Ngegba Esq., Mr. Jeremiah Bonah Esq. and Vincent Sowa Esq., while the Defence team constitutes Barristers J.L. Cuffie, I.P. Mammy, Thomas Beah, and Robert Kowa.
Summary of the Prosecution’s Case
The prosecution’s case is that all the 14 accused persons, being serving members of the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF), on diverse dates between 1st March and 31st August 2013, at 4th Brigade Headquarters, Teko Barracks, Makeni, got together with other persons unknown, to plan and hold secret meetings at the St. Andrew’s Junior Secondary School, the Squad 99 Meeting and the Wusum Field respectively, in order to destabilize the security of the state of Sierra Leone, by means of holding senior officers of RSLAF and ministers of government hostage and eventually taking over the administration of His Excellency the President, Ernest Bai Koroma, between 6th and 19th of August 2013.
The prosecution also claims that the execution of this alleged plot was supposed to have commenced during the RSLAF Command Conference that was held at Teko Barracks, in Makeni, sometime in March 2013. But because one of the alleged mutineers, the 10th Accused, who was supposed to facilitate the provision of arms and ammunition, became scared, the alleged plot was pushed forward to between 6th and 10th August, 2013.
Summary of the Evidence in the Prosecution’s Case
The prosecution led 11 witnesses among whom were 3 factual witnesses and 8 formal witnesses.
Factual Witnesses
The first factual witness for the prosecution was PW-2 Sergeant Momodu Jalloh, who is a soldier attached to the 4thInfantry Battalion, Teko Barracks, Makeni. He testified that he recognized one of the accused PW-1. He recalled that on the 10th August, 2013 he was at home when the 1st Accused came to his wife who sells bread and tea, requesting her to loan him bread and a cup of tea, and that after considerable reluctance from his wife, she however offered him the bread and a cup of tea out of compassion. He said, pretending to be part of the plot, he took the 1st Accused to the shade of a tree and asked him if he knew that they had a planned operation; that the 1st Accused confirmed to him their plans to have their commanders and the President arrested because of the exorbitant deductions from their salaries for the canteen. He was briefly cross-examined by the lead Defence Counsel Barrister J.L. Cuffie, who, inter alia, exposed the inconsistency between the witness’ statements at the police and his testimonies in court.
The second factual witness was Memuna Taqi Kamara, a trader. She testified that she lives at No. 9 Teko Road, Veterinary, Makeni. In her testimony, she recognized the 3rd Accused, Private Abdulai Coker Suma. She testified that she had known him when she went to collect her mobile phone from the house of the 7th Accused, where she had given the phone to him to recharge the battery; and that on her arrival, she had met the 7th Accused, his wife and the 3rd Accused; that the 7th Accused got up and went into the bedroom to fetch her mobile phone and the 3rd Accused called her outside the house and asked her whether she was Memuna, to which she had replied “yes”.
During cross-examination by the counsel for the 3rd Accused as to the exact month she went to collect her mobile phone at the house of the 7th Accused’s residence, she told the court that she could not recall the month and that she had come to know the 7th Accused in July 2013. She further said in cross-examination that she could not remember whether the second time she had seen the accused was in July 2013.
The third and last factual witness for the prosecution was Memunatu Conteh. She lives at Teko Barracks in Makeni. She recalled that sometime in July 2013, the 7th Accused had come to her house and said he wanted to tell her something. He had told her that they were on a mission known as “Operation Awareness”. She then asked him if the mission was to overthrow the government and he had said no. He had further informed her that all the other soldiers in other barracks were aware of the operation; that they had vehicles they would use to accomplish the mission, and that they had identified people who would be arrested and tortured. He had said that they would behead those people, take their heads to Freetown and show them to the President. She further said that the 7th Accused had told her that they would also arrest President Koroma and torture him.
The second set of witnesses for the prosecution comprised 8 formal witnesses who are mainly serving police officers of the Criminal Investigations Department and the Military Police. They testified before the court mainly regarding the part they played when they got information of the alleged mutiny. This involved interrogations, taking and recording of statements and tendering of exhibits to support the case of the prosecution.
The Defence Counsel’s No-Case Submission
After the prosecution had closed its case, the defence counsel for the accused military officers indicated to the court that they intended to file a no-case submission on behalf of all the accused persons. The no-case submission took the form of a written submission which was submitted in court and served to the respective parties in the trial. During the submission, the defence counsels decided to split themselves among the 14 accused military officers as follows: Barrister R. B. Kowa for the 14th Accused, Barrister T. Beah for the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th Accused, Barrister I. P. Mammy for the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Accused and Barrister J. L. Cuffie for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Accused.
