THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT NO 46 OF 1965 - PART 5 THAT CRIMINALISES FREEDOM OF SPEECH HAS BEEN REPEALED BY SIERRA LEONE PARLIAMENT

The  Public  Order  Act,  1965 - REPEALED

PART  V  –  DEFAMATORY  AND  SEDITIOUS LIBEL DEFAMATION 

26.  Any  person who maliciously publishes any defamatory matter knowing  the same  to  be false shall be  guilty of  an offence called  libel and liable on  conviction  to  imprisonment for any term not exceeding  three years  or  to  a  fine  not exceeding one  thousand  leones  or  both. 

27.  Any  person who maliciously publishes any defamatory matter shall be  guilty of an  offence called libel and liable on conviction to a  fine  not exceeding seven  hundred leones  or to imprisonment for a  period not exceeding two years or  to  both  such  fine  and imprisonment.

 28.  (1)  On the trial of  an offence of libel against sections  26  or 27, the accused  having  pleaded such plea  as hereinafter  mentioned,  the  truth of  the matters  charged may  be inquired  into,  but  shall  not  amount  to  a  defence, unless it was for the  public  benefit that the said  matters  charged  should  be  published;  and  to  entitle the accused  to give evidence  of  the truth  of  such  matters charged as a  defence to such charge  it shall  be  necessary for the accused  in pleading  to  the said  charge, to allege  in writing the truth  of  the said matters charged  in  the manner  now  required  in pleading  a fair  comment  and  justification to  an  action  for a  defamation  and  further to allege  in writing that it was for the public  benefit  that  the  said  matters charged should  be  published and  the  particular  fact  or  facts  by  reason  whereof it  was for the  public  benefit  that  the said  matters charged should  be  published  to  which  plea the prosecutor shall  be  at liberty to  reply  generally,  denying  the whole thereof. 

(2)  Where the  alleged libel contains several  charges, and the accused  fails  in  proof  of the  truth of any one of the matters alleged in  it,  or  where  the alleged  libel is general and the accused  fails to prove  so  much of the  plea under this section  as would  justify the libel, the Court  shall find  the  accused  guilty, and it shall  be  competent for the Court, in pronouncing sentence, to  consider  whether the guilty of the  accused is aggravated  or mitigated by the said  plea, and by
the evidence  given to  prove  or  disprove the same. 

(3) The matter charged  in the  alleged  libel complained  of  by  such  charge  shall be  presumed  to be  false, and the truth thereof  shall in no  case be  inquired  into  in the absence  of  such  plea as mentioned in  subsection  (1). 

(4)  IN  addition to  such  plea it shall be  competent to  the  defendant  to plead  a plea  of  not  guilty. 

(5) Subject to  the  provisions  of this  section,  nothing  in  this  Part contained shall take away  or prejudice any defence under the plea  of  not  guilty which  is now competent to  the  defendant to  make  under such plea to any  charge  brought under sections  26  or  27. Publication absolutely privileged. Cases in publication is conditionally privileged.

 29.  No person  shall be  criminally liable for the  publication  of  defamatory matter in  the  following  cases— 

a)  where the matter is  published  by  the  Governor-General  or  by  Order  of  the  Governor-General  in  any  official document,  Gazette, or  proceeding;  or 

b)  where the  publication  is made  in  a  petition to the  Governor-General  or  to  a Minister; 

c)  where the  publication takes  place in any proceeding  held  before  or under the authority of  any court by law established  or  under any  Act  or  Order  or  under  the authority  of  the  Governor-General  or  of  a Minister;  or 

d)  where the  publication takes  place sin any  official report made by a  person appointed to hold  an  inquiry under the  authority  of  any  Act  or  Order  or  of  the  Governor-General  or a  Minister;  or 

e)  where the matter is  published  concerning  a  person  subject to  military discipline  for the time being and relates to  his conduct  as a  person  subject  to  such  discipline,  and  is  published  by  some  person  having authority  over  him  in  respect  of  such  conduct;  or 

f) where the  publication is  contained in  any  communication  between Ministers, Ministries and  public  officers, members of the Armed  Forces; public  officers and members  of  the Armed  Forces;  members  of  the  Armed Forces, public officers  in  the  course of  their respective  duties. 

30.  No person  shall be  criminally liable for the  publication  of  a  defamatory  matter in  the  following  cases— 

a)  where the  defamatory matter consists of an  extract from,  or  an  abstract  of,  a petition to, or a  Gazette  or document  published  by  or  under  the authority  of, the  Governor-General  or  a Minister and  the  publication is made without  express  malice to  the  person  defamed;  or 

b)  where the  defamatory matter constitutes, in  whole  or  in  part a fair  report,  for the information  of the public, of  any proceeding  of  any  Court, whether  preliminary  or  final;  or  of  any public  proceeding  of  any body constituted  or  authorised  to  hold  such  proceeding, by  any Act  or Order or of  any public meeting  so  far as  the public is concerned  in  the matter published if, in  every case  the publication is made  without  express malice to  the person  defamed;  or 

c)  where the  publication  is for the information  of  the  public  at  the request of any  Minister  or  public  officer,  or where the  defamatory  matter is  any  notice  or  report  issued  by  a department  of  Government  or  public  officer, for the information  of  the  public, and  where in  every such  case the  publication  is made  without express malice to  the person  defamed;  or 

d)  where the  defamatory matter consists of  fair  comment  wither  on  any matter the publication of  which  or  on nay  report  which, is  referred  to in  sections  26  to 29  or in this section;  or e)  where the  defamatory matter consists of  fair  comment  upon the  public conduct  of  any person  in public affairs,  or  upon  the  public  conduct  of  any  person  employed in  the  public  service in  the  discharge  of  his public duties,  or  upon  the character  of  any such  persons so  as it appears by  such  conduct; or 

f) where the  defamatory matter consists of  fair  comment  on  any  published  book  or other  literary production,  or any composition  or  work  of art, or  performance publicly  exhibited,  or  any subject; or  of  the character  of  the author  of  such  book, production,  composition, work  of  art,  or  the person  exhibiting such  performance,  so  far as their characters may appear  therefrom  respectively; or

g)  where the  publication is  in  good  faith  for  the  purpose  of  seeking  remedy  or  redress  for  any  private or  public wrong  or  grievance  from  a person  who  has  or  is  reasonably  believed  by  the  person  publishing to  have, the right  to  remedy  or  redress such  wrong  or  grievance;  or 

h)  where the  publication is  made in  good  faith  by  a person  having  any  lawful  authority  over  another,  and  is  made by  him  in the  course  of  a censure  passed  by  him  on the conduct  of  that  other,  in  matters to  which  such lawful  authority relates; or 

i) where the  publication is  made on  the  invitation  of  the  person  defamed;  or

j) or where the  publication is  made in  order  to  answer  or  refute  some  other  defamatory  matter published  by  the person  defamed, concerning  the  person  making  the  publication;  or 

k)  where the  defamatory matter constitutes an  answer to  inquiries made  of  the  person  publishing  it, relating  to some  subject as to  which  the  person  by  whom  or  on  whose behalf  the inquiry is made, has,  or  on  reasonable grounds is believed by  the  person  publishing  to  have, an interest in  knowing  the truth,  and if the publication is made  in  good  faith  for the  purpose of  giving  information  in  respect  of that matter to  that person; or 

l) where the  defamatory matter constitutes information  given  to  the person  to whom  the defamatory matter is published  with  respect, to  some  subject  as  to  which  he  h as, or  is  on  reasonable  grounds  believed to  have, such  an  interest in  knowing  the truth,  as to  make  the conduct of  the  person  giving  the information reasonable in the circumstances: 

Provided that  as  regards  paragraphs  (h),  (i),  (j)  and  (k), the  person  making  the  publication  honestly  believes the matter published  is  relevant  to  the matter the existence of  which  may excuse the  publication  of  defamatory matter, and the manner  and extent  of  the publication do  not  exceed  what is  reasonably sufficient  for the  occasion; and as regards paragraph  (l)  that the  defamatory matter is relevant  to  the  subject therein  mentioned;  and  that it is either true or  is  made without  malice to  the person  defamed and in  the  honest  believe, on  reasonable  grounds, that  it  is  true. 

