S v. Fisher ([node:field-casenumber]) [2010] SLHC 1 (10 June 2010);

IN THE HIGHCOURTOFSIERRALEONE

 

 

HOLDENATFREETOWN

 

 

 

THESTATE

· VS



ADRIANJOSCELYNEFISHER

 

 


  JUDGMENT

 

 

The  accused .AdrianJoscelynFisher  is charged        on a    20   count Indictment ofMisappropriationof  Public  Funds,contraryto Section  12(1) ofthe  Ant·I CorruptionAct2000(as  amended). He  pleaded   not  guiltyto  all thecounts.                                                       

 

Thesubstanceof theallegationleviedagainst theaccused is that,as thepresidingMagistrate at   courtNo.1  in   Bo  Southern Sierra  Leone, there  was  avariancebetweenfines  recorded  byhim  in', the court files and fines pronounced in open court

 

Counts 1-2 are drawn in exactly the samewayandtheyallshow the allege discrepancies.Foreaseofreference, count 1 is reproduced as follows

Count  1

 

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Misappropriation of public funds, contrary to Section 12(10 of the Anti Corruption Act 2000(as amended)

 

 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ADRIAN JOSECELYNE FISHER, a presiding Magistrate at Court No 1, Bo on a date unknown between 4th June and 30th June 2008, at Bo in the Southern province of Sierra Leone, misappropriated public funds, by willfully depriving the government of Sierra Leone the sum of Le 150,000.00 out of the sum of Le 250,000.00 fine imposed against AUGUSTINE COLE in a matter instituted C/S 263/08 THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE V AUGUSTINE COLE, SULAIMAN BARRIE, MOHAMED SINNEH KARGBO AND BRIMA SORIE SILLAH.

 

To prove these counts as charged the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused:

       I.            A presiding Magistrate at Court No 1 Bo

    II.            On a date unknown between 4th June and 30th june 2008, at Bo

 III.            Misappropriated

 IV.            Public funds

    V.            By willfully depriving the Government of Sierra Leone of the sums of money described in the indictment.

 VI.            Where the prosecution fails to prove the elements of the offence as set out above, the prosecution must fail

 

Itisthe  State  which  brings  this  caseand  itis for  the  State  to  satisfythe  Court  sothatitis sure  of  the  accused  person'sguilt.To put it simply,the burdenofprovingthe guilt ofthe accused remains with theprosecutionand continuesthroughout. The leading   authority is the case of Woolmingtonvs.  DPP[1935] A.C.462HLwhereinitwasstated that:

 

'Throughout  the   web   of   the EnglishCriminal Lawone golden  thread isalways  tobe seen,that  itisthe  duty  ofthe prosecution toprove  the prisoner'sguilt[subjectto  the qualification involvingthe defence of  insanityand  toany statutoryexception].Ifat  the endof andon thewholeofthe case,   there  is  reasonable doubt,createdbytheevidence given either by the prosecutionorthe  prisoner,as to  whether (theoffence  was committedbyhim), the prosecutionhas  not  made  out the   case  and   the  prisoneris entitled toanacquittal. No matter what the charge or wherethe trial,the   principle that    the·   prosecutionmust.provethe  guiltof  the  prisonerispartofthecommon lawof England  and  noattempt to whittle it  down   can   be entertained." {perViscount Sankey  atpp481-482}.

 

Seealsothe caseofRvHunt (Richard) [1987] AC   352,   374   in   which    Lord Griffithsstated,inter alia,that:

 

“..............Parliamentcannever  lightly be  taken   to  have  intendedto  impose an   onerous  duty   on   a   defendantto prove  hisinnocenceinacriminalcase, and   a  court  should   be   very   slow   to draw  any  such  inference fromthe languageofastatute".

 

Theburdenofproof isontheprosecutionand any   doubt should   benefitthe   accused. This principleapplies  in  all  criminalcases  and  in Sierra  Leone  ithasbeenconfirmedinseveral cases  such  as  Hall  vs.R(1964-66)ALRSL189;  Bob-  Jonesvs.R(1967-68)ALRSL267and  Kargbo  vs.R(1968-69)ALRSL354. All of these cases confirmthatthe legal burden ofproofinacriminalcasealwaysrests onthe prosecutionandthat itnever shifts.Theonus lies on the prosecution to prove every elementofthe offence with which anaccused person   has   been   charged   beyond a reasonabledoubt.

 

This  Court  is  particularly mindful of  the  said principle enshrined in  Woolmingtonespecially since   the   trial  of   this   accused   before   this Court  is by  Judge  alone,insteadof  byJudge and  Jury,  pursuant  to  Section  144(2)of  the CriminalProcedure   Act,   No.  32 of 1965   as repealed  and  replaced  by  Section   3  of  the CriminalProcedure   AmendmentAct,  No.11 of1981.The  standardis  the  very   high  standardof provingthe case  beyondreasonabledoubt. In MillervMinisterof Pensions[1947]2AllER372.DenningJ.  Atpp.  373-374had this tosay:

 

“That degree is well settled. It need not reach certainty,but it mustcarry   a high  degreeofprobability. Proof beyond reasonabledoubt does not mean proofbeyond a shadow ofadoubt. The law wouldfailtoprotect      the community if  it permitted fanciful possibilities to   deflect the  courseof  justice.If  the evidenceissostrongagainsta man  asto  leave  only  aremote possibility  in  his  favour  which can bedismissed withthe sentence 'ofcourseit is possible but  not   in the   least probable the   case  is  proved beyondreasonable doubt; nothingshortwillsuffice."

 

I shallnow deal with the evidence   adduced by the prosecution. To prove   their case the prosecution called   anumber ofwitnesses.  PW1 was Aruna Haku whotestifiedincamera. He statedthat he workedas a courtclerk under the   accused· at Bo aroundMarchor April 2008.Heindicatedtothe court what his duties and   responsibilities were.   He  stated thatall  fines  were  paid  to  him  and  that   he issued   temporary  receiptsto  some  of  those who  paid  him  fines  ifthe  NRAofficer  is  not around.Of  particularsignificance,he  stated thaton   those   occasions   where   there   were differences between what the accused pronounced         inopen court  andwhatthe accused   had  endorsed  in  the   court:  file,   he wouldpass  the   files   and   the   fines to  the accusedwho          in   turn would givehim. the amounts recorded in the files,whilst retaining a portion, with instructions  to           pay   to  the National   Revenue Authority. Helater identified the courtfiles that were produced and tenderedincourtbyPW2,Patrick Sandy/ the            investigating    officer, asExhibitsAl-A15.PWl furthertestifiedastothesentences thatwere recordedby the accused in those files,inrespectofallthe twenty(20)counts. With   referenceto exhibitASPWlstated as follows:-

"Inrespect of exhibitASpayment was made tothe NRAby me.  Iam referring to the receipt attached to exhibit   AS. The money was paid   by   the   accused Abass Zayate.  The amount pronounced incourt wasLe75O,OOO.OO Ipaid Le250/000.00: The difference was handed over  tothe  accused  Magistrate Fisher  byme."