They briefly indicated to the court before their submissions that they were relaying on the Court Martial Procedure Rules of 2003 and the 1991 Constitution which is against the undue detention of the accused military officers for over 8 months without trial. They further indicated to the court that none of the witnesses brought before the court in their testimony revealed any incriminating evidence against their clients and that there were a lot of inconsistences between the testimonies of the witnesses and their statements taken previously at the police. Drawing references from Blackburn Commentaries, they further said that the evidence before the court did not sustain the charges and that the manner in which the police had carried on their investigation did not respect the principles set out in the Judges’ rule in relation to voluntary caution statements of witnesses; that there was no evidence before the court that shows that the alleged meeting at St. Andrew’s Junior Secondary School had any connection with the alleged offences under charge as it was a duly authorized meeting. Finally, they submitted that they relied on the above arguments, among others, for the Judge Advocate to acquit and discharge the accused persons, for they had no case to answer.
The prosecution is expected on the next adjourned date to present a written reply to the no-case submission as to why they think the accused persons have a case to answer. After that the Judge Advocate Otto During will have to ascertain and give a ruling as to whether the evidence before him is sufficiently weighty enough to sustain the standard of a prima facie case against the accused persons.
by ibakarr | Sep 8, 2014 | Blog
The case of the State v Alie Suma, Dr Richard Konteh and Leslie Peter Coslie has once again sparked discussion about the allegedly high scale of corruption in the public sector. The Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL) respects the rights of the accused in this matter, and fully understands that they are presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
The arrest and arraignment in court of Alie Suma, Dr Richard Konteh and Leslie Coslie followed a press release dated 10th June 2014 which relieved Dr. Richard Konteh of his post as Chief of Staff at the State House of the Republic of Sierra Leone. The release stated that he was “not open or transparent in the conduct of official negotiations for a mining agreement with a private sector operation, thereby violating established policy, undermining the existing institutional arrangements and exposing the government to potential loss of revenue.” It added that he was also involved in another matter concerning illegal timber exportation currently under investigation by the Sierra Leone Police. Consequently, Dr. Konteh was arrested to join Mr. Alie Suma, Managing Director of Timber Processors and Exporters (SL), and Leslie Peter Coslie, a former customs officer for related offences. They are before Magistrate Komba Kamanda of Magistrate Court Number 2 in Freetown for preliminary investigation.
Mr. Alie Suma is facing 17 count charges of conspiracy, altering documents and willful evasion of export duties contrary to the 1913 Forgery Act and the Evasion of Custom Act 2011. Dr Richard Konteh is charged on two counts of Conspiracy and Forgery, while Leslie Peter Coslie is facing only one count of conspiracy.
The accused persons have all pleaded not guilty, and the prosecution has begun presenting witnesses to support its case, with the first witness (PW1) being the Acting Director of Forestry in the Ministry of Forestry and Agriculture. The second witness (PW2), the Senior Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Trade and Industry, has also testified. After successive applications for bail by the defence counsel on behalf of their clients, pursuant to Section 79 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1965, Magistrate Komba Kamanda on 10th July 2014 released the accused persons on a bail bond of one billion Leones each (approximately $220), and two sureties who must be residing in the Western Area (Freetown) and must produce title deeds worth the same sum to the Consultant Master and Registrar and their travel documents. CARL will continue to monitor proceedings as Preliminary Investigations continue in the Magistrate Court.
The press release from State House announcing the reasons for dismissal of Dr. Richard Konteh as Chief of State once again raised the troubling issue of corruption in the public domain yet again. While CARL recognizes the efforts of the Anti-Corruption Commission in the fight against corruption, there are increasing concerns among recruitment process of the police needed reform, noting that the process often lacks transparency and is often not independent of political interference, which was perceived to have a causal link to the high incidence of unprofessional conduct among some personnel. At the end of the seminar, the participants proffered the following recommendations toward improving police accountability:
Public education and feedback on the CDIID’s activity should be done on sustainable and regular bases to enhance public awareness of the CDIID’s work. There is also need for the CDIID to provide a website or a toll-free hotline for citizens to file complaints. The Independent Police Complaint Board (ICPB) should work hand in glove with the CDIID to avoid some of the mistakes of the latter. It was also recommended that a mechanism needs to be created whereby persons aggrieved with the decision of CDIID can file an appeal with the IPCB.