Protection of innocent sellers. Publication of  false news. Offences.

 31.  The  sale by  any person  of  any  book, pamphlet, or other  printed  or  written  matter or, of any number or  part  of  any periodical  is  not  a  publication thereof  for the purposes  of  this  Part,  unless  such  person  knows that  such  book pamphlet or  written  matter, or  number or  part, contains  defamatory matter;  or, in  the case  of  any  part  or  number  of any periodical  that such  periodical habitually contains  defamatory matter.

 32.  (1)  Any person  who  publishes  any false statement,  rumour  or  report  which  is likely to  cause  fear or  alarm,  to the public or to  disturb the  public peace shall be  guilty of an  offence and liable  on  conviction to  a fine not  exceeding three  hundred leones  or to  imprisonment for a period  not exceeding twelve months, or  to  both such  fine  and imprisonment. 

(2)  Any  person who publishes any  false statement, rumour  or  report  which  is calculated  to  bring  into  disrepute any person  who  holds  an  office under the Constitution,  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties shall be  guilty of an  offence and liable on conviction to a  fine  not exceeding five hundred  leones or  to  imprisonment not exceeding two years  or both. 

(3)  Any  person who publishes any  false statement, rumour  or  report  which  is likely to injure the credit  or reputation of Sierra Leone or the  Government shall be  guilty of an  offence and liable  on conviction  to a  fine  not exceeding three hundred leones  or  to  imprisonment  for a term  not  exceeding  twelve months  or  both. 

(4) This section shall not apply any defamatory matter exempted under the provisions of section                    30. 

(5)  It  is  no  defence to  a charge  under this  section that  the  person  charged  did  not  know  or  did  not  have  reason  to believe  that the statement, rumour  or  report  was  false,  unless he  proves  that  before  he  communicated such statement, rumour or  report,  he took reasonable measures to  verify the  accuracy of this statement,  rumour, or report. 

SEDITIOUS LIBEL 33.  

(1) Any  person  who— 

a)  does  or attempts  to  do,  or makes any  preparation to  do,  or  conspires  with  any  person  to  do, any  act  with  a seditious  intention;  or 

b)  utters any  seditious  words;  or 

c)  prints,  publishes, sells,  offers for sale,  distributes or  reproduces any seditious  publication; or

 

d)  imports any seditious  publication,  unless  he  has  no  reason  to  believe  that it is seditious, shall be  guilty of an offence and liable for a  first  offence  to  imprisonment for a term  not exceeding three  years,  or to a fine  not  exceeding  one thousand  leones  or  to  both  such  imprisonment  and  fine,  and  for a  subsequent  offence shall  be imprisoned  for a term  not  exceeding  seven   years, and every such  seditious publication  shall be  forfeited  to the Government. Legal proceedings. Evidence. Governor-General may prohibit publication of newspapers  in certain circumstances. Interpretation. 

34.  (1)  No  prosecution  for  an  offence  under  section  33  shall  be  begun  except  within  six  months after  the offence is committed. (2)  A  person  shall not be  prosecuted for an  offence under  section  33  without  the written  consent of  the Attorney General. 

35.  No  person  shall  be  convicted of  an  offence under section  33  on  the  uncorroborated testimony  of  one  witness  only. 

36.  (1)  Where  any  person  convicted  of  an  offence  under sections  26,  27,  32  or  33  or  of  an  attempt  or a  conspiracy  to commit or  of complicity in, any such offences, is a  publisher,  the Court shall forthwith send  a  report  of  such  a case  to the Governor-General. 

(2)  The  Governor-General may either  of  his own motion  or on  the recommendation  of  the Court if  in  his opinion  the interest  of public  order, public  safety, public defence or  public  morality so  requires,  by  order prohibit the publication of  the  newspaper in  which  the  defamatory, seditious  or  false matter appears,  for  any  period  not  exceeding  six months. 

(3)  Any  person who fails to comply with  an  order made  by  the  Governor-General under subsection  (2) shall  be  guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to  be imprisoned for  a period  not exceeding eighteen months. 

(4) It  shall  be  an  offence  to  begin or  continue  to  publish  any  newspaper  under  the substantial  management  of  any publisher in  respect  of  whose  newspaper an  Order  had  been  made under subsection  (2)  unless the  order  is  no  longer in  force and  any person  guilty of an  offence  under this  section shall be  liable on  conviction  to be  imprisoned for a period  not  exceeding eighteen  months. 

(5) For  the  purpose  of this  section— 

“publisher” means any  printer,  editor  or  proprietor  of  a  newspaper and every  agent  or employee  or  other person  acting  on  the  instructions  of  any  such  editor  or  proprietor,  or  any  person  concerned  with  the management  of  a  newspaper; 

“proprietor” includes as  well as the sole  proprietor  of  any  newspaper, as  also in the case  of a  divided proprietorship  the  person  who  as partners or  otherwise  represent and are  responsible  for any  share or  interest in the  newspaper as  between themselves and  the persons in like manner  representing  or responsible for the other shares  or  interests therein and  no  other  person; 

“newspaper”  means  any paper  containing  public  news  or occurrences, or  any  remarks or  observations therein,  printed for sale and  published periodically or  in  parts or  numbers. 

37.  In this Part— “defamatory matter” means any matter  which if published  of and concerning a  person (deceased  or alive) is likely  to  expose  him  to  public  hatred,  contempt  or ridicule  or  to  damage  him  in  his trade, business, profession, calling,  or  office  whether  such  matter be expressed in  spoken  words  or in  any  audible  sounds  or in  words legibly  marked or  in  any substance  whatever or  by  any sign  or  object signifying  such  matter otherwise than  by  words  wither  directly or  by insinuation or irony; 

“import” means to  being  into  Sierra  Leone; 

“periodical  publication” includes every  publication issued  periodically  or  in  parts  or  numbers  at  intervals whether  regular  or irregular; 

“seditious  intention”  includes an  intention— 

i.     to  bring into  hatred  or  contempt  or  to  excite  disaffection  against  the  person  of  Her Majesty,  her Heirs or  successors, or  the Governor-General  or the  Cabinet or the  administration  of the Government  of  Sierra  Leone  as  by  law established; 

ii. or to  excite  citizens  of  Sierra Leone  or  other  residents in  Sierra  Leone to  attempt  to  procure  the alteration,  otherwise than  by  lawful  means, of  any  other matter in  Sierra  Leone  as  by  law established; 

iii. or to  bring  into  hatred  or  contempt  or to  excite  disaffection against the administration  of  justice in Sierra Leone; 

iv.or to  raise  discontent  or  disaffection amongst  citizens of  Sierra  Leone  or  other  residents in  Sierra Leone; 

v.or to  encourage  or  promote feelings  of ill-will and hostility between different  tribes  or nationalities or between  persons  of  different  religious  faith  in  Sierra Leone;

 but  does  not  include an  intention—

a)  to show that Her Majesty has  been misled  or  mistaken in any of her measures; or 

b)  to point  out errors or  defects in  the government or Constitution  of  Sierra Leone  as  by  law established  or  a legislation  or  in  the  administration  of  justice  with  a  view  to  the  remedying of  such  errors  or  defects;  or

c)  to persuade  the  Citizens or  inhabitants  of  Sierra Leone  to  attempt to  procure by  lawful  means the alteration of  any matter in  Sierra  Leone  as by  law established;  or  

d)  to point  out,  with  a  view to  their removal, any  matters  which are  producing,  or  have  a tendency  to  produce, feelings  of ill-will and enmity  between  different  classes of the  population of Sierra Leone; and 

in  determining  whether the intention with which  any act  was done, any words  were spoken  or  any  document  was published,  was  or  was  not  seditious, every  person  shall  be  deemed to  intend  the  consequences  which  would  naturally follow  from  his conduct  at  the time  and  under the  circumstances in  which  he  so  conducted  himself: 

“seditious  publication” means a publication  having  a seditious  intention; 

“seditious  words” means words  having  a seditious  intention;

 “to publish” includes— 

a)  with  reference  to  spoken  words  or  audible  sounds, to  speak such  words  or  make such  sounds in  the hearing  of  another  person;  

b)  in all other cases, to cause,  directly or  indirectly the print,  writing,  painting, effigy  or  other means by  which the  defamatory, seditious  or  false  matter is conveyed, to be  so  dealt with, either  by exhibition,  reading,  recitation, description,  delivery or  otherwise, so that the  defamatory, seditious or  false meaning  thereof  become  known  or  is  likely  to  become  known  to  any  person  (including  the class of  persons or  person  whom  the defamatory,  seditious  or  false matter may be  understood  to refer to). 