Undercross-examinationPWl maintained thatLe750,000.00was  pronounced but Le250,000.00 was endorsed in the file and that was what was paid to the NRA. In respect of exhibitA2,PWl said the  fines  that had  been  levied  by  the  accused  summed up toLel,7OO,OOO.OObut  thatthereceipthehad put in thefilewas             forLe2,800,000.00 because  the  accused  had  told  him  to  put  a totalamountto  coverthe  other  files  _which hadfines.In relation to exhibitA15,PW1was cross   examined as  tohow he  couldhave claimedthere  was  apronouncementin  court when there are  no records of  proceedings.· The  defence   has  suggestedthat  the  receipt for  Le5O,000wasput  in  the  fileby  noless  a person  than  PW1and  that the evidencegiven by  him  was  clearly tailored to bolster a case against theaccused.

 

PW1denied  counsel's  suggestion  that  itwas his  habit   to  demand   monies  from  accused persons  over  and  above  what'was  endorsed. Itwas  also  put  to  PWlthat  the  system he operated with  regards to the paymentoffines was  arrangedand  put  in  place  betweenhim and  PW3-Daniel  Konneh.Hedenied this. PW1also dismissedthe suggestion_      that he wasfinancingaremarkable lifestyle with funds   he took   from   litigants in court. He categorically dismissed counsel’s   suggestion thathe was part ofaconspiracyby Mendes, includingtheParamount   Chief,Mr.Magao andMr.Konneh,to remove the accused from Bo.He also denied thathehadbeenrecruited by the Anti-Corruption Commission to falsely accuse the  accused  and  that   duringthe  11 day  period   that   he  was  in  custody  he  had been    promised   that     he    would     not    be prosecutedif  he  gave  evidenceagainst  the accused.

 

 

Duringre-examinationPWl statedthat  he  is not  relatedto  the  ParamountChief  and  Mr. Magao   and thathe  does notknowthem personally.Healso  stated  that  hehad  never borrowedmoney  from  the accusedbut  that  at times  the  accused  gave  him  monies  and  that one suchinstance was  that on  having forwardedmonies  totheaccused  the  accused

didcompensatehim  withmonies.

 

AsregardsPWl'stestimony,defence  counsel has  submitted,interalia,thataprudentman who  claims  to  have  discovereda  problemin the  area  of  pronouncementwould  not  collect thefinefromtheperson  .paying it and forward it   totheMagistrate toseek instructions;that  aprudentman  would  take the  file  to  the  Magistrate"if  indeed  there  isa problem  with   the   level  of  fine   to  be   paid, resolve  theissue   with   themagistrate  and then  collectthe  fine  from  the  person  paying the  fine.  Defence  counsel  hasalso  submitted thatPWl'sevidence  was clearlybeing tailored to   suit   the   prosecution's  case,by claimingthat   whatwas  pronouncedwas differentfrom  what  was  recordedin  the  file, particularlyso  when  he  had  noaccess  to  the police   file  and·he  was  outsideof  the  courtroom   on   many   occasions   when   fines   were pronounced. 

 

PW2 was Patrick  Sandy  employed as  a Senior Investigating Officer  of the  Anti-Corruption Commission attachedtotheBoOffice,also servingas  the  Head  of  the  Regional  Office  of the   South. He came to know   the accused person    when    he   searched    the    Magistrate Court   No.1 office   of the accused in August 2008.  Hewasthe leader of the search team whichcomprised of four others.They searched the   officeof themagistrate,the secretary theclerk and the bailiffs. During the search,documentsofevidentialvalue and courtfiles were found.PW2stated  that  inall therewere  15  files  and  these  were  recorded in the searchlog        toincludeCS263/08, CS262/08,CS266/08,CS214/08,CS237/08, CS257/08,CS297/08,CS304/08,C$293/08, CS294/08,CS286/08,CS354/08,CS443/08, CS428/08and  CS302/08.Hesaid that   on the last onethereisattachedareceiptand a note.He producedand tendered them   as ExhibitsAl-Al5.PW2furtheredtestifiedthat a  Section57(1)Noticeunder theAnti- CorruptionAct  was  then  served  on  the  Local Unit  CommanderBoDivisionasking  allheads of  departmentsor  institutionsto  produceto the  ACCdocumentsunder  theircontrolwhichare   relevant  to   the   ACC  investigation. He stated that   the   said   Notice·was served   in order to produceto the ACCpolice files both criminal and traffic. PW2said this was done and   through Inspector Konneh   he receivedthe police files forcriminalcasesandthrough the head of the traffic division Bo police station,Inspector JohnSembu Konteh,he received   over 100 files.  He said those that were relevantweretheonestheinvestigation tookintoconsideration.PW2produced and tendered without objection 15 files   which were   admitted   as    Exhibits    81-15. This witness also tenderedthe caution statement oftheaccused s ExhibitC-62. Hewasnot crossexamined.

 

PW-Daniel Konneh alsotestifiedand explainedhisduties  andresponsibilitieswhen he  was  attached  to   the   Legal  and  Justice Supportdepartmentat  the  Bopolice  station. Hesaidhewasheadofthe prosecutionteam of the two MagistratesCourts andthat Court No.  1waspresided overby a         Magistrate while Court No.2was presidedover by two JPs. He said the   accused was his resident MagistrateinBo.Heexplainedthat the police prosecutorsdid not have accessto the court filesendorsed bytheaccused. Theyallrelied on the·pronouncementof sentence made by theaccusedin opencourt, whichwas recordedbythepolice prosecutorsinExhibits 81to815.PW3wentontostate thus:

 

"We   always   see  him   writing   and   he readsoutwhathehaswritten andwe assumed   that   what   he  read   out   was whatwasbeforehim."'

