By Francis H. Murray
Two former Permanent Secretaries in the Ministry of Education Science and Technology under the government of Dr. Ernest Bai Koroma have appeared at the Court of Appeal in Freetown to argue against the findings and recommendations of the judge-led Commissions of Inquiry.
Representing Appellant, Mani Koroma who served at the ministry between June 2013 and December 2014, Lawyer Addy Macaulay the three judges: Ansumana Ivan Sesay, Momoh Jah Stevens and Adrian J. Fisher that the sole Commissioner acted outside his mandate in making adverse findings and recommendations against his client.
He said the Commissioner only had the authority to determine whether the persons of interest collaborated with other people in doing what the findings alleged, but lacked what he called subject matter jurisdiction.
He added that the Commissions of Inquiry can only determinate whether or not persons of interest collaborated with other people in the commission of the offence and where evidence leads to such collaboration make a recommendation to the President that such people under the terms of reference of the COI should appear before the commissions.
He further argued that the effects of lack of jurisdiction is that whatever comes after it is a nullity, noting that the terms of reference of the COI are specific and to the letter.
Arguing on another leg of the appeal, Lawyer Macaulay said that his client was not accorded a fair hearing which he said is a basic right that is accorded any person who has been accused of any civil offence.
He asserted that if the evidence had disclosed that his client had questions to answer in respect of his stewardship as the former permanent secretary, such could have been made by way of recommendation to the president which would have in turn given the Appellant a chance to be heard in his own defence.
He said: “you cannot condemn a man unheard,” adding that because the Commissions did not comply with Section 149 (1) Subsection A of the 1991 Constitution, the court should crush the findings and recommendations of the Commissions in respect of his client.
He said the findings and recommendations of the Commissions cover 2015 and 2016, and the fact that his client was no longer in the office after his six month period of employment between June and December of 2014, his client could not be culpable for acts that took place after that.
The matter was adjourned to the 1st March 2021 for the reply from the State.
Meanwhile, Lawyer Mohamed Pa Momoh Fofanah also presented his case for Dennis K. Vandi who served as Permanent Secretary at the ministry between 23rd March and 16th September 2016.
Lawyer Fofana argued that his client was not given the opportunity to be heard and that there was an acrimonious relationship with then Minister which resulted in him being sent on an immediate indefinite leave.
He said apart from his client’s six months of service as permanent secretary in 2016, the commissions also captured periods for which he wasn’t in charge.
In his response, Lawyer Robert Kowa representing the Attorney General noted that the Appellant ought to have appealed on adverse findings and not on mere recommendations noting that the action came to the court in the wrong way.
Lawyer Kowa said the court should determine whether there was an adverse finding against the Appellant or whether he was implicated in respect of the evidence before the Commission or whether any amount of money was misappropriated within the period he served.
He argued that on all the five grounds of appeal put forward by the Appellant against the Commissions, he did not indicate in any that he was wrongfully ascertained as a collaborator and therefore not identified as a person of interest in the report.
He concluded that the Appellant ought not to have appealed in the first place as there was no adverse finding against him or which implicated him.
The matter comes up again next month.
Copyright © 2021 Politico Online