THE UNLAWFUL KILLINGS AND DISPROPORTIONATE USE OF FORCE BY SECURITY FORCES St

Courtsey:

  🇸🇱⚖ *LEGAL LINK* 🇸🇱

Justice  |  Law |  Rights+
23279167457  | +23299954470
   89 Fort Street Freetown |
    Sierra Leone
      21st July, 2020

   

*JOINT PRESS STATEMENT BETWEEN LEGAL LINK, CAN AND NACFOHRD

 CONDEMNING THE UNLAWFUL KILLINGS AND DISPROPORTIONATE USE OF FORCE BY  SECURITY FORCES AGAINST UNARMED PROTESTERS IN MAKENI CITY; CALLING ON PRESIDENT BIO TO ESTABLISH A JUDGE-LED INQUIRY TO INVESTIGATE THE ENTIRE SAGA*

*LEGAL LINK, CAN* and *NACFOHRD*, three leading civil society organizations working for the advancement of the rule of law, democracy and human rights in Sierra Leone are deeply concerned over the disproportionate use of force by the security agencies on protesters at Makeni City in the early hours of 18th July 2020 resulting in many injuries, collateral damage and the death of at least 5 youths of the township.

It is no gainsaying to opinionate that such state of affairs will gravely affect the public image of the country not only at the national and regional levels but also at the global level.

And as civil society organizations that defend the rights of vulnerable groups in society including marginalised youths, we take the greatest exception to this unprofessional conduct of the Security forces and call for a judge led inquiry to look into the handling of the entire incident at Makeni city, Northern Sierra Leone by the Ministry of Energy, local government and the security forces.

It could be recalled that similar protests have also occurred in time past in Kono and Kailahun over the removal of generator plants from their town ship to other regions of the country. But unlike the ugly incident that occurred in Makeni, no fatalities were recorded in the above two  townships transfers.

What then went wrong in the handling of the Makeni situation?

Surprisingly, despite the increased condemnation and outcry from the public over the video clips showcasing brutal and excessive force by the Security forces, we note with utter consternation, the apparent reticence and the lack thereof by the top Management of the security forces in Sierra Leone to officially condemn this barbaric and unprofessional behavior of subordinates, over their execution of brutal and excessive force to harmless youths in Makeni that were merely agitating for energy security of their township.

This outright complicity at the top is not only worrying but reveals without doubt, the degree of impunity and non-accountability that prevails within the law enforcement architecture in Sierra Leone.

Such complicity we further maintain, invites a possibility for the applicability of the principle of Command Responsibility on the leadership of the securiy forces to be held vicariously liable for the atrocious acts of subordinate officers against the vulnerable civilian population on that fateful day.

It could be recalled that various specialized trainings on the *UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials* have been organized in time past by the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone and the Independent Police Complaints Board to help the Sierra Leone police in particular understand how to manage such riotous situations including their application of the use of force to restore law and order.

As had always been emphasized, the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials dictates that, *even when provoked, the ‘repelling force to be used must be ‘equal, reasonable, proportionate and necessary in the given circumstances’.*

Against this backdrop, *while we condemn the acts of the few disgruntled protesters who reacted in uncivilized ways, pelting stones at the police and burning tires on the streets, we vehemently and unequivocally condemn the over-reaction of the Security forces in unleashing brutal and excessive force over unarmed protesting civilians.*

Noticeably also, is the fact that, even when the tensions had de-escalated, the callousness and unprofessionalism of the security forces became much more apparent.

Video clips recorded by on lookers at the Makeni township show complicity and a conspicuous pattern of torture and brutal display of force on poor and vulnerable households.

We therefore want it to be known by the  leadership of the SLP and the Military that the right to freedom of torture as provided under the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) to which Sierra Leone is a signature is a non-derogable right (Edgar omnes), and a per-emptory norm of Customary International Law.

This means that under no circumstances can it be justified to torture any human being in a democratic society needless to talk about youths and children.

All the police were mandated and required to do by law on that fateful day at Makeni city was to effect arrest on all alleged rioters, investigate and charge perpetrators to court for public order offences as enshrined under the Public Order Act of 1965.

That the security forces decided to embark on a frolic of their own and acted outside the remits of the law by overtly  executing brutal and excessive force on harmless  protesters in such scale and magnitude, amounts to a violation of not only the *UN Convention Against Torture, but also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the African Youth Charter, the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, the right to freedom from torture, inhumane and degrading treatment and the right to freedom of Assembly and Association as enshrined under Chapter 3 of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone.*
                                         
Majority of Sierra Leoneans interviewed by us are particularly worried over this ugly state of affairs which is seemingly becoming the new normal in the country.

*While it may be true to say that a great deal of effort has been made to tackle corruption in the country under president Bio's watch, the same cannot be true for police brutality, lawlessness and excessive use of force.*

As a matter of fact, the spate of unlawful killings and excessive use of force displayed by the security apparatus seem to be increasing at a geometric progression.

 Listed below are a few scenarios where extrajudicial killings by the security apparatus have taken place in the country since the beginning of the 2020 calendar year:

- Pademba Maximum prisons... 31 Killed
- Makeni ...5 Killed
- Lunsar ...1 Killed
- Tombo ... 2 Killed
- Loko Masamah..1 Killed
- Mile 91....1 Killed
- Tonko limba......1 killed
- Grafton.....1 killed

*TOTAL number of  deaths*- 43

All of the above alleged extrajudicial killings by our security forces depicts an ugly state of affairs that have the proclivity of not only undermining the peace of the country but also foreign direct investment which our nation needs so badly at this time.

On the issue of prior public engagements with community stakeholders, we hold the view that the Ministry of Energy failed in carrying out due diligence as well as demonstrating an open, proper, inclusive and adequate dialogue and sensitization with community stakeholders in a bid to help them fully understanding the rationale for government's relocation of the city's backup generator to another region.

No doubt, if such  constructive  engagements had existed prior to the removal of the generator plant, this would certainly have ensured everybody's participation in Makeni city, thereby dissipating tensions and potential conflict that may have arisen over the removal of the generator plant on that fateful day.

The insensitivity of the Ministry of Energy as well as their poor management of community relations  became more apparent when they decided to nocturnally attempt to remove the 1.65 Mega Watts back up generator in the late night of 17th July 2020 from the electricity station in Makeni.

If indeed proper consultations had been ensured as opinionated by the Ministry of Energy in their press release, then why remove the generation plant at night?

Such odd timing only fed into the suspicion already created by the lack of trust and inadequate community stakeholder çonsultations on the issue.

As a consequence of the above and inorder to deal with this ugly state of affairs and give a deadly blow to the scourge of police brutality, violence and lawlessness in the country, we strongly recommend the following measures forthwith:

1) That President Bio establishes a Judge - led inquiry that is independent, fair, robust, and credible to look into this unfortunate incident, determine the extent of the impact, compensation to victims families and those that should be brought to book or bear the greatest responsibility for such grave human rights violations that occurred. Preferably, we recommend the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge of high integrity, probity and experience to lead the Judge - led inquiry.

2) That as an interim measure, we urge the leadership of the Security forces (SLP, Military) and the government of Sierra Leone to take full responsibility for the excesses that have occurred, ensure the unconditional release of all detainees and hold constructive dialogue with the leadership of the local government  administration of Makeni City as well as local community elders and stakeholders so as to determine how victims can be medically treated and or compensated for violations of their fundamental human rights.

3) That all those security officers who pulled the trigger on unarmed protesters including their commanders must be investigated and prosecuted.

4) We unreservedly call for the investigation and prosecution of the Resident Minister, ABOU ABOU whose earlier inciteful remarks cannot be unconnected to the fatal incident of July 18 at Makeni city. In our view, his inciteful statements of violence calling on the police and the military to meet with stiff resistance any riotous behaviour by youths, fomented mistrust and heightened tensions between youths in Makeni and security forces, consequently leading to fatalities on July 18 2020 in Makeni city.

