By Allieu Sahid Tunkara
The accused in the on-going trial at the Court Martial presided over by Judge Advocate Alhaji Abu Bakarr King Tuesday denied knowledge of a document containing several specimen signatures.
Major Philip Joseph Shenks made the denial statement during cross examination when a document marked exhibit ‘D’ was shown to him by prosecution counsel, Ishmail Philip Mamie who asked whether the accused could identify his own signature on the document. The accused responded to the question that he could not identify his signature and that, as he put it, “I am not a forensic expert.”
The prosecution counsel further questioned the accused about exhibit ‘F’, being statements said to have been made to the military investigators by the accused.
Joseph Shenks told the court that the signature in exhibit ‘F’ was not his either. The prosecution counsel observed that even though the accused said he was not a forensic expert he could tell that the signature in exhibit ‘F’ was not his own signature. To that the accused responded that exhibit ‘F’ was not a forensic document. At this point, the prosecution counsel gave the accused a blank sheet of A-4 paper and asked him to sign which the accused did. The accused’s signature was shown to the defence counsel, Shears Moses and was marked exhibit ‘O’ which formed part of the court exhibits.
Apart from exhibit ‘D,’ several documents which are now in the custody of the court as exhibits, including ‘exhibit ‘I,’ were shown to the accused by the prosecution counsel who asked the accused whether those were his signatures. The accused also replied he was not sure. The prosecution counsel then put it to him that considering he had admitted the signature in exibit ‘O’ as his own, the accused might have forged all the documents in exhibit ‘I’, being a bunch of documents containing the alleged ‘letter of application’ Study leave approval’, among others. The accused also responded in the negative that all signatures in the documents were not his.
Having got all the responses from the accused, the prosecution counsel urged the court to compare the specimen signatures in exhibit ‘D’ to the actual signature of the accused.
Prior to the questioning on the document containing the specimen signatures, Prosecution counsel drew the attention of the accused to exhibit ‘H’ which the prosecution said was a letter written by Major Crow, an International Military Advisory Training Team (IMATT) officer, which states that the accused was not supposed to stay in the UK on a study leave. The prosecution counsel put it to the accused that Major Crow knew that the accused forged the ‘letter of Study leave approval’ marked exhibit ‘G’. The accused replied that he did not.
During re-examination, the defence counsel, Shears Moses asked the accused if he ever knew Major Crow. The accused responded that he had never known him (Major Crow). In furthering his re-examination, the defence counsel, Shears Moses requested the accused to look at exhibit ‘I’ and explained why he said those were not his signatures. At that point, the prosecution counsel raised an objection on the grounds that the question was not addressing an issue that had to do with ambiguity or anything that was fresh. The prosecution counsel also argued that the accused had given an answer in respect of the document, adding that at the material time, he answered the question, and that he was in a better position to show why he was not sure that those were his signatures.
The defence counsel replied that the purpose of the re-examination was to iron out ambiguities that shall have arisen during cross examination. Shears Moses further argued that the response of the accused to the question relating to the signatures in the exhibit ‘I’ “I am not sure” was ambiguous.
The Judge Advocate overruled the objection of the prosecution counsel and the defence counsel continued his re-examination. He posed the question to the accused as to why he authored exhibits ‘M’ and ‘N, a question to which the accused responded that after the investigation he never got the outcome and that he went to the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and explained to him that his future had been derailed.
At that time, he went on, the CDS asked him to write for summary dealings. The defence counsel ended his re-examination questioning the accused about his appraisal system by his army superiors and the accused replied that he was appraised as a grade ‘A’ officer which he said was ‘holistic’ and it bordered on integrity, performance, tactfulness, among others.
Squadron Leader (Major) Philip Joseph Shenks is standing trial at the court Martial at the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF) headquarters on Wilkinson Road in Freetown for two-count charges of forgery of a UK study leave approval and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline.
The prosecution alleged that on dates between 10th and 15th December, 2012, the accused forged a study leave approval while in the UK and inserted the name and signature of the Director of Personnel at the Ministry of Defence contrary to the Armed Forces Act of 1961. The accused denies both charges.
Bail for the accused remains in force.
Matter comes up on Tuesday 9th June.
© Politico 03/06/15
