By Francis H. Murray
The Supreme Court of Sierra Leone has found Lawyer Augustine Sorie-Sengbe Marrah guilty on a one-count indictment of criminal contempt.
The lawyer was summoned before the court over what they referred to as his unprofessional conduct.
It followed Lawyer Marrah’s failure to honour the court’s directive demanding him to appear before after his publication on social media, which the judiciary referred to as contemptuous and demeaning to the sanctity and integrity of the court.
Marrah, in his offensive publication, was reacting to a landmark ruling of the Supreme Court dated 26th October 2020, which overturned the directive of the General Legal Council (GLC) which before the ruling, began to count years of standing at the Bar from the time one signs the permanent register to when one is called to the Bar.
According to the judges, Mr. Marrah claimed in his publication that their decision on standing at the Bar was politically motivated and influenced, likening it to the Supreme Court’s decision in 2017 that justified the removal of Samuel Sam Sumana from the office of Vice President.
“In my opinion, politics has yet again been elevated above the law in yesterday’s judgment by the Supreme Court. This is egregious chipping of the sanctity of the law and this is not a sour loser’s doomsday alarm. We raised this same eyebrow when the VP’s illegal sacking was judiciously laundered – less than half a decade later, chickens are coming home in droves to roost. Only those allied with politics and self-serving interests will be jubilating, those of us on the side of the law will weep for posterity. Weep we will but dither, we will not,” Marrah wrote in his comment.
In a unanimous decision taken on Friday at the Law Courts Building in Freetown, the panel of judges - four Supreme Court judges and one Court of Appeal Judge – said they found the conduct of Mr. Marrah unprofessional and aimed at undermining the administration of justice in the country.
Delivering the judgment on behalf of the bench, Justice Sengu Koroma noted that Marrah’s allegation in his article published on the 27th October 2020 was not directed at any judge in his personal capacity, but rather at the administration of justice.
He said that Lawyer Marrah’s publication suggested that the Supreme Court judges by their judgment brought the legal profession into disrepute and amputated their function as the apex court in Sierra Leone, adding that it was clearly an attack on the administration of justice, without proof.
‘‘It is our conclusion that the conduct of Mr. Marrah is unprofessional and that by his article, he has participated directly to undermine the authority, dignity and integrity of the Supreme Court thereby impede the effective administration of justice. In this circumstance, we find you guilty of criminal contempt,’’ he proclaimed.
Justice Sengu Koroma then went on to note that Common Law sets the guidelines in matters of contempt of court which he said was in place to uphold the court’s integrity and dignity, and that its jurisdiction should be exercised disparately.
He stressed that while the protection of free speech is paramount, they as judges have been apprehensive because they’re not in a position to refute a public comment made against them.
Taking the witness stand prior to the judgment and led in evidence by Lawyer Yada Williams, Mr. Marrah told the court that he was involved as co-counsel for the defendant in the Supreme Court Matter between Lawyer Ibrahim Sorie and the GLC. He added that he was aware that judgment was delivered on the issue on the 26th October, 2020 which followed the posting of his article on a WhatsApp group exclusively meant for lawyers on the 27th October, 2020.
He admitted of being aware that the charge against him was that he stated in his article that politicians influenced the Supreme Court judgment dated 26th October, 2020.
When shown the said publication and asked whether there were any portions in it which stated that politicians influenced the judgment of the Supreme Court on the 26th October 2020, the witness denied, saying that there was nowhere in the article which stated that politicians influenced the said judgment.
Asked whether the judgment made mention of the word politics in any shape or form, the witness replied saying that he glimpsed certain portions of the judgment as political considerations.
When asked whether he was in any way insinuating in his article that politicians influence the decision of the court, he said: “I didn’t say that, I didn’t insinuate that and I didn’t intend for the comprehension of those to be intended as such.”
‘‘As an officer of the court, I’m duty bound to uphold the rule of law and the administration of justice, to respect the processes and outcomes of the respective courts in the judicial structure. We may lack many things in this country, but we don’t lack the judiciary. I respect the honorable men and women who dispense justice in this court and in all the courts across the country. I’ve never in my life ridiculed or brought shame and disgrace to your Lordship’s court,’’ he admitted.
Under cross-examination by the panel of judges, the witness agreed that the comments and the decision made by the judges in the judgment were in reference to some submissions made by the Plaintiff Applicant that if the court accepted the Defendant Respondent position, it would have consequences on the office of the Attorney General and the Commissioner of the Anti-Corruption Commission.
He said that during the judgment, the lead counsel for the Respondent Defendant, Osman Jalloh, did canvass the court that political considerations should not tilt the administration of justice.
In his plea mitigation, Lawyer Marrah solemnly noted that he regretted the tone, language and diction of his post at the material time which did not find favour to the judges and craved the bench’s indulgence to tamper justice with mercy and to consider a sentence that was fair and that would not close in the space for free speech and one that would not be mischaracterized by the public.
In his response to the plea mitigation, Presiding judge, Justice Allan B. Halloway, noted that the bench accepted his plea and would not hand a custodial sentence on him.
The bench however ordered the convict to take necessary steps to purge his contempt by doing a retraction of the said post in an article. The contemnor was also ordered to write a letter of apology to the judiciary and the presiding judges and also publish the said letter of apology in the front pages of two widely read newspapers in Sierra Leone within three working days from the date of the order.
While they revoked the bench warrant issued against Mr. Marrah, the matter was also referred to the disciplinary committee of the GLC for appropriate action to be taken as a result of him bringing the judiciary into disrepute.
Copyright © 2020 Politico Online