 

PW3r·eadoutfrom Exhibits B1-B15thefines that   were recorded   by thepolice prosecutor in each of the casesinvolvingthe 20counts facedbytheaccused.Heexplainedthat prior totheaccusedperson comingto Bothe procedure regarding payment of fines was notconsistent inthat fineswereeither paid directly to the court clerk   or   the   police accompaniedaccusedpersons tothe NRAfor payment.  So when the   accused came PW3 said he complainedand a new system was put into placeabout the paymentoffines.He  statedthat  a  meetingwas  held  and  during that  said  meeting  the  accused  told  them  that allfinesshould  nowbepaidtothecourt  clerk foronward  submissiontotheNRA.

 

Undercross-examination,PW3maintainedhis assertionthat what isrecordedinExhibits B1 toB15iswhat  waspronounced bythe accusedinopencourt.

 

Thedefencehaschallenged PW3'stestimony especially   in relation to Exhibit B15.Itwas suggested  toMrKonneh  that  hewasrunning a  syndicate  with  Mr  Haku  and  that  he  had writtenafineofLe150,000.00onExhibit B15 as  being  paid  by  AnthonyTucker  when  the matternever  camebefore  thecourt.  Thiswas denied byPW3.

 

PW4 -Joseph Kobbie lives at 43 Tikonko Road,Boand works at aninternetcafe.  His uncle  AugustineColewascharged  and  found guiltyof  frequenting  a  place  called  'center' andhewasfinedLe250,000.00  He (Joseph Kobbie)  said  that  after  the  court  had  closed he   gave   the   clerk    Le200,000.00and he begged,  him  to  accept thatamountbut the clerk refused and so he went outside and came   back with the fine of  Le250,000.00 which  hepaidonbehalf  ofhisuncle.   Hesaid the  fine  was  paid  to  the  clerk  who  counted themoney andthen  gavethemoney  tothe accused  who  also  counted  the  money  to  see that  itwas  complete.Hesaid they were not given anyreceiptafter paying themoney.

 

Thedefence  suggests  that  PWl attemptedto extortmore   monies   from   this   witness   than theactualfine imposed whichled   tothe witness   havingto  negotiatea  cut  from   the originalLe250,000.00'demanded byPW1; that   clearly  the witness  came  ready  to  pay thefineimposed  onhis   uncle   whichwas Le 1OO,OOO.OOandPWl musthave  demanded Le250,000.00whichledtothe  witness  having tonegotiatealower amountofLe200,000.00.

 

PW5-AugustineCole, lives atHard UpLane Bo and is a truckdriver. He was arrested around aplacecalled'Center' and    was detainedand later charged tocourt. Hesaid about20ofthem were charged.Hepleaded not guiltybut he was howeverfound guilty. Hestatedthathewaspresentincourt when the sentencewaspronounced. bytheaccused person. Itwasasentence ofLe250,000.00or 3  months  imprisonment.The said finewas paid byhis nephew and hewassubsequently released.

 

PW6 - SulaimanBarrie,lives at No. 20 Old GaruRoad,Boandis amasoner.  Hewas arrested for frequenting a place called 'Center'. He was remandedalong   with   ten others.   They  were  arraignedbefore  the accused   and   on  the   first   day   pleaded   not guiltybut  later  changed  theirplea  to  guilty forwhichthey  weresentenced thesumof Le250,000.00each. The said fine was paid andhewassubsequentlyreleased.

 

 

PW7-MohamedMagayTuray,lives atNo.16 Dodo Section   Bo, and   is employed by one Riad·Shour.  Hetestifiedthat  hegot  to  know theaccusedperson  whenhisbossRiadShour was  charged  to  court  for  failing  to  wear  a seatbelt. He said Riad   Shour   was   fined         Le5OO,OOO.OObut  hislawyerpleaded  with  the accused  to  reduce  the  fine  and  the  accused then  changedthe  fine  to  Le200,000.00which he(Mohamed MagayTuray)paidonRiad's behalf.

 

 

PW8-Morie Bockarie,lives at No.12 Second Street,.Boand isageneratormechanic. He wasarrestedforbeing found inaplace where they sellcannabis sativa.  Hewaschargedto courttogether with  some  othersandthe accused  fined  him  the  sum  of  Le250,000.00 which  waspaid  byhisboss.

 

 

PW9 -Alimu Barrie,lives at No.24 Johnson Street,Boand is a mechanicof Honda motorcycles.   Hecame to know   the accused when   his   apprentices Morie Bockarie   and Sulaiman Mohamed were charged   to court and both fined the sum of Le250,000.00 each. He (Aiimu Barrie) paidthe said fines forhistwoapprentices.

 

 

PW10  -Aruna  Amara,  lives  at  No.28  Kitibi Street,   Bo  and  is  employedby  Zain  SL  as market Developer. Hestatedthathewas arrested forridingamotor-cyclewithouta helmet. Hewasarraignedbeforetheaccused who found him guilty andfinedhim the sum of Le200,000.00or 3 months  imprisonment. He wasdirected tothe court clerk to whom hepaidthesaidfineand.hewasissuedwitha receiptwhichhe laterdepositedat thepolice stationwhenhewenttocollecthisbike.

 

 

PW11-Bernard BallaKamara,livesatNo.91GaruRoadandisabusinessman.   Hisbrother Sulaiman Barriewaschargedandfoundguilty along with eight others offrequentingaplace called'center.'ThesumofLe250,000.00  was pronouncedasfine  by  the  accused  and  this sum   was  paid  to  the  court   clerk   Haku  _by PW11.  ·

 

 

PW12-JohnAlhajiBull,livesatNo.4Samfu Lanein Bo and is a performingartist.He statedthat         hisfriendMohammedSinneh Kargbo  had  been  arrested  and  taken  to  the JPscourt  but  that  MrHaku  had  gone  to  the JPscourt  to  preventthem  from  hearing  the case  on  the  basis·that   the  case  should   be heardbytheMagistrate.Hesaidtheaccused pronounced a fine of Le250,000.00 or 3 months imprisonment.Thefinewaspaidto Aruna Haku with no   receipt   issued.  Under cross  examination the  witness  claimedthat  in his  statementhe  had  told  the  ACCthatthe only   paper   which   was  given   to   him   was  a productionorder.

