By Allieu Sahid Tunkara
One of the accused persons in the on-going trial at the Court Martial presided over by Judge Advocate Otto During has, prior to the commencement of last Wednesday`s proceedings, openly complained in court that he was ill.
Private Abdulai Coker Suma, the 3rd accused, said he had been diagnosed of Hepatitis which had impaired his breathing. Private Suma told the press prior to the day`s hearing that he needed Le 1, 500, 000 (One million, five hundred thousand leones) to foot his medical bill, a sum, which he said had not been provided by the army. The accused also said he could not access his bank account to enable him do so.
“I am suffering and my wife and children are suffering; I was arrested for something of which I have no knowledge,” Suma said, in tears. Based on his deteriorating health condition, Private Suma requested that military bosses make the necessary arrangement for him to be escorted to the bank so that he could collect his salary. He said it would be difficult for someone to collect the salary on his behalf as his cheque had got missing.
Some military personnel present at the court assured the sick accused that they would pay him a visit at the Pa Demba Road Correctional Facility to take care of his health problem.
Meanwhile, Judge Advocate Otto During announced in court shortly before the proceedings began that one of the board members, Captain Fonti Kanu, was absent owing to an illness. He said the 6th board member was undergoing surgical operation.
Based on his absence, therefore, prosecution counsel, Vincent Sowa, applied that the court be adjourned for a week, a period which he hoped the sick board member would have recovered.
Vincent Sowa who was supposed to cross examine the 8th accused, Private Alpha Mansaray, who previously testified on his own behalf, cited the Court Martial Rules of 2003 and the Criminal Procedure Act no.32 of 1965. He then argued that Rule 88 (2) of the Court Martial Rules, 2003 made provision that the number of board members shall not be reduced below the legal minimum, stating that although Rule 1(1) of the interpretation section of the same Court Martial Rules failed to define or interpret the exact number of board members that could be referred to as the “legal minimum.”
In his argument, Sowa went on to draw the attention of the court to section 182 (1) Act no.32 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1965, which he said made provision for the continuance of a criminal trial where a juror dies or becomes incapable. He said that the section defines the phrase “legal Minimum” as the number of jurors not below ten, and that if the the original number of jurors was twelve and later reduced to ten on account of any circumstance stipulated by law, the proceedings could be continued backed up with the mutual consent of both the prosecution and the defence.
“In our own case, the board members were six, and now they are five; if Captain Kanu absents for the next adjournment; the “legal minimum” of five board members would apply,” he said.
Defence counsel for the 8th accused, Ishmail Philip Mamie, objected to the prosecution counsel’s application describing it as “unnecessary,” and insisted that the proceedings continued in the absence of the board member. He cited the Armed Forces Act of 1961 as amended which, he said, prescribed the Legal Minimum of board members to “five” in the trial of capital offences, although he did not mention the section of the Act that contained such provision.
“There is no rule that says the proceedings should stop in the absence of a board member,” Mamie argued. The defence counsel also described to the prosecution counsel’s argument of conducting his cross examination during the next adjournment date even if the number of board members remained the same as delaying the proceedings.
“Why do we adjourn the matter waiting for a board member who we are not sure when he would recover,” Mamie asked. He further contested that it is only the absence of the Court Martial President that could delay the proceedings. He said even if a situation in which the President of the court martial could not attend the proceedings arose, another competent person could be appointed in his stead. Mamie ended his submission by urging the court to continue with the proceedings, stating that “time is of the essence.”
Having heard both arguments, the Jude Advocate ruled that the matter should be adjourned for a short period, saying that “although time is of the essence, but my understanding of the principles of law is more of the essence.” He expressed disappointment over the unavailability of a copy of the Armed Forces Act of 1961 in the court martial secretariat, sating that the Act was mentioned by defence counsel during his argument about the legal minimum of five board members.
“had I got access to the Act, consulted it and discovered that ‘five’ is the ‘legal minimum,’ I would have continued with the proceedings,” the Judge Advocate said.
Otto During rounded up his ruling saying that the Court Martial was a court of law, and that everything done with regards to the proceedings must be based on legal principles.
Arrested in August 2013, thirteen soldiers of the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces are standing trial at the Court Martial for the offences of conspiracy, mutiny and failure to suppress mutiny. The accused persons have been in remand at the Pa Demba Road Correctional Facility since their arrest, although they deny all charges brought against them.
One of the accused persons, Corporal Alex Jibao Koroma, who swelled the number to 14, had been acquitted and discharged for “want of evidence” following the no-case submission by defence counsel, Ishmail Philip Mamie.
The matter comes up next Wednesday, 15 April.
© Politico 10/04/15