It was also recommended that the Police Council be reformed. In particular, the participants suggested that to make the police more independent and accountable to citizens, the Police Council should be constituted and headed by apolitical groups and persons. They also reiterated a strong need for the implementation of the United Nations Rules for Treatment of Female Prisoners.
It was also recommended that entry requirements into the police force be raised in order to build a more professional and educated police force. In addition, the leadership of the police force should organize/fund refresher training courses for police officers, particularly those who investigate crimes or respond to riots. The need to improve salaries, involve relevant stakeholders such as civil society organizations and community leaders in the selection and recruitment processes of police officers, and to consistently monitor the activities of police personnel was strongly recommended. Going forward, establishing and operating a coherent chain of command and management structure; incorporating transparency and accountability standards in investigation procedures; ensuring an independent civilian oversight of police activities, and prudent and accountable use of available resources and processes are critical for an effective police institution. These recommended reforms are critical to ensuring that the Sierra Leone Police perform their duties to the highest professional standard possible
by ibakarr | Jun 12, 2014 | Blog
In August 2013, the Sierra Leone Police arrested 18 personnel of the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF) on suspicion that they were planning mutiny against the Government of Sierra Leone.
The personnel, including Private Momoh Kargbo, Warrant Officer Frederick Johnson, Private Abdulai Coker Suma, Corporal Momoh Conteh, Private Alpha Mansaray, Corporal Alex Jibao Koroma, Private Mustapha Quee, Private Kellie Kamara, Private Musa Fabai, Private Bobor Rogers, and Captain Prince Sesay were detained for nearly eight months (August 10 2013 to March 2014) without arraigning them before a court to respond to any allegations against them.
Human rights groups, including the Centre for Accountability and Rule of Law (CARL) criticized the government for violating the rights of the detainees (detaining them beyond the constitutionally-mandated period of 10 days without arraigning them). The Justice Ministry gave a number of excuses for the delay in commencing their trial, including the lack of resources to fund the judicial process. CARL described the prolonged detention of the personnel as a breach of their constitutionally guaranteed rights, and urged the state to either ensure their speedy trials or release them without delay. Consequently, in March 2014, the government announced the establishment of a court martial to try 14 of the 18 personnel who had been arrested. In the absence of information regarding the whereabouts of the others, CARL pressed the government to provide more information on the four others. In April 2014, the government decided to release the four personnel.
In May, CARL released a report chronicling a number of human rights and fair trial rights issues relating to the ongoing matter. In the report, CARL drew the attention of the government to a number of violations which the accused had suffered, and the need to respect their rights as accused persons going forward.
CARL urged the government to seriously consider a compensation package for the 18 military personnel who were illegally detained, and ensure that four soldiers who were later released are reinstated in the army. CARL characterized the detention as illegal because contrary to a constitutional provision requiring the suspects to have been brought before a judge within ten days, the state failed to arraign them and in fact kept them in custody for eight months.
Consistent with the cardinal principle of presumption of innocence in common law systems, CARL urged the tribunal allow the accused to have access to their bank accounts as they were not facing charges for financial or economic crimes. CARL also pointed out that the accused are family heads and needed to take care of their children.
In light of the excessively lengthy period it had taken for the state to set up the tribunal, CARL was disappointed that the tribunal was pretty much in a stop-start mode as defence lawyers were frequently boycotting proceedings for lack of pay. CARL urged the government to honour its obligation by paying the salaries of lawyers, while at the same time urging the tribunal to ensure expeditious and fair trial. Finally, CARL opined that by dismissing an objection to his qualification and competence to preside over the proceedings, the Judge Advocate may have breached a principle of natural justice – by being a judge in his own court.
Since the report was released, a number of commendable steps have been taken by the state to respond to the issues. First, a couple of days after the report was released; the State paid the fees owed the defence team. In addition, after several previous attempts, the defence team finally succeeded in their application for the accused to have access to their bank accounts.
A few days after the report was handed down, the Judge Advocate did mention during one of the sessions that in light of the huge public interest in the matter, he would no longer entertain unnecessary delays in the proceedings. He urged everyone to be efficient.
CARL will continue to monitor the proceedings and produce regular updates.
Page 15 of 16« First«...1213141516»