 

 

PW13 -Shekuba  Daboh,  lives  at  No.6  Bojon Street,and  is  employedas  adriver.He wasarrestedandcharged fortrafficoffences. The   accusedperson   foundhim   guiltyand fined   him   the sum of Le.200,000.00 which the   vehicleowner   Alpha   Kallen  paid  to  the court clerk  whoissued  areceipt  tohim.

 

PW14 - Alhaji Rashid Saccoh, lives at No.2 Kumasu Street,Boandis adriver. He was arrestedandchargedfortrafficoffences. The accused   person  found him guilty and fined him the sum of  Le200,000.00which  he paid to  thecourtclerk  whoissuedareceipttohim which  he  used  to  collect  his  vehicle   at  the police  stationwhere  itwasbeing  held.

 

In his  closing address  the prosecuting counsel submitted, inter   alia,  that  it was found  that  the  police  prosecution files  had recorded in    them   the  same  amount as recalledbythe  accused personsand/orthose who  paidthefines  as  what  was  pronounced incourtby  the  Magistrate.  Hestatedfurther that there are therefore, the police prosecu'tionfilesandtheevidence of the prosecutionwitnesses  on  the  one  hand  and the  accused  and  his  court  file  on  the  other. He  stated   that  this  is  further  buttressedby the  evidence  of  PWl  the  court  clerk.Counsel further submitted thatthedefence  has sought  toput   the   entire blame  for these anomalies  on  the  court   clerk   but  that   this however  doesnotexplain  what  thosewhothe fines  affected  heard  and  paid  and  what  was recordedbythepolice  prosecutors. Hewent ontostate  that  forthistohavebeenthefault and/ordoings  ofthe  court  clerk,  theaccused persons  and  their  families  would  havehadto· be  deaf  in  court  and  so  not  hear  what  the Magistratestated  wasthe  fine  orthey  would have  had  to  have  excess  money  to  give  to thegovernment ratherthanthelower amountrecorded  inthe  court  records  by  the Magistrateortheyandthecourt  clerkandthe police   prosecutors  would   have  had  a  quickmeetingandagreed  themoney  tobepaid,all before   the   next   case   is   called.Counselfurthersubmittedthat  the  idea  thatthis  wasthe work  of  acorrupt courtclerkispreposterous andinmanywaysthefantasizedversion  ofanaccused  person  whoknows  that  the  game  isupandisseeking  toextricatehimselffrom  a  situationhe  knows speaks  volumesfor  itself.Moreover,counsel submitted that   ifthe   accused   weretobe believedthenhewasanextraordinarylenient Magistratewhoimposedminimalfinesonthe accused   persons   butthat this   was not the case.

DEFENCEEVIDENCE

 

Inhisdefence,theaccused   denied    the allegations madeagainst    him.   He testified thathe was  invitedby theformer                                Chief Justice  Timbo,while hewasworking  in England,tocomeandserve hiscountry asa Magistrate. Thiswasin2004.  Hestated that prior to his return toSierra Leone he was practicing                            as a Barrister, with      his own chambers   from 2001to 2004.  Heworked in Freetown from 2004 up to April,2008 when hewasrequested bythecurrentChiefJustice Hon.  Justice Tejan Jalloh to transfer to Bo andhismandate wastomakethecourtatBo a "shining      beacon forthejudiciary". He stated  that   he  went  to  Bo  against  medical advice  just  out  ofrespect  fortheHonourable ChiefJustice. Hetoldthecourt  that  inMarch 2008, he had conducteda factfinding mission toBo duringwhichheheld discussions  withPW3InspectorKonnehabout insufficientstrength  ofthe  prosecution  team and  the.request from  MrKonneh  led·him  to seek additional prosecutorsfromthe InspectorGeneralofpoliceandtheLegaland Justice  department.Hethenarranged for his ownteam ofProsecutorswhohethentook to Bowith him.      Hesaidduetothefactthat  he does  not  speak  orunderstandMende,which wasthelocaldialect,herequested  thathebe assigned  aRegistrar  who_speaks  Mende  and that it wasMrs Sarkodie-Mensah who assignedPW1 ArunaHakutohim.

 

A.day  afterhisarrivalat  Bo,he  dealt  with  a matterinvolvingthe  ChiefdomSpeaker  Morah Magao  who  had  pleadedguilty   toanoffence of  Malicious   Damage.The  accused   testified that as  the Chief hadpleadedguilty the matterwasnowfor  sentencingsohedecided to  remandhim  in  prisonfor  two  days  whilst hereflectedonthe  appropriatesentence. He went  ontostate  that  themannerinwhich  the proceedings took placeresulted in an altercati0nbetweenhim  and  the  Paramount Chief  who  threatenedto  deal  with  him  and ensurethathe  left   Bo.He  said  he  made   a report(ExhibitF)  to  the  Chief  Justice  which was  not  respondedto.  Hesaid that ten days laterhereceived· a letter signedby  the ParamountChief and 20 otherChiefs calling forhisimmediate removal fromBo.He producedand tenderedthis letterasExhibit G.                                                            

 

Theaccused alsotestifiedthathewastreated withhostility      by   most   of   the   staffatBo, especiallythe senior   state counsel,Manfred Sesay,with whom hehadhadproblemssince his arrivalinthe countryin 2004and when hewasworkingatFreetown. Henarratedan incidentinvolvinga cocaine   matterthat   he triedinFreetownandwhich resultedinsome protracted misunderstanding between Manfred Sesay andhimself. He alsogave details of an   inquest he held inFreetown which hesaid wasahighlypoliticallycharged eventinthis country.Hefurthertestifiedthat inBoMr Sesay was holdingon to files to to preventprosecutions continuingwhich isa direct interferencein the work of  the court andconsequentlyaletterhadtobewrittento him  on  one  occasion  to  prevail  upon  him  to release  thecourt  file(ExhibitM).Theaccused also produced and   tendered a number of letters that are now part of the record to showthenatureof therelationshipbetween ManfredSesayandhimself.

 

 

He  also   gavedetailsaboutprisoners  who were  supposed  to  bein  custody  but  who  had beenreleasedcorruptly by meansof production orderssigned     by    theformer MagistrateDeen  Tarawallie.Healso testified about prisonersbeing removedfromcustody withouthisauthorityand consent.  Hefurther told thecourt about ameetingintheofficeof the ConsultantMaster and Registrar inwhich Deen   Tarawallie was   summoned. He    said indeed   MagistrateTarawallieconfirmed  that hehadleftblankproduction orderswith InspectorKonneh  (PW3)  inorder  to  facilitate the  removalof  prisonersin  situationswhere hewasnot  around  tosignaproductionorder.

