By Francis H. Murray
Lawyers representing convicted former defence minister Alfred Palo Conteh who is serving a two sentence for two count offenses against the Small Arms Commission have appealed his conviction and sentence of three judges in Freetown.
Lead lawyer Dr. Abdulai O. Conteh told the judges that the prison term given to his client is ‘‘unreasoned, harsh and draconian.’’
He said the trial judge, Momoh Jah Stevens imposed a maximum sentence on his client who was a first time offender for offenses he referred to as ‘‘summary’’ against the Small Arms Commission without stating any reasons when an alternative sentence exists.
The application was made by a notice of motion and supported an affidavit sworn to by the appellant applicant dated 14th July 2020, asking for Paolo Conteh to be put on bail.
Dr. Conteh said that in the interest of justice and humanity, his client should be admitted to bail pending the decision of the appeal as allowed by law on the grounds that before the appeal comes up for hearing, he would have served most of his sentence.
Dr. Conteh further noted that his client was not a flight risk, had close ties with the community and had reliable sureties.
Respondent Joseph A. K Sesay opposed the bail application arguing that although the court has the discretion to grant bail pending appeal, it should deem it fit to exercise the said discretion judiciously for or against an appellant applicant pending the determination of an appeal.
He said 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 said 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 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.
He added that what was put before the court was a 24 month imprisonment, but that what was absent was the time that will elapse before the appeal on those sentences comes up, adding that the period must be considered in view of a balancing act between the interest of the State and the Applicant.
He warned that the effects on the appellant applicant should the appeal fail is devastating.
‘‘The psychological effects would be far devastating for an appellant applicant to be admitted to bail pending appeal and if his appeal fails, the status quo is reversed and he is sent back to the correctional center,’’ he noted.
Justice Ansumana Ivan Sesay noted that the matter was now set for ruling on a date that will be communicated to both parties.
Copyright © 2020 Politico Online