5) We outrightly condemn IGR's recent report using Makeni and Bo as contrasting case studies in understanding a variety of rhetorics underpinning the socio political landscape of Sierra Leone.
While we respect the independence of Civil Society Organizations in their designing and implementation of programmes, we however condemn those research works and surveys that have the proclivity to inadvertently heighten the divide and awaken political tensions between and amongst the various regions of the  country.

6) We demand an unreserved apology from the Minister of Energy to the victims families over his apparent lack of leadership and oversight in ensuring adequate and inclusive community engagements before the taking away of the back up generator from  Makeni city.

7) We further demand the payment of Full compensation by the Ministry of Energy to the victims families as an acknowledgement of their complacency and show of regret in the entire saga.

8) We also call on the Government of Sierra to undertake affirmative development programs that will help youths in Makeni and further suppress tensions and perceived bias towards communities and peoples in the North by the government.

9) We call on the government of Sierra Leone through the Ministry of Energy to develop a strategy that will guide the transfer of energy generation plants from one locality to another. Such a strategy Must not only require adequate consultations with key stakeholders in the community but also takes into consideration the ethno, political and regional ramifications in a bid to prevent a reoccurrence of the Makeni saga.

10, Finally, government should endeavour on the long term to improve on energy access and security by widening the energy mix and investing in renewable energy sources so that every district in the country will be energy sufficient, thereby ultimately reducing the need for transfer of thermal generation plants from one locality to another.

*In conclusion, it is vital to emphasize that, ours is a democracy and not an autocratic system of government. Turning a blind eye therefore to these increased spate of police brutality, lawlessness and extra- judicial killings that have taken place in the country will not only defeat our shared values but also undermine our human rights credentials, socio- economic, political and developmental aspirations as a nation.*

END

*Sign:*

*Rashid Dumbuya Esq*
*Executive Director*,
*LEGAL LINK*

*Thomas Moore Conteh*
*Executive Director,*
*CITIZENS ADVOCACY NETWORK (CAN)*

*James Matthew*
*Executive Director*
*National Centre for Human Rights and Development (NAcFOHRD)*

PALO CONTEH AND THE GUN AT STATE HOUSE- NOT GUILTY OF TREASON - APPEAL IN PROCESS FOR CONVICTION ON TWO COUNTS

PALO CONTEH AND THE GUN AT STATE HOUSE. JURORS FIND ALL THREE ACCUSED NOT GUILTY OF TREASON (By Israel O Parper Snr)

DR SYLVIA OLYINKA BLYDEN vs THE STATE OF SIERRA LEONE: CASE AT MAGISTRATE COURT NO.1 (posted by Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr)

CULLED:

Picture of Former Sierra Leone President [Ernst Bai Koroma]tendered in evidence at Sylvia Blyden’s Libel Court Case

By Gabriel Kai Moses.

A portrait of the Former President of Sierra Leone Dr. Ernest Bai Koroma, has Tuesday, June 30th 2020, been tendered in evidence at the Freetown Magistrate Court No. 1 by the State; in the case of libel brought against one of the country’s former cabinet minister and aspirant for the presidency, Dr. Sylvia Olayinka Blyden.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1reozJXkBerZrI3OZkv4WGWWJPyg2aT-S/view?usp=drivesdk

Led in evidence by the State Counsel from Law Officers Department, the Police Officer in charge of [the] storage of exhibits at the Police CID (aka Exhibit Clerk), tendered a series of items which were said to have been recovered from Dr. Sylvia Blyden’s residence. Most prominent amongst them was a very large-sized picture of the former president, Dr. Ernest Bai Koroma.

It is unclear what the State finds to be criminally offensive about the former president’s picture as the State Counsel, Lawyer Yusif I. Sesay only had the Exhibit Clerk tender the photo without submitting why the picture offends the State.

Other less prominently sized items tendered included laptops and mobile phones.

Former Attorney General and Minister of Justice Hon. Charles Francis Margai who is representing Dr. Blyden did not cross-examine the Exhibit Clerk witness but he objected to the tendering of the picture and the other items on several grounds. All the grounds of objection were however over-ruled by the presiding magistrate, Hannah Bonnie who gave the go-ahead for the picture of the former president and other items to be tendered into evidence.

The Exhibit Clerk was the Second Prosecution Witness. The first Prosecution Witness, Police Superintendent M.K. Alieu was robustly cross-examined by Lawyer Margai before he was stood down for a possible recall of his cross-examination. Lawyer Margai pointed out that the Search Warrants which the witness said he executed at the residence of the former minister, placed limitations on what the Police could do at the house.

The Witness, under the skilled cross-examination of the former Attorney-General Charles Margai, confessed that although the Search Warrants only authorized the Police to take away items containing subversive materials, at the time they took the laptops and mobile phones, the police had no evidence of anything subversive in them. Lawyer Margai also got the Witness to confess that after they took the laptops and phones, the police proceeded to “examine them in the absence of Dr. Blyden”.

The Witness has already confessed to the court that even though Dr. Blyden requested that she should be present when they are examining her laptops and the phones, the Police deliberately chose to open the laptops and phones and tamper with them in the absence of Dr. Sylvia Blyden.

Lawyer Charles Margai also asked several sharp questions around the circumstances of the arrest and 22 days detention of Dr. Sylvia Blyden. He got the Police Witness to confess that there was no Arrest Warrant ever issued for the arrest of Dr. Blyden. As the police witness, M.K. Alieu initially tried to evade the question, he was professionally handled by Lawyer Charles Margai to the delight of the entire courtroom. The police witness eventually confessed that “there was never any Arrest Warrant to effect the arrest of Dr. Sylvia Blyden”.

Lawyer Charles Margai also got the police to confess that the circumstances of the arrest were cloudy to which the police witness said that he used his “discretion” to arrest the former minister and detain her for 22 days without charging her to court.

The matter has now been adjourned for two weeks until Monday, July 13th, 2020.

There is another different court case brought by the State against Dr. Sylvia Blyden up at the High Court but there is a very strict court order that the details of that different High Court case should never be openly discussed in public so this writer cannot discuss that court case out of respect for the Orders of the High Court. However, Magistrate Hannah Bonnie, presiding over the magistrate court case, at the previous hearing of the Libel Case against her in front of her on June 24th, 2020, openly discussed the High Court matter. It is unclear what happens when a member of the Judiciary disobeys an Order of the Judiciary. That second Court matter by the State against Dr. Sylvia Blyden comes up on July 1st, 2020 at the High Court.

In the first matter, the government of Sierra Leone President, Julius Maada Bio charged Blyden on seven counts of alleged criminal libel against both Bio and Bio’s regime - during which libel case, the picture of the former president, Ernest Bai Koroma, allegedly found hanging on a wall in Sylvia Blyden's house, has now been tendered as one of the offensive evidence of whatever is the case of the Bio-led government against Dr. Sylvia Olayinka Blyden.

Reporting from the Freetown Magistrate Courts, I am Gabriel Kai Moses.

END.https://drive.google.com/file/d/1reozJXkBerZrI3OZkv4WGWWJPyg2aT-S/view?usp=drivesdk

PALO CONTEH AND THE GUN AT STATE HOUSE: DEFENCE CLOSED ITS CASE AND ADDRESSED THE 11 MAN JURY (Posted b Israel Ojekeh Parper Snr)

Defence Team addressed Jurors.

Following the closing of the Prosecution's case, and their cross examination of the first accused after being led in evidence by the defence team last week, the Hon Justice Momoh Jah Stevens authorised the court  (Judge, Jurors, defence and prosecution teams), to visit the scene of the offence at State House. The judge then adjourned the case until Monday 29th June 2020 wherein, the defence team address the jurors and closed their case. It is now left for the Judge - Momoh Jar Stevens to address and direct the jurors following which, the jury could retire deliberate and consider the evidence, and come with their verdict.  Below is the defence's address on behalf of the first accused facing Treason, Small Arms and Perjury Offences. 