 

 

Theaccused went onto-mentionthe corrupt activitiesundertakenbythestate counseland hetalkedaboutproblems withthestate counselwitheventhepolicecomplaining about   being fed up with him.The  accused recalledthe  case  of·Ansumana  Dadi  Koroma which  was  before  him  inBoand  hetold  the courtthat  ManfredSesaywasoverzealousin gettingthe  accused  released  that  hewent  to the prisonpersonally        togettheaccused removedin  a  bid  to  prove  to  the  parents  of thataccused   that   he  had  done   what   they asked  him  todo.Theaccused  addedthat  itis difficult  to   see   how   on   this   evidence    Mr Manfred  Sesay  could  not  have  been  involved inhisinvestigationandprosecutioninabidto get  him  outofBo.Hesaidhehadthe motive toensuretheaccusedleftBoas hecouldnot exercise the abuse ofauthorityand the excesseshehad  been used   to whilst the accused was the presiding Magistratein Bo. The  accused  stated   that  the  stance  he  took againstcorruption in  the  Bo  court   angered those  whoarebehind  thiscase.

 

Hehasalso  testifiedabout  the  collusion between the ACC    investigators andMr ManfredSesay  and  most  importantlyhetold the   court  Mr  Sesay  had  accusedhimwith respectto  a  particularfile  and  the  moment the   ACC   went   to   the   court   to   conduct  a search  they  wereasking  about  that  particular file.    Further  he   said   he   overheard  them calling  MrSesayandinforminghim  that  they were  yet  to  locate  the  files  in  question.He testifiedabouttheabuseofpower  bythe  ACC inclaimingthey  wereinvestigatinganoffence under   the  ACCAct  2008  (Exhibit0)only  for them to  claim threemonthslater  that   they were   investigating  offences   under   the   ACC Act2000.

 

The  accused   has ·also  told  the  court   of conversationshehadwith  PWl  whilsthePWl wasindetentioninwhich  herevealed  that  Mr Haku   had  informed  him   that   he  had  been The  accused   has ·also  told  the  court   of conversationshehadwith  PWl  whilsthePWl wasindetentioninwhich  herevealed  that  Mr Haku   had  informed  him   that   he  had  been threatened  by  ACCinvestigatorsto  get  him (Haku)·to  testify  against  him  (the  accused). He  said  the  investigatorshad  told  Mr  Haku that  he  will  be  in  custody  until  he"talked'' andthatPW1waskeptincustodyforover11days.

 

Whenquestioned about hisfinancialsituation the accusedenumerated hisvarious sources of income andhis possessions.Hethen  told the  court  that  heisnot  aman  ofstrawand that   he  does  have  enough  to  sustainhim without   resort   to  corrupt   practices  for  the littlesumsofmoneyclaif1!edbytheACC.

 

Withrespecttothecountscharged,the accuseddenied all the allegations asset out inallthetwenty (20) countsandinsistedthat whatheendorsedinthecourtfilesiswhathe stated inopencourt.Heaccusedthe clerk, PW1ArunaHaku,ofbeingresponsibleforthe collection of allcourt fines and feesand he refuted PW1’s testimony.  He  gave  detailed explanationsregardingthecounts    against him  which  are  confirmed  by  the  records  of the  court.  Hehas denied doing anything to wilfully      deprivethegovernmentofSierra Leone of funds.Hehasgiven  details  of  the fines  he  claimed  to  have  imposed  count  by count andhehas toldthecourt   that   all monieswerereceivedbyPW1ArunaHaku.

 

Under cross examination the accused conceded that hewas nota practicing barristerin theUnited Kingdomanddid not have theRight of Audience in the Magistratescourt,the High Court and the SupremeCourt ofthat country. Heaccepted that he had not undergoneproperpupilage but had undertakenwhat   he termedminor pupilage. Hehasnot practicedinthe United Kingdom, savetoundertake Immigration matters. Heagreedthat ExhibitP,the CV underhis name,contained asubstantial amountof informationabout him which was accurateandtrue/but denied portionsthat listedhisextensiveexperience asa practicing barrister.His explanation            was that someone·close to him,who hadcorrect informationabout   him/  had made   up that CV. 

 

The  accused  alsoallegedagrand conspiracy againsthim/ initiatedby  Manfred  Sesay  and involving theACC    Commissioner, Abdul Tejan-Cole, GlennaThompson, Inspector Konneh,Aruna Haku,  the Paramount Chief and other chiefsatBo,includingthe  various persons  whotestifiedinthematterashaving appearedbefore  him  inhiscourt.

 

Inthe Defence Closing Address,  counsel  has submitted  that   theprosecutionevidenceis whollynot  credibleandclearlyshows  that  the police  filesarearguably afabricationofthe amountspurportedtohave  been  fined  bythe court.

 

The  defence   has  furthersubmitted that proceedingsin  a  courtof  record  are  proved by  the  officialrecords  ofthecourtandnot  by any  othermeans;  thattheamounts registered onthecourtfileare theonly amountsofmoney  the  Governmentislegally entitledto;that  afine  isnot  imposeduntilit forms  part  oftherecord  ofthecourt,thereby makingitenforceable;that  apronouncement isnotthe  fine;  that  intheeventofanappeal, the   court   records   are  relied  upon   to  show what   transpired  in  those proceedings;that the  police  file  isnot  consultedorrelied  upon by   the   court;that   a police   file   is  not   the record  of  the   court   and  itis  not   a  public document.Defence  counsel  went  on  to  state that,for  example,in  the  eventofanappeal, the  appellantwhose  convictionisquashed.on appeal  cannot  claim  to  have  returnedto  him a fine of five millionLeones, which he contends was pronouncedby           the Magistrate/Judge  to  the   hearing  of  others, where   the  court   file  clearly   reveals   that   he wasfinedonlyfifty thousand·  Leones. He furthersubmitted thatthecourtfile is  a public   document  and  is  relied   upon  as  the only   authentic  records   of  proceedings;that the  accuracy  orotherwiseofsuch  police  files cannotbe  ascertained;  thatitis  for   that reason  whenever  reliance  is  placed  on  the court  records,anapplicationismade  andthe Registrar  ofthe  court  certifiesthe  records  as theauthenticrecords  ofthecourt.

