By Francis H. Murray
State defendants in the Court of Appeal matter between convicted former defence Minister Alfred Paolo Conteh and the State have objected to the appeal being heard on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
Addressing a three member panel of judges: Ansumana Ivan Sesay, Bintu Aladi and Tonia Barnet on Tuesday 25th November State counsel Joseph A. K Sesay said 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.
He argued that the sentences passed on the politician for the offences of keeping a greater number of small arms in count 10 of the indictment and count 11 for having a small arm in a public place have sentences upon conviction to a fine not exceeding Le 5,000,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding twelve months.
Lawyer said 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 because the appeal is against the discretion of a trial judge, it must be done with the leave of the Court of Appeal pursuant to Section (57) C of the Courts Act, stressing that both sentences cannot be appealed as of right.
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 Fitz-Gerald Kamara argued that both appeals were independent, with equal weight, separate and distinct and can stand alone.
He said that there is 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 therefore submitted that the construct of the fix by law meant that the penal provision provides that a trial judge cannot go above or below the statues as it relates sentencing.
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 is legitimate, it was not jurisdictional object but a procedural one.
Presiding judge Ansumana Ivan Sesay adjourned the matter to the 1st of December 2020 for a ruling on the objections raised.
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.
Copyright © 2020 Politico Online