Closing Address on behalf of 1st Accused State v Alfred Palo Conteh (by defence team)

The 1st Accused, Alfred Palo Conteh, stands charged on the indictment before you with three counts of treason, seven counts of offences against the Small Arms and Ammunition Act, 2012 and three counts of perjury contrary to the Perjury Act, 1911. 

We say from the outset that the Third Count of treason charged in the indictment, was never committed to the High Court. The 1st Accused was charged with count 3 committing treason contrary to section 4(a) of the Treason and State Offences Act 1963. We say that Count was never committed by his Lordship on the section 136 application (CPA) that brought this case before you to this Court. For this I refer you to the Committal Order which is in evidence. As such, the 1st Accused ought not to have been tried on that count in this court. We therefore hope and trust that his Lordship will give the necessary directions on that Count at the appropriate time. 

Mr Foreman, members of the jury, I need not remind you that in a criminal trial the accused bears no burden: the Prosecution charged him and brought him here and therefore, the law requires that they should prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is to say, to make you feel sure of his guilt on the several charges on the indictment. His Lordship, the trial judge, in his charge to you later will give you necessary directions on the law, the burden and standard of proof. I can only paraphrase a statement that has rung through the criminal courts down the ages. “No matter the charge, no matter the place of trial, it is for the Prosecution to always prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. This burden never shifts. It rests squarely on the Prosecution throughout the trial” (per Lord Sankey i.e. in Woolmington v DPP. In this case, Mr Alfred Palo Conteh testified on his own behalf regarding the charges against him and Sidie Yahya Tunis also testified on his behalf. He 2 was not bound to testify himself or to call any witness but he chose to testify an chose to call a witness.

 The Prosecution’s case hinges on a brown bag with a loaded weapon belonging to the 1st Accused which he had with him on the 19th day of March 2020 while on a visit to State House. It is the circumstances surrounding the presence of that gun in State house on that fateful day, for which the 1st Accused is now being prosecuted on the charges of treason. 

Mr Foreman, members of the jury, treason as an offence, perhaps ranks highest in the criminal calendar in this country. The word itself “treason” is not defined in our laws, but the Treason and State Offences Act 1963 defines circumstances in which a person or persons may commit the offence of treason.  

Mr Foreman, members of the jury, let me hasten to add that to be found with a loaded gun in State House is most certainly not one of those circumstances. “Treason”, in our laws, is to overthrow the lawfully constituted government of this country by force or endeavour to do so by unlawful means. Again, his lordship will at the appropriate stage explain the law of treason to you, but we say on behalf of the 1st Accused to you, members of the jury, treason as it is understood and prosecuted in this country has never been an undertaking or endeavour or attempt by one person. It has always been an endeavour or attempt or undertaking by several or a group of people;  In simple terms for you to convict the 1st Accused for the offence of treason as charged in the indictment, the Prosecution must have led evidence which show beyond a reasonable doubt that the 1st Accused prepared and endeavoured, to overthrow the government by unlawful means. 

What the prosecution wants you to believe is that by merely renewing his gun license in March 2020 (as a law-abiding citizen) he was preparing to assassinate and overthrow the government. This proposition is simply ludicrous an untenable because it assumes that when Alfred Palo Conteh ( the 1st accused ) renewed his license on the 3rd of March 2020 he had foresight and for knowledge that he would be invited to State House for a meeting with the President on the 16th and 19th of March respectively. 

Going by the Prosecution own narrative, it would mean that when the 1st Accused obtained his gun license in 2017 which he renewed in March 2020, he was preparing to overthrow a government that was then not yet in being. Only 007 needs a license to kill and Palo Conteh is most certainly not 007. 

 3 The 1st Accused is a 63 year old veteran of the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces from which he was retired with the rank of Major. As an experienced military man , he testified in the witness box that it would be complete suicide for one man with one gun and ten bullets to walk into State House to assassinate the President given the phalanx of security officers with various types of weapons ( AK 47, pistols etc ) at State House. It would be a suicide mission and he is not suicidal. You saw and heard him testify from the witness box. He was composed and he was dignified and he can be adjudged as a truthful witness. 

Mr. Foreman, Members of the Jury, Remember, the meeting too which he was invited at State House on the 19th March was not just between the President and the 1st Accused; others were to attend. It would have taken more than a fool to attempt to harm the President in those Circumstances; As the 1ST ACCUSED HIMSELF SAID, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MISSION IMPOSSIBLE. 

The 1st Accused stood up to the withering cross-examination by Mr Fisher for the Prosecution who attempted to establish motive on the part of the 1st Accused’s. Mr Fisher, in our view, outlandishly and implausibly suggested that it was because of the overthrow of his uncle’s government in 1992 that the 1st Accused had a motive to come after the President. My word, what a fertile imagination ! 

Members of the jury, we all know that on the 29th of April, 1992 Treason made its masterpiece for the first time in this country when a section of the army led by some junior officers overthrew the then lawfully constituted government; and from this Mr. Fisher suggested that the 1st Accused had a motive for now wanting to upset the government of President Bio. This, the 1st Accused, vehemently denied and said that as a Christian he had no cause to want revenge and that he had moved on after some 28 years. In fact, he stated in the witness box that but for that experience he would not have risen to the rank of Minister of Defense and Minister of Internal Affairs in a later civilian government. The 1st Accused most certainly was not an embittered man seeking revenge for what happened in 1992, some 28 years ago. He has had the privilege of serving his country at some of the highest height and has nothing left to prove at this point in his life. Ask yourselves members of the jury why would he embark on a suicide mission at his age, what did he stand to gain? 

Members of the jury, it is in evidence that twice the 1st Accused visited State House on the invitation of the President in answer to his call for help in putting together a strategy and policy for combating the current Covid 19 4 pandemic. In short, there was no ill motive on the part of the 1st Accused in responding to the President’s call for national service. The suggestion of motive on the part of the Prosecution in the circumstances, is unworthy and baseless and without any merit.  Members of the jury, you saw and heard the 1st Accused give his evidence very lucidly and calmly. He did not appear as a suicidal maniac or embittered fanatic bent on revenge. But again, as the triers of the fact, we leave that to your judgement. The prosecution has failed to establish or prove any motive on the part of the 1st Accused. 

Members of the jury, the 1st Accused no doubt garnered quite some experience in tackling endemic diseases. It was this experience that got him invited to State House on two occasions: first on the 16th of March, 2020 and then again on the 19th of March, 2020. Before that, in 2017, he had applied for and lawfully obtained a license and registered a personal weapon for his own protection as a result of personal threats directed towards him stemming from his service as Minister of Defence and later as Minister of Internal Affairs. In the latter capacity he was able to restore some order to the flow of traffic in Freetown which was then menaced by the Okada riders. Then he turned his attention to the incipient gang warfare amongst some youths in the country, popularly known as cliques or 5 Os. This incurred the anger and malice of some people. The 1st Accused told you from the witness box that while he was the Minister of Defence and had the full complement of bodyguards, he had been physically attacked by ex-combatants. Hence, the need to acquire a gun for his own personal protection. This was not done for any malicious or evil intent. After the elections in 2018, his personal protection details were re-called and he was left to fend for himself. 

Mr Foreman, members of the jury, on the 16th day of March, 2020, the 1st Accused, Alfred Palo Conteh, responded to a call from the President to meet together with others at State House to help formulate, a programme of action and policy to combat the new scourge of covid-19, because of his experience with Ebola. Mr. Foreman, members of the jury, you heard him say from the witness box when he attended the meeting on the 16th of March, 2020 he had his personal weapon in a leather brown bag, but as the meeting was in the afternoon and the car park at state house was empty and was not swarming with carwash boys, he took the precaution of putting the bag containing his weapon at the back of the driver’s seat and then went up for the meeting with the President. 

 5 On the 19th of March, 2020 as a follow-up on the invitation to finalise the plan and brief the President, he was invited again to State House. But this time the meeting was slated for 9 a.m. He arrived at State House shortly before 9 a.m and the carwash boys at that time of the day, in the morning hours, swarmed towards him offering to wash his vehicle. As a precaution, he did not think it prudent to leave his brown bag with the weapon inside in his vehicle. So he went into State House with his brown bag which had his weapon inside it and he turned it over to the security. 

