By Allieu Sahid Tunkara
Counsels for the defence at the Court Martial presided over by Judge Advocate Otto During have tendered written submissions to the judge and board members as their final addresses to the court.
While clarifying certain issues surrounding his submission, counsel for the 14th accused, Robert Kowa, informed the court that he relied on written submission dated 29th June 2015 which is an analysis of the evidence before the court and submissions made thereto. After tendering the copy of the written address, Robert Kowa sought permission from the court so that he could offer clearer explanation particularly those touching on certain exhibits bordering on the defence of the 14th accused, Captain Prince Sesay.
Defence counsel Robert Kowa reminded the court that his client was charged to the court with a six-count charge ranging from conspiracy to commit mutiny to failure to suppress mutiny in pursuance of the Armed Forces Act No 34 of 1961 as amended. While trying to explain to the court what act amounts to conspiracy, Kowa told the court that he relied on the definition contained in his written submission to the court as well as on the one submitted by the prosecution. He also brought to the notice of the court the prosecution’s failure to establish a case of conspiracy against his client.
“My Lord, in the application of the principles of the law, the prosecutor has failed to bring forth any evidence that will establish or link the 14th accused to having conspired with any of the accused in the dock or any other person,” Kowa argued. He also drew the attention of the court to a question put to the 8th prosecution witness, Claude Kamanda, who previously testified as formal witness before the court that if there was anything in exhibit ‘U’ that warranted him to charge the 14th accused to court to which the witness replied in the negative.
The exhibit in question is a letter addressed to the Commanding Officer of the 4th Infantry Brigade at the Teko Barracks in Makeni, requesting him to allow members of Squad 99, a group that comprises soldiers who joined the army in 1999, to hold a meeting so that they could discuss issues relating to their welfare.
Robert Kowa also invited the court’s attention to a claim previously made by the prosecution that the ‘continued interest’ of the 14th accused, in respect of squad 99 meeting, was sufficient to establish a case of conspiracy against the accused.
He argued against the prosecution’s claim, stating that there was no evidence before the court that established the ‘continued interest’ of the accused. Kowa told the court that the prosecution had not controverted the testimony of the 14th accused who stated that he (accused) was approached by Corporal Hamilton, the Secretary-General of Squad 99 and a military Police officer called Hawa, to lead them to the Commanding Officer of the 4th Infantry Brigade. When Corporal Hamilton appeared before the court to testify on behalf of the 14th accused, he also said the same thing.
Responding to the prosecution’s claim that the 14th accused was not the proper person to lead Corporal Hamilton and the military police officer to the Commanding Officer of the 4th Brigade, defence counsel Kowa argued that the 14th accused was reprimanded neither by the Commanding Officer (CO) nor by any other senior officer for leading the two officers to the C/O who signed the letter of request for the meeting, before other senior officers signed.
While summing up his submission, the defence counsel posed two questions to the court: that whether leading the two military officers amounted to continued interest, and whether the signing of the of the letter by the accused amounted to conspiracy.
He concluded that the answer to the two questions is “no,”, arguing that any attempt to answer yes to the two questions might possibly bring the C/O and all other signatories to the letter before a court martial.
“If this Court Martial is to consider that the document is intended to bring the accused persons together to overthrow the government or to mutiny against His Excellency’s Armed Forces, then the C/O and the other officers who signed the document ought to come and answer before the court. If the court holds otherwise via-a-vis the legitimacy and the authenticity of the document, I invite your Lordship that the only signatory to the letter in court be set free,” Kowa appealed.
In his submission, the lead defence counsel, Julius Nye Cuffie, who is representing five accused persons, ranging from the 1st to the 5th, also informed the court that he relied on his written submission already before the court and obtained permission from the court to enable him establish inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
Mr Cuffie made specific reference to the testimony of the 2nd prosecution witness, Momodu Jalloh, who he said testified before the court during cross examination that he (Momodu Jalloh), while [pretending to be part of the alleged mutiny, had a conversation with the 1st accused in the evening of 10th August, a statement which he later changed.
The lead defence counsel also sought to establish inconsistencies and alibis in all the cases against the clients. He submitted that all the cases for his clients “must collapse” and that they should be acquitted and discharged.
Also, Thomas Beah, who is representing three accused persons, sought to establish inconsistencies on behalf of the accused persons.
Beah told the court that the prosecution team had failed to prove the case against his clients beyond reasonable doubt. He therefore called on the court to acquit and discharge the accused persons, arguing that whenever a doubt exists during prosecution, the accused is entitled to acquittal. He cited several case laws and authorities to buttress his argument.
However, defence counsel for the remaining accused persons, Ishmail Philp Mamie, was absent in court. But he requested the court through his learned colleague to give him Friday to submit his address, a request the judge accepted.
Arrested in August 2013, thirteen soldiers of the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF) are standing trial at the Court Martial on Wilkinson Road for alleged conspiracy, mutiny and failure to suppress mutiny. They have been in remand at the Pa Demba Road Male Correctional Centre since their arrest although they deny all charges. One of the accused, Alex Jibao Koroma who swelled the number to fourteen had been acquitted and discharged following a no-case submission by the defence team.
The matter comes up this Friday.
(C) Politico 30/06/15
