The Sierra Leone Police (SLP) is largely responsible for prosecuting criminal cases on behalf of the State in the Magistrate Courts. In order for the police to successfully prosecute cases, they should present tenable evidence in accordance with the law. They must prove by admissible evidence every element of the charge(s) against an accused. That is to say, he who affirms must produce the burden of proof. On the other hand, suffice it to say that the accused does not have the responsibility of proving his/her innocence; rather the law stipulates presumption of innocence until proved guilty. However, in most criminal cases in our Magistrate Courts, Defence Counsel, by virtue of their legal expertise, usually put up stronger arguments to disprove accusations especially in cases involving police personnel as prosecutors.
Usually, when a case is charged to court, the Prosecution is given the opportunity to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence(s) alleged. It starts with a brief statement, setting out what they intend to prove and calling on their witnesses, if any, to testify . The practice of leading witnesses in evidence is known
as Examination-in-Chief. This practice is very important as it enables the Prosecution to guide witnesses in identifying the facts in their evidence. As such, if the Prosecutors are not legally experienced, it would be difficult for them to establish a prima facie case (at first sight). However, the Defence also has the opportunity to cross-examine Prosecution Witnesses. This cross-examination is considered as the main weapon of the Defence.
During cross-examinations, the aim of the Defence is to discredit any evidence of the Prosecution that would help convict their client. With their legal expertise, the Defence can, with dexterity, easily discredit tenable evidence of Prosecution Witnesses. The Prosecution is, however, given the opportunity to make reparations to any damage that may have been done by the Defence during cross-examination. This is known as re-examination. The importance of this ‘damage management’ is to clear any doubt that might have arisen during cross-examination. The Court does not rely on the general experience of the police in adjudicating cases, rather the credibility of evidence tendered in court are used to convict or acquit an accused. If police prosecutors do not have the legal expertise, it would be difficult for them to repair damages done to their evidence.
The unprofessional way in which police officers prosecute cases, starting with the manner in which statements are obtained at police stations, seriously undermines the confidence reposed in the police as a force for good with its attendant effects on the overall administration of justice in the country. Section 17(2)(a) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991, states that in the determination of any criminal charge, any person who “is arrested or detained shall be informed in writing or in a language that he understands at the time of his arrest, and in any event not later than twenty-four hours, of the facts and grounds for his arrest or detention.” Contrary to this provision by the supreme law of the land, police officers whether advertently or inadvertently hardly follow this standard procedure. As a result of this, most statements made by litigants are wrongly translated by police officers, which give rise to contention when they are read in court. An example of such was seen at Magistrate Court No 3 on 12th January, 2007 when an accused, who claimed to be an illiterate, was unable to identify the statement he had made at the police station. With limited measures put in place to ensure the authenticity of statements obtained by police officers, these contentions definitely has the likelihood of being a cog in the wheel of justice.
The Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991, protects the personal liberties of individuals. This liberty is however, subjected to limitations as it empowers the police to effect arrest and thereby deprived the individual from his personal freedom. Nevertheless, there are reasonable considerations as to how these arrests are enforced. Despite these provisions, the police are usually found wanting of abusing the right to liberty of individuals. Section 17 of same provides against unreasonable delays relating to pretrial especially when the accused is being held in remand. It guarantees for persons who have a case to answer from the police to be brought before a court of law within ten days for felonious crimes and three days for misdemeanours.
On the contrary, most accused persons are held longer than the stipulated time as enshrined in the Constitution because the police officers after having hastily charged the accused persons to court without obtaining the necessary evidence to prosecute the matter also fail to procure witnesses to testify. An example of this practice was vividly manifested in Magistrate Court No. 1, presided over by Sam Margai. In that case, two Nigerian nationals were arraigned before the court on two count charges: fraudulent conversion and obtaining money by false pretence contrary to law. The accused persons, while in detention at the Pademba Road prison, made three appearances without the police Prosecutor starting the proceedings. His reason for the delay was that he was waiting for a man called Alhaji, a key Prosecution Witness, to come from Kono to assist the police in their investigations. Also, in a murder case involving a lady as the accused, the police failed to subpoena Prosecution Witnesses on four adjourned dates to come testify while the accused continued to languish in prison. Even after having failed to start proceedings and procure witnesses to give evidence in both cases respectively, the accused persons were not granted bail.
Also, where police officers are faced with the task of corroborating their allegations against accused persons, they have performed far below expectations. Although it is not unlawful to convict an accused without corroboration, it should, however, be proven beyond reasonable doubt. For such proof to be made devoid of any ambiguity, the prosecutors need to have the technical expertise in guiding witnesses through Examination-in-Chief and Re-examination. However, because police officers are hardly present at scenes at particular times when crimes are actually committed, when they appear as witnesses, they most often fumble in the witness box; hence leading to uncorroborated evidences. In instances where they fail to produce witnesses after series of adjournments, there is the tendency for the Magistrate to throw the matter out of court.
The adjudication of justice in Sierra Leone is very much challenging. If the police can not rise up to these challenges, they can have far reaching ramifications. To surmount this obstacle, legal expertise is required on the part of the police to guarantee that measures for successful prosecution and subsequent judgment are correctly implemented.
With legal assistance/expertise, the police can uphold the integrity of not only the force but also the justice sector- the corner stone of a modern state.