The treason trial of Omrie Golley and two others resumed on Thursday, 28th June 2007 at High Court No.2 presided over by Justice Mary Sey from the Republic of the Gambia, eighteen months after the Prosecution opened its case. It could be recalled that Omrie Golley together with Mohamed Bah and David Kai Tongi were arrested in January last year on allegations of planning to overthrow the Government of Sierra Leone and to assassinate Vice President Solomon Berewa. Since the inception of the case in February 2006, there had been series of motions/applications bordering on a wide range of issues including the eligibility of the then presiding Judge, Justice Samuel Ademusu, a contract judge to preside over the matter which temporarily grounded the trial. These procedural difficulties were only settled very recently thus starting the trial again. However, the euphoria that accompanied the restart of proceedings is fast dissipating as the case continues to be adjourned for trivial reasons. The problem is multi-faceted and cannot be laid at the door step of the judiciary alone. The prisons department and the police cannot be exonerated; they all stand to be implicated in the current derailment in the course of justice in this all important trial.
It is gradually becoming a norm for the accused persons not to be brought for trial for preventable reasons principal amongst which are the lack of security forces to convey prisoners to and from the courtroom and the non availability of fuel for prison vehicles. Since the resumption of the case four weeks ago, there have been no less than five adjournments for such reasons. The presiding Magistrate in Freetown’s Court No.3, Bankole Shyllon, on Friday 6thJuly 2007 said in open court that the Master and Registrar had to plead with the Inspector General of Police to provide fuel for vehicles to bring prisoners to court. According to the Magistrate, “Mr. Acha promised to provide a gallon of petrol for prisoners to be brought to court”. What confounds the SLCMP is how those responsible for the provision of fuel for prison vehicles could continuously fail to provide for such basic and essential requirement and by the same token why do the police fail to provide security for conveying of prisoners to and from the court on daily basis? This administrative malaise only exposes the ineptitude of very important state institutions with its attendant effect on the expeditious administration of justice. Although I must state that these excuses are not peculiar in the case of Golley and the two others alone, however, taking into account the seriousness of the allegations, this matter should be prioritised without prejudice to other cases in the interests of justice.
The disorganisation plaguing the judiciary is sometimes exposed when the accused succeeds to make it to the court. There one problem trails another: the presiding judge is either out of jurisdiction or one of the parties is not present in court. For instance, although the accused did not come to court on the 10th July this year because of, according to the prison officials, lack of police personnel to escort them, even if they had made it, there was not going to be a trial since the judge was, according to court officials, busy making arrangements at the British High Commission to travel abroad. When the accused made an appearance in court on the 17th of same, the presiding judge was out of jurisdiction reportedly attending to family affairs.
The parties to the case do share their own part of the blame in undermining expeditiousness. On the part of the Defence, the lead counsel, Charles Margai, is a politician running for the Presidency in the August 11 elections. He is currently busy traversing the country seeking votes hence giving him little time to concentrate on his lawyer-client responsibilities. For example, when an important issue of screening jurors in the matter came up earlier this month, Mr. Margai, who had applied for the trial to be conducted without a jury but was rejected, was not in court. He was however represented by his colleague. The accused persons were not represented when a medical letter issued by the prison’s doctor concerning their deteriorating health was rejected. The Prosecution on its part is most often overwhelmed by the numerous cases it has to prosecute. Since the lead prosecutor, Oladipo Robin-Mason, cannot be at two places simultaneously, he frequently asks for an adjournment in the most serious of cases where it is judged that he cannot send a representative. Consequently, over 30 adjournments have been sought as a result of judicial inertia.
Judicial expediency has been greatly undermined in the trial under review. Premised on the maxim of innocent until proved guilty by a competent court of law, an accused should be tried within a reasonable time. This right is firmly entrenched in both national and international legislations and suffers no exemptions. According to the European Convention on Human Rights, the reasonable time guarantee runs from the moment that an individual is subject to a charge; but in a case where the charge is delayed, or subsequent charges are added it may be the date of a person’s initial arrest, or the date on which the accused becomes aware that he is being “seriously investigated”. In certain situations, the operative date will be the date of the first interview. In the said case, this entrenched principle is yet to be adhered to. Eighteen months after their arrest and subsequent detention, substantive trial is still far from beginning. The matter has not been treated with the robustness that is characteristic of an all important case like a treason trial. In fact, with the current political atmosphere overshadowing almost all other issues both in the public and private domain and the looming judicial recess, the case risks being left unattended to until after the election dust has settled which would probably be sometime in September.
It must be noted that whatever the allegations are, the accused persons should not be prejudiced against and their rights as embodied in national legislation must be safeguarded. The accused persons, particularly the First Accused, have been constantly complaining about suffering from life threatening conditions with little done to ameliorate their predicaments. In fact on the 23rd July, 2007 the presiding judge rejected a medical letter from Dr. Conte-Coker, the prison’s medical officer, on behalf of the First and Third Accused persons for want of detail explanation on the specifics of ailments. Moreover, with over a dozen prisoners reported to have died in the past eight weeks, the medical complaints by accused persons should be a particular cause for concern.
Justice, it should be remembered is a two-way street: justice for the victim as well as for the accused. Premised on the recognition of protection of human rights, it behoves everyone connected with the justice sector to work assiduously to ensure that justice is done. So far in this trial, all those involved have failed to prove their dedication to the task of upholding justice. If this is the case for such a high profile case, tracked avidly by the media, then the prospect for the vast impoverished and nameless majority is bleak indeed. The SLCMP urges all, particularly the judiciary, the prisons and police to properly network and exert all efforts, to ensure that the justice system live up to its name and that the rule of law at last be solidly embedded in our society.