By Abass Jalloh
The Defence team for seven men accused of public disorder during the recent Parliamentary Bye-election at Sambaia Bendugu in Tonkolili district has rejected the tendering of a search warrant that was presented by the third Prosecuting Witness (PW3), John Lamin Foray, relating to the arrest and detention of the accused persons.
Yesterday 28th July 2022 at Magistrate Court No. 1, Foray who is Chief Police Inspector in Sambaia Bendugu town wanted to tender the certificate of consent for the search warrant targeting the house of the first accused, which included records of findings during the search.
The officer said a shotgun in a blue rice bag was found and that the house was not vandalized.
Lawyer Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara, who is the lead defense counsel, objected to the tendering of the search warrant document contrary to section 30 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) of 1965, noting that there is a procedure for a search warrant in order to guarantee the fundamental protection of the individual, and the right to privacy and property of the individual as enshrined in section 22 of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone.
Lawyer Kamara stated that the document is “incompetent and immaterial” and could not be used for the purpose of the said court matter, asking the magistrate to refuse the order from the prosecution to tender the material.
The state counsel, Ahmed Bockarie, reacted that what the defense did was exclude the importance of the evidence which was done lawfully in the course of the police investigation, saying that the principle of material, as long as is important, should be brought in court.
Lawyer Bockarie submitted that section 245 of the CPA of a defective order of warrant does not render the person unlawful, stating that the consent as the witness referred to is relevant and the purpose there was to search and that entering into the building was not unlawful because the document was signed.
Lawyer Kamara also added that from the understanding of section 245 of the CPA is that the document being tendered does not qualify and it is labeled as “consent”.
He noted that the consent that the prosecution was seeking did not follow the provision of section 245. He said: “This document is not consent, not an order, not a warrant for the purpose of the law. The document is highly prejudicial and the accused was not present. We reject the document and refused it in its entirety to the court.”
The defence then renewed the application for bail for the seven accused persons, noting that there is no evidence yet that any of the accused persons cannot be entitled to bail.
Magistrate Sahr Kekura stated that when he is satisfied with the evidence he would decide.
The matter was adjourned to the 4th of August 2022.