You have now been afforded the opportunity to visit State House particularly the reception and on the ground floor and its surrounding areas to get a real feel of what might have happened. Mr Palo Conteh demonstrated what he did on that fateful day and it is clear from his demonstration that he never walked towards the steps let alone attempted to go upstairs and this ties in with the testimony of Dauda Yemie PW4 who under cross examination said that the 1st Accused walked towards the security desk towards them and handed over his bag saying “keep this bag for me I have my personal weapon inside and I have a meeting with the President upstairs and do not want to take it with me.”  This is also consistent with the Written Statement of PW2 Vackey who in page 2/3 of his statement marked as EX. K 1-4 stated that he was focused on the scanner observing the images on the screen of the computer. He stated “Mr Palo Conteh was the last person at the reception standing in front of the desk carrying a hand bag in his hand talking with the two other Police Officers, Sgt Kposowa and Staff Dauda and I don’t know what they were discussing. I later discovered that the said Mr Palo Conteh failed to scan the very handbag that he was carrying”. 

Even from their own witnesses, there is conflicting testimony as to what Palo Conteh did when he entered State House. But Members of the jury it is indisputable that he never even attempted to go to the meeting with the President upstairs with his bag. How could he have with the phalanx of security at State House? 

At the locus visit and in the witness box he clarified that he did not put his bag through the scanner because he would have set off the alarms and they would claim they “intercepted” him with a gun and that was exactly what he wanted to avoid. In fact, when the 1st Accused was questioned by Mr. Fisher (the lead prosecutors as he was introduced by the DPP) at the locus, as to why he did not take his bag to the meeting with the President when he was told to by security, he reiterated that because he was meeting with the President he could not take his bag with his personal weapon. From that locus members of the jury you could see that the security desk was the first opportunity for the 1st Accused to hand over his bag containing his weapon since the gate 6 security from your own visit to the locus was concerned mostly with scanning the vehicle. 

Members of the Jury Col. Kposowa testified that at the gate of State House are notices prohibiting unauthorized weapons from State House but Alfred Palo Conteh in his testimony stated unequivocally that no signs were present on his previous visits on the 16th and 19th of March 2020 and he reiterated that he was a neighbour to State House whilst serving as Minister and Deputy Minister of Defence and no sign was present. 

You were present when the Registrar of this Court testified and tendered into evidence what is marked as Exhibit HH1-3 which purports to be the report of the LOCUS IN QUO AT THE RECEPTION AREA OF STATE HOUSE. Ironically, the report starts by describing the vehicular entrance and says “At the vehicular entrance are two signs one indicating the search to be conducted and the other stating the prohibition of weapons beyond that point inclusive of an illustration of knife and pistol within a prohibited circle”. 

Members of the Jury with the exception of the demonstration of the 1st Accused, the questions asked by counsel and answers given by the 1st Accused, the remainder of the report are the impressions of the Registrar and they are of no moment and ought to be disregarded by your good selves . 

When asked on Cross Examination about the age of the signage at the vehicular entrance, he clearly stated that he did not know because it was his very first visit to State House. You are men and women of the world and you could not have missed the newness of the signs at State House. We submit that the signs were placed after the start of this trial. Just like the extra security which all of you had to go through, with the handheld wand metal detector after passing through the entrance scanner and metal detector. The 1st Accused made clear that on that fateful day that handheld wand was not present and was corroborated by the testimony of Vackey, Yemie, Gaima, Kposowa who never mentioned the hand held wand. Like the handheld wand, the signs were not present at the gate on the dates charged in the indictment. 

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, you still have not benefitted from the only other real evidence of what happened on the 19th March 2020, the CCTV footage. Col Kposowa testified in the witness box that CCTV camera coverage was available at the front desk area but at the locus visit when counsel for the 1st Accused pointed out the camera and asked whether that was the CCTV camera, he refused to confirm stating that for security reasons he could not confirm. We say that the CCTV exists and would beyond any reasonable doubt 7 prove what happened that day and they (the State) have refused to produce it and you the jury can make what you will of that fact. What is indisputable, Mr Foreman, members of the jury, is that the 1st Accused on entering with his handbag with the gun headed straight for the security desk and handed it over, informing the personnel at State House that his bag contained his personal weapon and they should keep it until he returned from the meeting upstairs. He then proceeded upstairs to the meeting. 

While he was still in the waiting room with other attendees for the meeting, Lt Col. Kposowa, Chief Security officer at State House, with some CID personnel came into the room and approached the 1st Accused and inquired about the ownership of the brown bag. The 1st Accused answered in the affirmative that the brown bag was his. Sidie Yayha Tunis the witness for the 1st Accused who was sitting with him in the waiting area confirmed this fact in the witness box and testified that the 1st Accused told Kposowa that he had given his bag to security had informed them that it had his personal weapon in it. The witness also testified that the 1st Accused mentioned that the he had been given clearance to take the bag upstairs and he insisted that because it had his personal weapon in it he was leaving it with the for safe keeping. Lt Col Kposowa, Sidie Yahya Tunis and the 1st Accused all confirmed that the when the 1st Accused was confronted by Kposowa, he unzipped a section of the brown bag and took out his licence for the weapon and showed it to the security personnel. 

Sidie Yahya Tunis then testified that Lt Col. Kposowa handed the said weapon to one of the security personnel with him who took out the magazine and counted 10 live bullets in the magazine. The 1st Accused was then separated from the others and was quizzed at some length by the CID personnel. After the interview he was then allowed to go home. Later that same day, on the 19th day of March, 2020 in fact, the 1st Accused was invited by M.K Alieu to go to CID to collect his brown bag with his gun but upon his arrival at CID he was told to wait till the next day and from then, onwards, the plot begins to thicken. Mr Foreman, members of the jury you heard Sidie Yayha Tunis testify that he called the 1st Accused after he left State House that afternoon to update him about some of the challenges and the 1st Accused responded to him that when he spoke to President Bio later that day he would insist that if they did not directly report to him (President Bio) as they had for Ebola he would ask to step aside since he did not want to let his President or his nation down. Members of the jury are these the words of a guilty man who went to state house to “assassinate his President”? 8 Mr Foreman, members of the jury, the prosecution’s evidence on the charges of treason is so tenuous as to be non-existent. There is no evidence at all from any of the prosecution witnesses that the 1st Accused was caught or apprehended with any loaded gun at state house as alleged or at all. 

Mr Foreman, members of the jury, the uncontroverted evidence is that the 1st Accused himself personally handed over his brown bag containing his weapon to the personnel at the security desk on the ground floor at State House for “safekeeping”, and at the same time informed them that the bag contained his personal weapon. Mr Foreman, members of the jury, is this the conduct of a man bent on treason, as alleged by the prosecution? Is this the conduct of a man who went to State House with a loaded gun to “assassinate the President”? Surely, nothing could be further from the truth. 

Mr Foreman, members of the jury, in fact, it was the Prosecution’s own witness, Lieutenant Col. Kposowa, chief security officer at State House who took the brown bag with the gun up to the waiting room where the 1st Accused was waiting with others for the meeting with the President. The 1st Accused, on the evidence, readily admitted ownership of the brown bag when Lt Col. Kposowa asked about it and said he left it downstairs with security as it contained his personal weapon. Mr Foreman, members of the jury, is this the conduct of a man bent on committing treason, as alleged by the prosecution? 

Mr Foreman, members of the jury, in his own evidence before this court, the 1st Accused explained the circumstances as to how his brown bag containing his personal weapon came to be inside state house on the 19th day of March, 2020: he voluntarily left it at the security desk on the ground floor at the reception area. He never advanced upstairs with his brown bag containing his gun. He was never tackled, intercepted and the brown bag with the weapon wrested from him. Rather, on the evidence, it was Lt. Col. Kposowa who took the gun upstairs, if you will, in the vicinity of the President, and not the 1st Accused. 