 

Thecourt exercised its discretionandgranted the prosecution leave to call evidencein rebuttalpursuant tosection196 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1965. This   section providesasfollows:

"At  the  close  of  the  evidence  for the  defence,  or  where  itissought to   rebut   evidence   of   good character,afterevidenceof good character  hasbeengiven,thecourtmay,   in  its   discretion,   grantthe prosecutionleavetocall rebutting evidence  where  something  has arisen  ex  improviso,in  the  course ofthedefence"

 

 

Theevidence inrebuttalwasoccasionedand made necessary   by   the   testimony of   the accused himself.   Itbecame  necessary because theaccusedinhisdefencegave evidenceinchiefwhich ·soughttoputforward hisgoodcharacter  by  casting  aspersions  not only  on  prosecution   witnesses  but  also  on other  personssuchasManfredSesay,Senior State  Counsel  and  Acting ,Principal  State Counsel. The latter’s evidence was   based purely onthe professional relationship betweentheaccusedandhimself.

 

Atthisstage,I willproceedtoexamine some of the issues raised in the Defence Closing Address.  To   begin with,   the defence takes issue with whether the fines,which are the subject ofthisindictment,werepublic funds. Itis  defence  counsel's  submission  that   the prosecution   have  failed   to   prove   that   the moniesallegedlymisappropriated arepublic funds  within  the  meaning  of  the  Anti Corruption  Act2000;thattheevidenceledby the  prosecutionclearly  shows  that  themonies in         question werepaid     bytheconvicted persons   or  their  familiesfrom  their  personal funds   and  not   from any funds  appropriated by  Parliamentfrom  the  ConsolidatedFund  or any  fund  under  subsection(2)ofsection  111 of  the  Constitution and  that  these  monies  are not  public  funds.

 

 

Section 1of the Anti CorruptionAct 2000asamended(the interpretationS€ction) defines 'public funds"as"any moniespaid from the.funds appropriatedbyParliament from the Consolidated Fund or any fund under subsection(2)     of    section   111   of    the Constitution."

Subsection(1)ofsection111 statesas follows:

 

Thereshallbe  a Consolidated Fundinto which,         subject to             theprovisions ofthis section,shallbepaid:

 

a)all revenuesor  othermoneysraised  or receivedforthepurposeof,oronbeha1f of,theGovernment;

b)anyothermoneysraised  orreceivedin trustfororonbehalfoftheGovernment and

c)all revenuesand  moneyspayable  by  or under anybilateral ormultilateral agreement.

 

Subsection(2) states that: Therevenues orothermoneysreferredtoin subsection(1) shall not includerevenuesor   other moneys-

 

(a)that are  payableby  or  under  anAct ofParliament into  someother  fund establishedforaspecific  purpose;

 

    or   (b)   that   may   by   or   under   an  Act  of Parliament, be    retained  by    the department of  Governmentthat received  them   for   the   purposeof defraying the  expenses  of   that department take   judicial  notice   of   the   fact   that   the Judiciarydepartment  of  Government  is  not self  accountingand  thereforemoneys   could not   be   retained  by   itfor   the   purpose   of  defrayingitsexpenses. I have also looked   at the NationalRevenue AuthorityActNo.11of2002 whichis

 

        "anActtoestablish theNational Revenue  Authorityasa   centralbodyfor theassessment andcollection of nationalrevenue, toprovide forthe administration andenforcement of specifiedlaws to   make   consequential amendmentsto  certainlaws  relatingto revenueand  toprovidefor  other  relatedmatters”.

 

The interpretationsection   (section2) of the Actdefinesrevenueasmeaning:-

"Taxes,duties,fees,levies, finesor other monies chargedorcollectedunderthe lawsspecifiedintheschedule”.

 

FurtherIhave looked   at section27 of the saidActwhichstates asfollows:

 

".........all  revenuecollectedbyor  duepayableto  the  Authorityunder  this  Act shall be paidintotheConsolidated Fund”

 

I amthereforenot disposed toaccept counsel's submissions thatthemoniesin question werenotpublic funds.A court imposedfineisacriminalsanctionpaidtothe· courtaspenaltyfor a criminaloffence. Unfortunately,the  defence  has  failed  to  take into accountthe  fact  that  all  fines  collected by  the  courtbecome  revenuedue  payable  to theNational Revenue   Authority  (NRA)  and shallbepaidinto  theConsolidatedFund.PW1 Aruna  Haku  testifiedthat  hepaid  the  fines  tothe  NRA  and  he  also  stated   thathe  issued temporaryreceiptswhen  the  NRAofficerwas not  around.I am  thereforesatisfiedthatthe finesweremoniespayable intothe Consolidated  Fund   and not   to some   other fundsorgovernment departmentandare therefore properly  definedas public   fundswithinthe  meaningoftheAnti-CorruptionAct

 

Further,the  defencehas  submittedthat   the courtlacks  jurisdictionto  trythese  offences and  thatthere   are  a  numberof  procedural irregularitiesthat  rendersthe  courtdevoid  of jurisdictionviz:-

 

    a.The indictmentinthis case wassigned bythe Commissionerofthe Anti­ CorruptionCommission.

 

    b.The authorityto prosecutewas givenby the Commissionerof the Anti-Corruption Commission andnottheAttorney General.

 

       c.The provisions of section 140 of the Anti-Corruption Act    2008 repealsthe Anti-CorruptionAct2000initsentirety.

 

    d.The provisions of section 141 ofthe Anti-Corruption Act    2008 juxtaposed withsection 140 of thesame Act preventthiscourtfromtryingthis case.

 

The defence has claimedquite extensively thattheCommissionerof  the  Anti-Corruption Commissionhas  no  power  in  law  to  sign  the indictment  either  underthe   Anti-Corruption Act2000 orits    replacementthe Anti­ Corruption Act 2008. The defencehas however failed to considerthe provision of and the effect of the Constitution of Sierra Leone (Amendment) Act, No 9 of 2008 being an Act to amend the Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991 so as to grant to the ANTI-Corruption Commission the power to prosecute offences involving corruption

 

 

   

Section 1of that   aforementionedAct states asfollows:

 

The ConstitutionofSierra Leone 1991is amendedby the repeal   and replacementof subsection(3)   of section   64 thereofby the followingsubsection:- 

    

       "(3}Alloffences  prosecutedinthe  name of  the  Republicof  SierraLeone  except offencesinvolving  corruption  under   the Anti-CorruptionAct2000,shall  beatthe suit  oftheAttorneyGeneral  andMinister ofJusticeor someotherperson authorised  by  him   in  accordance            withanylawgoverningthesame"

 

Section2states that:

 

 The Constitutionof Sierra Leone,1991 is amended bytherepealandreplacement of paragraph (a)ofsubsection4ofsection  66 thereofbythefollowingparagraph:-

 

    "(a)to  instituteand  undertakecriminal proceedingsagainstany   person   before anycourtinrespect of anyoffence againstthe  laws  of  SierraLeone  except any   offence   involving  corruptionunder theAnti-CorruptionAct2000."'

