There was drama yesterday at the military tribunal sitting at Cockeril with intermittent angry exchanges between prosecution and defence counsels.
14 soldiers of the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces were brought before it on allegations of treason.
An unspecified number of them were not brought before the court for which no reasons were given.
The men were detained in August after their arrest at the Teko Barracks in Makeni, and were brought to court for the first time yesterday. No charges were read out against them hence they did not make any plea which is expected to happen at the next sitting on Monday 7 April.
Shortly after swearing the oath of office Judge Advocate, Otto O. During had his authority challenged.
The prosecutor raised a preliminary objection by questioning his eligibility to preside over proceedings even before the preliminary hearing started.
"We seek clarification as to your eligibility as judge advocate for the court martial", Defence Attorney Julius Cuffie said.
He asked that the court be availed with documents on the Judge Advocate's "appointment, who made it and [his] qualification as provided for" under the constitution.
Citing Section 135/1,2,3,4 and 5, Cuffie said such an appointment should have gone through constitutional procedures which he said had not been followed. This left Judge During twitching with his fingers and knuckles.
In what apparently sounded like music to the ears of the judge, Gerald Soyie argued that Rule 20/a & f of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Sierra Leone Court Martial Procedure Rules of 2003 allowed for the Chief of Defence Staff "to take necessary steps" in appointing a Judge Advocate or he can appoint any one he feels suitable without criteria for such.
"There is a strong presumption of regularity hardly rebuttable in connection with a convening order. Your warrant of instrument of order as judge advocate further confers on you your unlimited jurisdiction" Soyie said.
He furthered that the constitutional provisions applied to judges of the high court, appeals court and supreme court and not a Court Martial.
The Judge Advocate ruled in his own favour extempore often citing the argument of the prosecution. This drew a sharp objection from the defence who said a ruling should be delivered in writing.
The court went on a short break and on resumption a written ruling was duly delivered.
The defence later made an application for the 14 soldiers to be transferred from the Pademba Road prison to the Wilberforce Barracks military detention centre and for them to be given access to their cheque books to enable them release money to their families. The judge again ruled against the application.
After the defence and prosecution had agreed on a long list of rules of procedure the case was adjourned to Monday 7 April when the trial proper is expected to start.
(C) Politico 03/04/14
