By Francis H. Murray
The Court of Appeal has dismissed the bail application of the convicted former defense minister, Alfred Palo Conteh, who is serving a twenty-four month jail term for illegal possession of firearms.
Conteh was convicted last month after about three months of trial on charges including treason and illegal firearms possession. He was cleared of the treason charges but found wanting for the firearms possession. His lawyers are appealing against the conviction for firearms possession.
In delivering his ruling on Friday 14th August 2020, presiding judge, Ansumana Ivan Sesay disclosed that the court didn’t think that expressing the view that the grounds of appeal were good and were likely to succeed will on its own constitute special circumstances, as argued by counsel for the applicant appellant.
The judge said that the grounds of appeal must show even before they’re argued that a ‘‘serious flaw’’ was committed by the trial court below, which he said was not put forward by the counsel for the applicant appellant.
Justice Sesay said: “From the facts and evidence before this court, nothing has been exhibited that springs up in our faces to show that there has been a breach of the law by the lower court. There is nothing to suggest that the sentences handed down were illegal or wrong in principle.’’
He further noted that the argument put forward by the counsel for the applicant appellant were not strong and did not meet the threshold of an ‘‘exceptional circumstance’’ which would warrant the court to admit their client to a bail, pending appeal.
‘‘This is to suggest that the arguments articulated are not strong and good grounds; but on the face of it, they are not exceptional from other previous cases to be considered or deem fit to grant bail,’’ Justice Sesay stated, adding that the grounds and strengths of their arguments will be built upon in determining the decision of the appeal.
Justice Sesay also dismissed the fears of the counsel for the applicant appellant that he would have served considerable portion of his sentence by the time the appeal comes up. The judge said that the court was ‘‘confident’’ that a considerable proportion of the sentence will not be served before the appeal is heard, citing the ‘‘expeditiousness’’ of the trial in the High Court.
‘‘This court has carefully looked at the issues raised and the arguments for and against and decided that the application ought to be dismissed. The court is not convinced that there are special or exceptional circumstances that have been shown to warrant bail being granted. The application is therefore dismissed,’’ he declared.
Lead lawyer for the applicant appellant, Dr. Abdulai O. Conteh, had argued that the prison term given to his client is ‘‘unreasoned, harsh and draconian,’’ adding that the trial judge, Momoh Jah Stevens, imposed a maximum sentence on his client who was a first time offender for offenses he (COnteh) referred to as ‘‘summary’’ against the Small Arms Commission, without stating any reasons, when an alternative sentence exists.
Dr. Conteh further argued that in the interest of justice and humanity, his client should be admitted to bail pending the decision of the appeal court as allowed by law on the grounds that before the appeal comes up for hearing, he would have served most of his sentence.
State Respondent, Lawyer Joseph A. K. Sesay, had also argued that the court must consider that the appellant applicant is not a trial applicant but had been convicted and sentenced and that the conditions of bail must be construed along that principle. Lawyer Sesay further stated that the appellant applicant must show that ‘‘circumstances exist that make his situation unlike any other exceptional’’ which he said was not before the court.
He said the fact that the appellant applicant was a first time offender should not be regarded on the grounds that it does not justify the reasons to admit the appellant applicant to bail, and ultimately not part of the reason why the appellant applicant should not serve his sentence pending the determination of an appeal.
Justice Sesay ordered that the records of the trial in the High Court be prepared and put before the Chief Justice for assignment within seven days, starting from the date of this ruling (August 14), and that the Applicant Appellant be permitted to have two hours of exercise on a daily basis while serving his jail term.
He also ordered that the Applicant Appellant should be allowed to have access to his legal counsel one at a time, medical attention when needed, books and magazines and also allowed to see his fiancé and son twice a week at the Special Court premises.
Copyright (c) 2020 Politico Online