 

The  Constitutionof  Sierra  Leone  Amendment ActNo.9  of2008  wassigned  onthe  24th  July 2008  and  commencedon  the  31stJuly  2008. Atthe            time    ofcommencement theAnti­ CorruptionAct 2000 was still inforce.  Asthe Constitutionisthesupremelawofthe land,Iam   satisfied that   the   Commissionerof   the Anti-Corruption Commissionwas authorized tosign indictmentsasofthe31stJuly2008.

 

Asregards  section  141oftheAntiCorruption Act2008 Ihavedealtwith  thisissueabove  - that   is  to  say  that  the  Constitutional Amendment  gave  the   Commissioner  of  the ACCthe power toprosecute andthereforeto sign  indictments.The requirement for the Attorney General's   consentand forhim   to institute proceedings underthe2000Actis thereforeobsolete

 

 

Iam  therefore  satisfiedthat  the  matter  is properly'before  the  court  and  that  the  court does  not  lackjurisdiction.Theseproceedings arethereforenotanullity

 

The  defence  hasalso  contended  that  at  the time   of  his  first   interview  the  accused  was toldthat    he   was   under   investigationfor offences   of   Abuse  of  Office   and  Abuse of position,contraryto  sections  42  and  44  of the   Anti-Corruption  Act  2008.  The  accused testified  that  he  was  served   with  a  notice which  wastendered  asExhibit 0whichshows that  onthe26th September  2008,theAnti Corruption-Commission wereclearly   not investigatingoffencesunder  the  2000Actbut ratheroffences  under  sections  42  and  44  of the   2008  Act.At  a  later  interviewhe  was then  told  that  he  was  being  interviewedfor offences    under    the    2000    Act.        In   his testimony   before    the   court1  PW2   Patrick Sandy   stated   that   he   had   started investigationsinto  the  BoMagistrates   Court in  August   2008,   (shortlyafter   the  Act  was passed  in  Parliament)and  most  importantly at  atime  when  the  2008  Actwasnot  yet  in force.Itstandsto reasonthat investigations can startoffwithoneoffenceandexpandto includeothersnotoriginally envisaged.The offencestookplaceduring thecurrencyofthe 2000Actandtheaccusedtherefore hadtobe charged under that Act. Section141(4) is quite clear on thisand any   investigation which  started  before  the  repealofthe  2000 Act  should  continue  as  if  that  Act  had  not beenrepealed. Ishallnowproceedtoconsiderthechargesin this case.Thelawrelating to the offence of misappropriationofpublic fundsisassetout under section 12 (2)  of·theAnti-Corruption Act 2000(as amended). The offence is defined as follows:

 

  “A person misappropriates public revenue,      publicfundsorpropertyifhe wilfullycommits an act,whether by himself,withorthroughanotherperson, bywhich the Government,a public corporation or a focal authority is deprivedofanyrevenue,fundsorother financial  interest  or  property  belonging  or due to Government, the public corporationorlocalauthority.''

 

 

Fortheaccusedtobeconvictedofanoffence under  section  12  of  the  AntiCorruption  Act 2000   as   amended,   the   prosecution    must provethat  thefundswerepublicfunds,public revenueorproperty';thattheactwas done wilfully;  that   it  was   done   by   himself   or through   another  and  that  by  his  actionshe hasdeprivedtheGovernment ofsuchfunds, revenueorFinancial  interest.

 

 

The  actus  reus  and  mens  rea  of  the  offence must   be   proven  by  the prosecution. With regard to the actus reus,   the   prosecution mustprove that theaccused:

 

 

  i.  misappropriated

 

  ii.publicfunds

 

 

Withregard  to  the  mens  rea  of  the  offence, theprosecutionmust  provethat  theaccused:

  i.   wilfully;

 

 

  ii.deprivedtheGovernmentofthesums  of moneydescribedintheindictment.

 

Asmentionedearlieroninthisjudgment,the evidenceadduced beforethe court istwofoldinthatwe  have  the  police  prosecution  files andtheevidenceoftheprosecution witnesseson  the  one  hand  and  the  accused andhiscourt  filesontheother.

 

Were the   funds public   funds?There is no doubtthatthey were.Inthefirst..place  fines leviedbya court   are   those   that   the   court says  oughtto  be  paid  by  anaccused  person as  his  punishmentfor  going  againstthe  set normsand  values of society. Such fines are collectedby the NationalRevenue Authority and paidinto theConsolidatedFund.

 

The  definition   of  misappropriation  is  to  be read'  in  accordance  with   the  case  of  R  v Gomez[1993]   1ALLER1.In accordance with   Gomez,  the   word   is  to   be  given  its ordinary  Englishmeaning  for  'appropriate'- that    is  to   take   to   one's   self.   It   is   not necessary to prove the absenceof consent. Theassumptionoftherightsoftheownercan amounttoappropriation.

 

Ihavecarefully  considered  allthe  evidence adducedbeforethecourt  bytheprosecution andthedefenceandI havealsoobservedthe demeanour  of  all  the  witnesses. I find  the evidenceofPW1Aruna·HakuandthatofPW3 InspectorKonneh, the police prosecutor credible  and  truthful  and I  believe  them.  I alsofind that PW4-PW14cameacrossas truthful witnesses.  These   are the   accused persons and/or their relativeswhopaid the fines.Theyhavenothing  togainfromcoming to  court  to  tell  lies  and  try  to  implicate  a Magistrateinacorruptionallegation.I believe theirtestimoniesandI  findasafactthat  they havesimply  told  thetruth  that  thefinethey paidto  thecourt  waswhat  they  understood they  had  to  pay  from  what  the  Magistrate pronounced   was  the   fine.  They couldnot disputethepronouncement becausetheyhad noaccesstothecourtfiles.

