The ongoing case of the State v Mamoud Tarawallie before the High Court of Sierra Leone is the most high-profile sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) case in recent Sierra Leonean history. The amount of media attention it has attracted; in addition to the former position of the accused within the government, requires
a particularly careful administration of justice in order to help build further trust in the justice system. Many SGBV crimes in Sierra Leone still go unreported, or are resolved by out of court settlement, a situation which itself continues to haunt the pursuit of justice for victims of SGBV and accountability for perpetrators.
Mamoud Tarawallie, former Deputy Education Minister of Sierra Leone, on 16 September 2013 was charged with (1) rape, (2) wounding, (3) wounding with intent and (4) assault. The complaint was filed by a 24year old student at the University of Sierra Leone in Freetown. After the Magistrate Court No. 2 had found a prima facie case, the case was brought before Justice Abdulai Charm. As the hearings continue before the High Court, CARL is monitoring the case closely and has identified a number of issues of concern.
On 3 July 2014 the prosecution presented their second witness (PW2) from the Family Support Unit (FSU) of the Sierra Leone Police (SLP) who had been involved in the investigation when the victim initially reported the case to the police. The witness spoke to certain pieces of evidence that the investigation team had collected at the crime scene, including a yellow and white comb and two brown beads, as well as a green pair of pants which the victim reportedly had brought to the police and which served as exhibit in the court. The witness further confirmed that while various pairs of pants were also found at the crime scene these were not collected and recorded as pieces of evidence. During the cross-examination, Defence Counsel Suleiman Kabba asked the witness (police investigator) to confirm his statement that the victim had not identified a particular pair of pants to the witness at the crime scene. After the witness had confirmed this statement, Defence Counsel proceeded to recall to the witness the statement the witness had given during the Preliminary Investigation before the Magistrate Court No. 2. In the said statement, this witness had testified that the victim had identified a pair of white pants at the crime scene as the pair of pants she had worn on the day the alleged incident occurred. Referring to the disposition of that statement, Counsel for the Defence noted to the Judge that the witness had made contradictory statements in relation to the pants.
The alleged inconsistency of the witness’ statements raised questions about whether the witness genuinely forgot or lied under oath. This is a matter for the Court to determine, but it is obvious that if the Court concludes that the witness lied under oath, it could have serious implications for the validity of his statements not only pertaining to the pair of pants but in respect of his entire testimony. It is an offence, too. It remains to be seen to what extent his answers during cross examination could affect the prosecution’s case with his testimony.
This case highlights the need for police officers to receive sufficient training for in-court testimony in order not to adversely compromise court proceedings. It is paramount that police officers know and adhere to the rules of evidence and ensure that the outcome of such important trials is not determined on the basis of their failure to effectively dispose of their duty under the law. For a police officer to have admittedly given clearly contradictory statements in such an important trial is simply unacceptable. Whether or not this is going to have a significant impact on the outcome of the trial does not undervalue the importance of an intensive training for police officers who are involved in crime investigation and prosecution. . This is of particular importance in sexual-based violence cases in which corroborated evidence is difficult to collect because of the privacy of the crime. Even when they have to undergo irritating interrogative techniques during cross-examinations, police officers, who regularly have to testify in court, must be prepared for such techniques. Precision and coherence of statements are paramount for the prosecution’s case.