By Francis H. Murray
Presiding Judge in the ongoing treason trial of former Defense Minister Alfred Paolo Conteh and two others, Justice Momoh Jah Stevens, has dismissed the ‘‘no case” submission of the defense for the first and second accused persons before the high court in Freetown.
In his ruling on Tuesday, Justice Stevens noted: ‘‘the simple message in this ruling I want to send loud and clear is ‘the other side must be heard’, which is a fundamental principle of justice and fair trial, be it in criminal trials or civil procedures. Based on the above authorities cited, I rule that the first and second accused persons before this court should open their defense or present their defense in this trial so that the jurors will be in a position to listen and understand the facts of the trial case, i.e., the case of the prosecution and the case of the defense.’’
The judge went on to note that what was sought by the defense in their “no case” submission was a discharge without having to present a defense. He added that if the bench gave consent to same, the matter would be dismissed or thrown out of court, followed by the acquittance of the accused without having to present any evidence in his defense.
‘‘The treason and state offenses act came into existence two years after Sierra Leone attained independence. Since then, because treason is the highest allegation against an individual in this jurisdiction, it is very pertinent that opportunity be given to the other side, that is, the defense case to be heard, or, as justice demands, hear the other side, because every treasonable allegations concern the safety, security and survival of this nation and must be taken very seriously,’’ he noted.
In his reply to the “no case” submission of the defense for the second accused, State prosecutor, Adrian Fisher, noted that the indictment before the court on count 12 of abetting the commission of an offense with particulars stating that he procured the commission of an offense, was clearly proven before the court. He cited the “unlawful” issuance of a licenses to the first accused which, he said, was an assistance to the commission of same.
Fisher concluded that the “no case” submission by the defense for the second accused was inarguable and could not succeed in the circumstances argued, as they required serious legal scrutiny and therefore lacked merit in facts and in law.
In a previous hearing on Monday June 15th, defense lawyers for Paolo Conteh and his other two co-accused, made the “No Case” submission.
Dr. Abdulai Conteh, the lead defence lawyer for first accused, Alfred Paolo Conteh, told the court that the prosecution failed to state any fact of the case constituting the offence of treason and described the case put forward by the prosecution as “defective.” He argued that “such trials required the consent of the Attorney General before their commencement but this was not done.”
He said that ‘‘defective fiat’’ by the prosecution left the High Court with no jurisdiction to try the first accused for treason and therefore his client had no case to answer for a treason charge, noting that his client would have taken the witness box to answer to the charges in the indictment had there been any sufficient fiat in respect of the offence of treason.
Dr. Conteh said the prosecution also failed to prove any covert act related to the indictment of treason, arguing that evidence in such trial is applied to the proof of the overt act and not the main act of treason as claimed by the prosecution.
Lawyer Conteh also argued that the prosecution failed to lay a conspiracy charge in the indictment being a “concomitant act of treason or a lynch pin in a treason act,” and that there was no way his client would even individually think of overthrowing a democratically elected president let alone to assassinate him. According to him, the prosecution failed to establish a proof that the accused went to State House with an intention to overthrow the government.
He argued that prosecution witness M. K Allieu in his testimony told the court that the CID were investigating the accused for illegal possession of a fire arm and that the treason charge only came into being as a result of an advice from the law officers department. He said the ‘tenuous nature of the evidence put forward by the prosecution’ is such that his client had no case to answer for a treason charge due to the insufficiency of evidence before the court, adding that his client voluntarily handed over his bag containing his pistol.
He said there was no evidence that the accused was in the same place with the loaded Gluck 17 pistol with the President, citing what he called the vagueness and weakness of the prosecution’s case.
The defence lawyer said the three counts of treason were never committed by the presiding judge as it ought to have been after the section 136 application was made by the prosecution and therefore urged the judge to direct the jury in that regard.
Dr. Conteh went on to note that there was no evidence before the court to prove that the first accused didn’t possess a valid license for his gun. He said not only had the “prosecution failed to prove an overt act, the absence of a conspiracy charge, and the tenuous nature of the evidence charged with some indictment wrongly laid, they also failed with no evidence led as to what constituted a public place, adding that no false statement has ever been proven in court by the ‘‘say so’’ of a witness but by a corroborated evidence.”
In reply, Attorney General Dr. Pricilla Schwartz stated that the “No Case” submission of the defense was “unarguably and demonstrably misconceived and did not meet the required threshold of a No Case Submission.”
She said the Judge had ruled against the defense’s objection of the indictment made against the accused persons and that there was no requirement under the laws of Sierra Leone for the sufficiency of a fiat for a treason charge, referring to the said claim as “irrelevant and the evidence before the court is not tenuous in any way.”
The Attorney General argued that the defence’s claim about the absence of an overt act was “unarguable misconceived” and noted that the defense had conceded in their “No Case” submission that the first accused was in possession of a loaded gun which in itself she said, constitute an act of preparation.
The Attorney General said the “No Case” submission by the defence had failed and urged the judge to allow the jury to make a judgment.
In his "No Case” submission on behalf of the second accused Sahr Anthony Sinnah, lawyer Anrite Thompson said the burden of proof to the guilt of the accused rested entirely on the prosecution and they should discharge it in line with the indictment.
According to him count 12 of the indictment with the particulars of abetting the commission of an offense was not the same as that recorded in the statement of offense which he said was duplicitous in law and uncertain, adding that the two concepts differed in meaning and therefore could not be used together in a single count.
He said for the second accused to be guilty of abetting, the prosecution must prove that he encouraged the commission of a crime and for it to constitute procuring; he must have persuaded and invited a third person to commit the offense.
He added that count 12 relating to the Arms and Ammunition Act of 2014 failed to prove the ingredients of section 32, (1) of the Act, arguing that the 11th prosecution witness was not able to tell whether the cartridges taken from the accused were the same given to him to be examined.
Lawyer Thompson said State House was not a public place because the public does not have unfettered access to it and that the prosecution failed to clearly establish what a public place was and what it wasn't. He said the prosecution also failed to adduce any evidence to show that the second accused had knowledge of the intention of the first accused while administering his statutory function, stressing that his client issued a valid fire arms license to the first accused on 3rd March 2020 only for personal protection and not to carry same to a public place as alleged by the prosecution.
He therefore urged the judge to direct the jury that the 2nd accused Sahr Anthony Sinnah should be acquainted on count 12.
He concluded by saying that count 4 in the indictment relating to doing an act preparatory to the commission of an offense was not properly charged for which his client had no case to answer, pointing to the absence of an overt act which he said didn't put them on a solid footing to prepare a defense in regard for that count.
The case has been adjourned to Friday, 19th June.
Copyright © 2020 Politico Online