 

 

Wasthe act complained of willful? Inthe 2002EditionofBlackstone'sCriminalPractice atparagraph A2.8; theLearnedEditorsrefer to'willful'as "acompositewordtocoverboth intentionand a  type  of  recklessness".They cite  the  explanationgiven  by  Lord  Diplock  in the   leading·  case  of  R  v.  Sheppard (James Martin) [1981] A.C.394HL  in   whichthe majority  held   that   a  man  "wilfully"fails  to provideadequatemedicalattentionforachild if  heeither(a)  deliberatelydoesso,knowing thatthere  issome  risk  thatthe  child's  health may  sufferunless  hereceivessuchattention; or(b)   does  so because   he  does  not   care whetherthe  child  may  bein  need  of  medical treatmentornot.Lord Keith stated that the primary meaning ofthewordwillfulis deliberate. The majorityequated"wilfully" with commonlaw recklessness.   Asstatedin Archboldinthe absence ofaspecific decision on   a   specific    statutory·provision   to    the contrary,any provision containingthe word 'wilfully'inthe  definition ofacrime  should  be construedinaccordancewith  the  approachin RvSheppard.

 

Itisnot indisputethatthe fines were paid to PWl  Aruna  Haku.Themain contentionof the accused   is thatPWl   never handed   the said fines to him.  Ithas  been  suggestedby  the defence  that  PWl  had  anulteriormotiveand was  infactresponsible for  the  wilfulacts complainedof  by  the  State.   However,the prosecution'sstance   is  that   at  no  time   was PWl consideredor  treatedasan  accomplice ratherthan  the  conduitpipe  for  the  criminal acts  oftheaccused.

Inlaw ithas been held that cautionmust be attachedtoevidence.ofawitness whohasan ulteriormotive.In R.  v.   Beck, 74 Cr.  App. R.221,Ackner  L.J,  givingthejudgmentofthe Court   of  Appeal/  referredto  "the  obligation upon  ajudge  toadvise  ajury  toproceed  with caution  where   there   is  materialto  suggest that  awitness'sevidence  may  be  taintedby an  impropermotive....  the strengthof  that advice   varyingaccordingto  the  facts  of  the case".

 

That   would  have  been  the  case  and  indeed there  would  have  been  more   credence   to  it had  PW1's  testimony  been  the  only  evidence relied  upon  bytheprosecution.  Theassertion of  the  defence  ceases  to  have  any  credence  when  seeninthe  lightoftheevidenceof  thepolice   prosecutor  PW3  and the   evidence  ofthose  people  who  paid  the  fines,  which  lastmentioned  evidence   illustrates  a patternofsimilarconductin  which   the   offences   wereexecuted. The  propensity  oftheevidence takentogethershows  that  there  isnoreasonto  treatthe  evidence  ofPWl  with  caution  and thatthe  State's  assertionthat   he  had  at  no timebeen thought  of  as  an accomplice is correct.

 

Moreoverthe  defence  assertiondoes  not explainwhy  there  is  adisparitybetweenthe recordscontainedinthe  files  recordedbythe accused  andthose  recorded bythepolice prosecutor.Ihave  alsoconsideredthetotality of  the  evidence   put  forward  by  the  defence and Ifindasafactthat  theaccusedliedagain and  again  inhisdefence.Idonot believe his evidence.To my mind, the   lies told    by theaccused were   deliberate and   calculatedto give thecourtthe impressionthat hisconduct wasnot criminaland was withoutblemishat alltimes.

 

 

Inmy  consideredview,the  prosecution  has ledsufficientevidencetoshow  the  wilfuI  acts committed bytheaccused  that  deprived the governmentof  the  sums  of  moniesstated in the  counts.I findthe actsofmisappropriation ofpublic funds complainedoftobewilfuland systematicactsdeliberatelyplanned and executed bytheaccusedtodeprivethe GovernmentofSierra Leoneofpublic funds.Isohold.

 

Was the   act   done   by   himself or   through others?  I am   satisfied  from   the   evidence adduced  that  the  prosecutionhas  proved beyond  reasonable doubtthat   the  acts complainedof  were  done  bythe  accused  and through   PW1   Aruna    Haku    who    was   the "conduitpipe"forthe  criminal actsofthe accused.

Considering the  evidence/  both  oral  and documentary,Ifind  that   the  evidenceis  so strongagainst  the  accused  asto  leave  only  a remotepossibilityin  his  favourwhich,in  the words  of  DenningJ.,  "can  be  dismissedwith the  sentence:of  course  itis  possible  but  not in  the  least  probable."The  law  would   fail  to protectthe  communityifitpermittedfanciful possibilitiestodeflectthe  course  ofjustice I make  bold  tosay  that   this  is  ratherasad case  of  apromisingmemberof  the  Judiciary found    doing    criminal  acts   ostensiblywith Considering the  evidence/  both  oral  and documentary,Ifind  that   the  evidenceis  so strongagainst  the  accused  asto  leave  only  a remotepossibilityin  his  favourwhich,in  the words  of  DenningJ.,  "can  be  dismissedwith the  sentence:of  course  itis  possible  but  not in  the  least  probable."The  law  would   fail  to protectthe  communityifitpermittedfanciful possibilitiestodeflectthe  course  ofjustice I make  bold  tosay  that   this  is  ratherasad case  of  apromisingmemberof  the  Judiciary found    doing    criminal  acts   ostensiblywith Impunity.What wasexpectedof theaccused wastouphold theage-long traditionsofthe Bench   in   order   that    the   Judiciary·is   net disparagedor brought·to public contempt.As a  Magistrate,the   accused   was  expectedto upholdthe  aura  and  dignityof  the  court  and not  leave  his  watchingand  listeningaudience Indoubtas  to   his  actions   and   utterances. Aboveall theaccusedshouldhaveearnedthe respectofallwhoappearedbeforehimandall who workedunder him and he should   have led byexample. Inmy   judgment and on all the   authorities earliercited Ihold that the prosecutionhas establishedtheguiltoftheaccusedbeyondall reasonabledoubt in respectof all 20CountsaschargedintheIndictment.Inthe  result,Ithus  find  the  accused  guiltyascharged  andIherebyconvicthim  on each Count  fromCount 1-Count 20.

 

Hon. Justice M.M.Y Sey

10th June 2010