Mr Foreman, members of the jury, there has not been led by the Prosecution any evidence at all of animosity, malice or ill will on the part of the 1st Accused against the President. Mr Foreman, members of the jury, rather, the evidence is that Mr Alfred Palo Conteh, the 1st Accused harkened to calls from the President to share his experience with Ebola in formulating a strategy and policy for covid-19. 9 Mr Foreman, members of the jury, for his pains for responding to the call to national service charges of treason were heaped on his head. Mr Foreman, members of the jury, you watched the 1st accused, broke down in the witness box when I was leading him in evidence in chief and when I inquired why he said he was distraught that his desire to help resulted in him being charged with treason. 

Mr Foreman, members of the jury, there is some evidence from Prosecution witnesses, Vackie, Kposwa and Yeamie, regarding the so-called refusal by the 1st Accused to scan his brown bag when he entered State House on the 19th of March, 2020. That may or may not be an infraction of security rules but those are not the charges that have been made against the 1st Accused. Mr Foreman, member of the jury, the evidence indisputably shows that the 1st Accused Mr Alfred Palo Conteh never ever proceeded beyond the reception area with his brown bag containing his personal weapon. I ask you, members of the jury, how on earth could this be treason, to quote the prosecution to “assassinate the President”? I leave it to your own good judgment. Mr Foreman, members of the jury, from the 19th of March, 2020 to the 29th of March, 2020, the 1st Accused was interviewed five times by the police and he made five statements. These are all in evidence before you. In none of the interviews with the 1st Accused was it made clear to him that he was being investigated for treason. It is clear from his statements given to the police that the investigation of him by the police was in relation to the small arms and ammunition offences. Mr foreman, members of the jury, how the 1st Accused came to be charged with treason on the 29th of March, 2020 is only explained as admitted by Mr M.K Allieu in evidence on cross examination that it was as a result of advice from the law officers department. 

On the Small Arms and Ammunition Charges.

Again, Mr Foreman, members of the jury, on the small arms and ammunition offences, the 1st accused certainly has no burden to prove his innocence. No evidence has been laid before you of the several offences charged under the Arms and Ammunition Act and the Regulations. At the material time in question charged in the indictment, the Prosecution would like you to believe that the 1st Accused was a lawless citizen and that is far from the truth and far from what the evidence portrays. The evidence before you is that the 1st Accused in 2017 while he was Minister of Defence 10 registered and obtained a license for his pistol and has renewed that license since that time to the present. Exhibits T, Y and Z all show that the 1st Accused possessed valid firearms license for his guns. Mr Foreman, members of the jury, it is clear from the Prosecutions own witnesses that when the 1st Accused handed over his bag containing his personal weapon at State House on 19th March 2020, he had a license for the aforesaid gun which was in the bag. MK Allieu PW1 testified in the witness box that in the brown bag was a current license for the Glock 17 which was marked as Ex. T. He testified that he wrote the Small Arms Commission (“SAC”) and requested that the Glock 21 which was tendered and marked as Ex P and which was in the possession of the SAC ( since the 1st accused had surrendered it to them in exchange for the renewal of licence and registration of the Glock 17), be handed over to the CID by the SAC. Mr Foreman, Members of the jury with regards to Count 7, the Court will give you instructions but the long and short of it is that the Prosecution purported to charge the 1st Accused with the offence of possession of small arms without stating the section of the statute that creates the offence and by failing to do so that was a fatal error and that charge must be discharged and our client acquitted. 

Mr. Foreman, Members of the Jury with regards to the importation of small arms, we respectfully submit that this should be dismissed out of hand because on the totality of the evidence for the prosecution there is not an iota of evidence that the 1st Accused imported any small arms into the country. The only evidence that is before you is that the nephew of the 1st Accused a military officer in the US shipped the Glock 21 pistol into Sierra Leone and a old friend of the 1st Accused shipped the Glock 17 into Sierra Leone. From the evidence before you the 1st Accused did not import any weapons. 

Mr. Foreman, Members of the jury, there is no evidence that was led by the Prosecution that the 1st Accused concealed a loaded Glock 17 as laid in Count 9. The 1st Accused was obliged to register the gun which is different from concealment. Concealment is non-disclosure of a fact that is his duty to disclose. The evidence before you is that in fact at State House on that fateful day, the 1st Accused disclose that he had his personal weapon he did not conceal the weapon. Mr Foreman, Members of the jury, the 1st accused was also charged with keeping a greater number of small arms and owning a greater number in the same Count 10 which are two separate and distinct offences. The alternative use of two different offences “keeping” and “owning” confuses the 1st Accused as to which offence to plead to or defend. Moreover through-out the Prosecution’s case, no evidence was led as to the legal “required” number of arms and ammunition to be kept by a licensee nor the amount of arms and 11 ammunition kept by the 1st Accused greater than the number specified in the license. In other words, no evidence of a violation or breach of a statue was led to sustain a charge under that count. Mr Foreman, members of the jury Lt Col Kposwa testified that the magazine was attached and loaded but the weapon was not ready. Mr Palo Conteh testified that the magazine was in the gun but was not locked in place because that is how he keeps his gun. As such while the magazine was perched it was not fully loaded into the gun and there was no bullet in the chamber of the gun. Lt Kposowa PW 7 and Nathaniel Williams PW 3 both corroborate the Defence’ s theory that the magazine was loaded with 10 live rounds but the chamber of the weapon was empty and the gun was nor ready. 

Mr Foreman the Prosecution also failed to lead evidence of what is a “public place “which is an essential element of the regulation “ having a loaded weapon in a public place”. Proof of a public place is a material fact essential to sustain the charge and the burden of proof rest soley on the prosecution. Mr Foreman, members of the jury, no evidence was laid before you from the Small Arms Bureau - the agency mandated to do so - that between the 1st day of January, 2017 and the 3rd day of March, 2020 the 1st Accused did not have a licence. Mr Foreman, members of the jury, on the possession of firearm without valid licence as laid in the indictment the prosecution has led no evidence from the small arms bureau which would be conclusive on whether the 1st Accused had a valid licence for the period laid in the indictment. 

Mr Foreman, members of the jury Exhibit DD 1-4 dated the 20th March 2020 and the testimony of both MK Allieu PW1 and Haja Fatmata Deen Kamara PW 10 made clear that no one has been prosecuted for the unlawful possession of any weapon due to the Moratorium which sought and seeks to encourage people to come forward and surrender and register guns that are unlawfully in their possession. Why then is the Prosecution seeking to do so in this instance? Why ignore the Moratorium when the 1st Accused was in the process of registering the aforesaid weapon.? As trier of the fact, make what you will of this. Mr Foreman, members of the jury, the 1st Accused should be discharged and acquitted on all of these charges based on the insufficiency or lack of probative value of the Prosecution’s evidence. The exhibits presented run contrary to the Prosecutions case. Alfred Palo Conteh had valid firearms licenses for all of his guns and we urge you to acquit and discharge him on all of these charges. 
 12 The Perjury Charges  -Mr Foreman, members of the jury, on the perjury charges, there is no evidence that any oath was administered to the 1st Accused in filling and completing the application form for the registration and/or renewal of the licence. In fact, there is no place on the application form for any oath or affirmation. The form has an acknowledgment but an acknowledgement is not an oath or affirmation as required by the Perjury act. Mr Foreman, members of the jury, completing an application form under the procedures of the small arms registration and licensing is, of course, a nonjudicial proceeding, but we say, on behalf of the 1st Accused, he took no oath nor affirmed in the process. Mr Foreman, members of the jury, the prosecution has laid no evidence to show that he lied on the application or the renewal forms. 

Mr Foreman and Members of the jury, In his testimony during cross examination by the Prosecution ,the 1st Accused did say that at the time he went to the Smalls Arms Commission to renew his license for 2020 he was taken through a gun safety routine demonstration by the Armourer for the Small Arms Commission so he it was not a lie when the form indicated that he had gone through a firearm safety course in the last 12 months. Furthermore, it was established through the Prosecutions own witnesses, Issa Sesay PW 8 and Bockarie Noah PW9 that the 1st Accused had no pending charges from either the Sierra Leone Police or the ACC as the prosecution insinuated. In point of fact, there was no evidence brought before this Court to establish that the 1st Accused has ever been convicted of any crime whatsoever in Sierra Leone or abroad. As such he did not perjure himself. To found a conviction for Perjury, you need more than the testimony of one witness. The allegation of perjury of one witness must be corroborated by the testimony of 2 or more witnesses (as is required by section 13 of the Perjury Act). That was not the case in this instance. No witness and no corroboration so no perjury.

