By Francis H. Murray
Legal arguments have ended in the Court of Appeal in the Commission of Inquiry case involving Diana Konomanyi, the former Lands Minister in the government of Dr. Ernest Bai Koroma and Sogefel-Sarl, a Construction Company.
The three judges: Fatmata Bintu Alhadi, Komba Kamanda and Tonia Barnet have reserved their ruling.
In the matter of the construction company, lawyer Robert Kowa, representing the Attorney General told the court that although he conceded that the Appellant may not have been expressly identified in the Constitutional Instrument as a person of interest, the terms of reference of the Commission gives it the mandate to ascertain whether the Appellant collaborated with any person in respect of such corruption, dishonesty and abuse of office.
He said the argument that the company was not specifically named in the Constitutional Instrument cannot hold in law and that anybody ascertained to have collaborated will be liable, adding that “an accomplice to the fact is liable to answer for his deeds.”
He submitted that the scope of those who collaborated with persons named or identified in the findings is wide as long as that can be ascertained by the Chairman or Sole Commissioner.
Lawyer Kowa went further to state that there was no wrong done by the sole Commissioner that may amount to acting in excess of his jurisdiction particularly with regards to the Commission’s findings which according to him is being appealed against, adding that an examination of the findings revealed that they were against the late Dr. Minkailu Bah who was a person of interest. “Those who may have been ascertained to collaborate and benefit from the fruit of corrupt practices cannot be allowed to retreat into their comfort zone under the guise that they were not expressly named as persons of interest,’’ he added.
He said the Sole Commissioner was able to clearly identify in the testimony before him that there were no relevant documents for the disbursement of Le 2,458,576,240.00 to T.S Company Ltd for the rehabilitation and extension of Fourah Bay College.
The lawyer representing Diana Konomanyi argued that the sole Commissioner failed to adequately consider the appellant’s property at Adonkia in the Western Area of Freetown which is to be forfeited to the State and particularly on the evidence of a discredited valuation and an incompetent witness.
On his part, Counsel for Sogefel-Sarl said the adverse findings and recommendations of the sole Commissioner against his client whom he said was not named as a person of interest either expressly or by implication amounted to an excess of his jurisdiction.
He went on to submit that the findings, recommendations and conclusions of the sole Commissioner of the COI held in Sierra Leone pursuant to Constitutional Instrument No. 64 of 2018 contravened the principle of natural justice as it didn’t give his client an opportunity to be heard as provided for by Law.
Arguing that the Commission lacked the jurisdiction to levy such sanctions, he said the witnesses provided at the COI were not credible and could have been manipulated.
Copyright © 2021 Politico Online (22/03/21)
