By Francis H Murray
The Sierra Leone Court of Appeal has ruled that it will hear the appeal matter of the convicted former defence Minister Alfred Palo Conteh after State Counsel’s objection to the said appeal being heard on grounds of jurisdiction.
Delivering the ruling on behalf of a three member panel of judges, Justice Ansumana Ivan Sesay noted that it was the view of the court that the appellant in filing his criminal appeal, satisfied Appendix C in the Criminal form 3 in the Court of Appeal Rules, describing it as a ‘‘sufficient’’ notice of intention for leave to appeal against sentence.
‘‘Even though Counsel for the appellant didn’t use the same words exactly as found in Appendix C, in Criminal form 3 in the Court Of Appeal Rules, the jurisdiction objection advanced by the State that the appellant had not sought the leave court to appeal against sentence does not hold or stand in legal sense,’’ he declared.
He added that in respect of the argument put forward by the state that the Criminal Appeal 5&6 filed by the appellant were interwoven, he was of the view that both were ‘‘separate, independent and distinct’’ from each other and that each stands alone.
‘‘In the light of the aforementioned, I’ve not seen any legal justifications why criminal appeal No 6 /2020 should be struck out, the jurisdictional objection raised by the State therefore fails, the appeal must proceed forthwith at the next adjourn date,’’ he added.
In her submission, Justice Bintu Alhadi also agreed to the position of the court, but added that the objection raised by the State was a procedural one instead of a jurisdictional. She said while the Counsel for the State is correct about the appellant not seeking leave of the court, she didn’t think that it was fatal to the proceedings as stated by the presiding judge. She however agreed with the argument of the State Counsel that the sentences for the offences before the court are not fixed by law.
State counsel Joseph A. K Sesay had argued that the appellant in filing the notice of appeal, failed to comply with the relevant procedure in seeking leave of the court to hear the matter. He said at the time of the proceedings, leave was never granted by the court or a certificate given by the lower court allowing the appellant to appeal against the sentences that are not fixed by law.
Lawyer Sesay went on to argue that the sentences for both counts for which the appellant is before the court are not fixed by law, referring to them as “discretional” and that a trial judge can sentence, using his discretion.
He said: ‘‘as of right, we can argue the appeal against conviction but not against the sentence. If you’re to argue the appeals against conviction and you succeed in doing that, invariably it would affect the sentences altogether. But because there is a jurisdictional objection for this court not to listen to the appeal against the sentences, I’ll respectfully apply that both appeals against conviction and sentence not be argued in the absence of leave for the appellant to argue his appeal against sentence.”
In his response, counsel for the appellant Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara also argued that both appeals were independent, with equal weight, separate and distinct and can stand alone.
He further noted that there was no correlation between the grounds of sentencing and the independent argument of count 10 which he said related to duplicity, adding that it had no legal consequences and therefore ‘inefficacious.’
He went on to note that the thrust of the argument of the respondent is about seeking the leave of the Court of Appeal which he said was been completely misconceived.
He added that the trial judge in the exercise of his discretion went for the maximum as provided for by law.
Lawyer Kamara concluded by saying that Section (57) C of the Courts Act was misconceived, adding that while the objection was legitimate, it was not jurisdictional object but a procedural one.
Presiding judge Ansumana Ivan Sesay adjourned the matter to the 15th December 2020 for continuation of the appeal.
Conteh was convicted in July after about three months of trial on charges including treason and illegal possession of fire arms. He was cleared of all treason charges but found guilty on count 10 for keeping a greater number of small arms and count 11 for having a small arm in a public place.
His lawyers say they have put together ten grounds of appeal to argue before the court.
State Counsel or Respondent ( The State) in the ongoing appeal matter involving the Former Minister of Internal Affairs Alfred Palo Conteh has been ruled against with regards to the jurisdictional objection they raised in the previous sitting by the three Appeal Court Judges.
In a Court hearing yesterday, Justice Ivan Sesay, Justice Bintu Alhadi and Justice Tonia Barnett noted that the Counsel for the respondent highlighted the wrong provisions in their bid to raise such an objection.
Justice Bintu Alhadi also noted that despite raising the wrong provisions but such jurisdiction objection should have been raised at the start of the matter, not after synopsis have been served together with other pertinent documents in relations to the matter.
She said despite the appellant doesn't seek leave as per the allegation of the State but she however pointed out that it is not fatal to the case. "We have passed the stage of arm bush," Justice Alhadi said.
Joseph F. Kamara had to renew the bail application of his client but was turndown. The matter has been adjourned to Tuesday 15th December 2020 for legal arguments on the synopsis from both Counsels, whilst the appellant was taken back to prison.
Copyright © 2020 Politico Online