 Mr Foreman, members of the jury, we urge and pray that in this trial you will reject the prosecution’s case of treason against the 1st Accused for a woeful lack of evidence and on the offences under the small arms ammunition acts, for lack of any supporting evidence, a burden which the prosecution carries. We accordingly invite you and urge you to return a verdict of not guilty of treason, not guilty of small arms offense and not guilty of perjury. May I conclude by borrowing the words of Macbeth when he was informed of his wife’s death in Act 5 Scence 5; 13 “ She should have died hereafter; There would have been a time for such a word. Tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow Creeps in this petty pace from day to day To the last syllable of recorded time; And all our yesterday’s have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.” And we say the Prosecution’s case before you members of the jury is full of sound and fury, not even supported by the evidence and we invite and urge you to Dismiss It and Find Major (RTD) Alfred Palo Conteh Not GUILTY ON All THE COUNTS charged in the indictment against him.
——————————————————————————-


THE PROSECUTION ADDRESSED THE JURY.

CULLED:

29th June, 2020

In today's treason trial proceedings, Counsel for both sides flexed their muscles in what was clearly a ding-dong legal battle.
Honorable Justice Momoh Jah Stevens after ensuring that the Jury was fully constituted, asked the Defence to immediately commence their address of the Jury. Lead Counsel for the Defense, Dr. Abdulai Conteh, started his address with a solemn salutation of the Jury and a flowery appeal to their conscience.

He admonished the Jury not to allow their conscience to be distorted by speculations, conjectured claims and accusations.

Dr. Abdulai Conteh told the Jury that they are deciders of facts and evidence and not speculations. He furthered that they were confronted with a battle between truth and falsehood. He reminded the Jury that his client was standing trial on three count charges of treason and other related charges of perjury and unauthorized possession of firearms.
The lead Defence Counsel while addressing the Jury said that assassination placed in quotation marks simply implies that the Prosecution was not quoting itself but another person that was not known to the court.

He claimed that the Honorable Justice Momoh Jah Stevens never committed count three in his committal order, and never knew he was going to be trying the case himself.
     Dr. Abdulai Conteh reiterated to the Jury that the case of Hamilton vs DPP emphasizes that it was for the Prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, the guilt of the accused. According to him, the Prosecution failed to adduce evidence before the Court that was enough to achieve the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the Jury should not hesitate to acquit the accused in their return of "not guilty verdict".

 Dr. Abdulai Conteh told the Jury that his client's possession of a brown bag with a gun at State House was what the Prosecution claimed to have amounted to treason. He further stated that his client was never at any point in time left alone with the President. According to him, there had also never been a one man treason trial in the history of Sierra Leone. So to suggest that his client was a James Bond to risk a deadly mission alone was deemed ridiculous.

Prosecution Counsel Adrian Fisher started his address of the Jury by outrightly stating that Dr. Abdulai Conteh had not literally said anything worthy of logical reasoning and common sense. 
In his words, nothing had been said by the lead Defense Counsel. Adrian Fisher told the Jury that he would first take them through the illogical claims by the Defense, which may not appeal to the common sense of the Jury. Fisher asked the Jury "who was fooling who?" 

Adrian Fisher in his address made a concrete analogy, stating that a person present in a kitchen when cooking needs no further proof to ascertain as to whether cooking took place. He went on to say that the Defense had created much heavy weather around the availability of the CCTV camera. Adrian Fisher asked the Jury to reason what was there that needed to be proven by the Defense, when their very client admitted in the witness box that he bypassed the Scanning Machine and Metal Detector. In a series of subsequent follow up questions, Adrian Fisher asked the Jury "Did the first accused deny not having a gun at that material time? Did the first accused declare the gun at the first gate of State House?, Was the gun loaded with its ammunition?". In all of these questions, according to Adrian Fisher, the first accused never denied before the court.

Adrian Fisher further told the Jury in his address that the second witness for the Defense made clear to the court, the normal security routine by stating that his vehicle was thoroughly checked at the gate before he was granted permission to enter. Fisher went on to state that the second witness for the Defense even placed his notepad and pen on the conveyor belt of the Scanning Machine and picked it at the other end after passing through the Metal Detector. According to Adrian Fisher, Palo consciously bypassed the Metal Detector with a very porous excuse that he never wanted to trigger any alarm.

 What finally made Adrian Fisher's submission of guilt very clear, was when he told the Jury that it was in their presence he asked the first accused if he had a pen, a paper, a laptop or a book to suggest he was going for a meeting, the first accused denied not having any. According to Fisher, the first accused only had his gun and magazine with him. In his words, the first accused was invited to go and help kill COVID-19 but he went there with the sole aim to kill the President. Adrian Fisher tactfully took the Jury through count 1-16 of all the charges on the indictment, with enough supporting evidence.
 Adrian Fisher closed his address by admonishing the Jury to display justice to the fullest as a way of showing their patriotism or love for their country.
 Court sitting was adjourned to 30th June, 2020.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY/HIGHLIGHTS OF MAIN POINTS OF BOTH ADDRESSES- culled: Concerned Sierra Leoneans>>>>

KEY POINTS IN THE ADDRESS OF #JURORS BY THE DEFENCE & PROSECUTION IN THE ALLEGED #TREASON TRIAL.


Dr. Abdulai Conteh, the lead defence counsel for Rtd Major Palo Conteh, addressed the jurors yesterday, the 29th of June, 2020. Lawyer Adrian Fisher, addressed the jurors on behalf of the state.

Below, [are] highlight  [of] the key points from both teams, as reported by Osman Kamara, which I believe are crucial. They have both encouraged the jurors to look into the evidence thoroughly.


DR. ABDULAI O. CONTEH (Defence Counsel)

🧨 The State has not shown any evidence to prove that Palo Conteh went to State House to assassinate President Bio.

🧨 It is because Palo had a brown bag with him containing a pistol, that's why the state is charging him with treason.

🧨 Palo was not at State House to gossip, he was invited by President Bio to help fight the #coronavirus because he believes in him.

🧨 Palo Conteh was not thinking of anything to disturb the #peace and #security in the country.

🧨 One man cannot commit treason. Palo Conteh is not #JamesBond to do such act.

🧨 The State could not show any group that Palo Conteh was working with to #overthrow the government.

🧨 All the allegations against Palo Conteh are false.

🧨 The State has not been able to show the video of what happened during the time Palo Conteh went to State House. It shows the State made false #allegations against Palo.

🧨 The gun Palo had was licensed to protect himself because the government had removed all his #security as a former minister.

🧨 Palo Conteh is not a 'murrayman' (fetish man) to know that President Bio will call him to State House.

LAWYER ADRIAN FISHER (State Prosecutor).

🧨 All what the defence put in their address is not important.

🧨 #Evidence proves that Palo Conteh is guilty of all the charges.

🧨 The defence in their address said one man cannot commit treason but it has happened in #SierraLeone.

🧨 Mentions Foday Sankoh, Omrie Golley and others who were charged with treason by the state. What the defence said is not true.

🧨 Palo Conteh is a trained soldier and has been to #Libya for two years and is capable of doing the things that the state has charged him with.

🧨 President Bio had confidence in him that is why he asked him to help fight the coronavirus, but Palo Conteh went with a different intention which is to #assassinate President Bio.

🧨 There is no #law which says former ministers must have security. If all former ministers have security, there will be no security force to protect the people of Sierra Leone.

🧨 Why did Palo Conteh not leave his gun at home? He knew he was to meet with President Bio.

🧨 The #CCTV camera which the defence said we do not want to produce, does not matter, because all they need to know, which happened at State House, has been said by the witnesses. CCTV camera is not important.

🧨 Hughes and Sinnah (2nd and 3rd accused) were not honest and lied that they have known Palo Conteh for 60 years.

🧨 Sinnah gave license to Palo Conteh because of their friendship.

🧨 It is because Palo Conteh knows that his plans to assassinate President Bio had failed, that is why he cried in court.

🧨 The guiltiness is shining on the three accused like the sun.

The lawyers for the 2nd and 3rd accused persons will address the jurors today.

The trial continues....