BEFORE T HE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MIAT TA MAR IA SAMBA, J.A DATED THE 4·rH DAY OF MARCH 2020

 

Counsel:

S. Harlston Esq for the State

S. Nicol Esq for the 1ST  Accused

H.M Jengo Esq for the 2nd  Accused

H.M Gevao Esq for the 3rd Accused

 

Judgment

 

1. The matter before this Court commenced by way of an amended Indictment against all three Accused person s, dated the 26th day of March 2019 for the various offences herein stated:

 

COUNT 1

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Conspiracy to commit  a corruption offence contrary to Section 128(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008

PARTICULARS or Of-FENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western /\rea of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being The Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the

1st day of January 2015 and the 3pt day or July 2018, at Freetown aforesaid, conspired  with other persons  unknown  to commit a corruption offence to wit: by

using his office to improperly make requests for Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passports on behalf of certain persons who are not  entitled  to  be  holders  of same.

 

COUNT 2

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 1 2 of 2008.

PARTICULARS or Of-FENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, /\lien Town, in the Western Arca of the Republic of Sierra  Leone,  being  the  Senior  Human  Resource  Officer at  the Office

of the Administrator anu Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1st    day of January   2015  and   the  31st   day  of   December   2016,  at Freetown

 

1

 

 

 

 

aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make ,a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Samuel Dawo, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 3

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of

2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1st  day of January 2015 and the 3pt day of December  2016,  at  Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly  make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Assiatu Suma, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 4

STATEMENT OF CLA IM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 4-2(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of

2008.

 

PARTICULARS Of OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1st  day of January 2015 and the 31st  day of December  2016,  at  Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Les lie Sylvanus Robert, who is not entitled to be a holder of  same.

 

COUNT 5

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of

2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Dr ive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1st  day of January 2015 and the 31st day of December 2016,  at  Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leo ne Service Passport, on behalf of Abu Melleh Kargbo, who is not entitled to be a holder of  same.

 

COUNT 6

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior  Human  Resource  Officer at  the  Office of the Administrator and Registrar -General (OARG) on diverse dates between  the 1st  day of January 2015  and  the  29th  day  of  February  2016,  at  Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using  his  office  to  improperly  make  a request for a Re public of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Abdulai Bangalie Feika, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 7

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the  Senior  Human  Resource  Officer  at  the  Office of the Administrator  and  Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between  the 1st  day of January 2015 and the 3 pc day of May 2016, at Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for  a Republic of Sierra Leone Service  Passport,  on  behalf  of  Abu  Alimatu  Bangura, who is not entitle d to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 8

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of' the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1st  day of January 2016 and the 28th  day of February  2017,  at  Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Bernadette Conteh-Barrat, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 9

STATEMENT OF CLAI M

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED ALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior  Human  Resource  Officer  at  the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the

 

 

3

 

 

 

 

.,

 

 

 

1st day of January 2016 and the 28th day of February 2017, at Freetown  aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Sabieu Mansaray, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 1 0

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON at No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1st day of January 2016 and the 28th  day of February 2017,  at  Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Samba Barrie, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 11

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008 .

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED I<:ALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra  Leone,  being the  Senior  Human  Resource Officer at  the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1st day of January 2016  and  the  28th  day  of  February  2017,  at  Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using  his  office  to  improperly  make  a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport,  on  behalf  of  Lansana Suma, who is not entitle d to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 12

STATEMENTOF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human  Resource Officer  at  the  Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1st day of January 2016 and the 31 s t day of March 2017 2017, at Freetown aforesaid, abuse d his office to wit : by using his office  to  improperly  make  a request for a Republic of Sierra Le on e Service Passport, on behalf of Samuel Olu Johnson, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 13

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

 

 

4

 

 

 

 

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of

2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Office r at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the l51 day of January 2016 and the 3l51 day of March 2017, at Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Alieu Jalloh, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 14

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 4-2(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of

2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1s t day of January 2016 and the 31st day of March 2017, at Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wil: by using his office  to improperly  make a  request  for a Re public of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Princess Davies, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 15

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of

2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1st day of January 2016 and the 31st day of March 2017, at Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Deborah Christiana Nyuma, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 16

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of

2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED !<ALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the

 

 

5

 

 

 

 

1st day of January 2016 and the 3 l 5l day of March 2017, al Free town aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Alhassan Kamara, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 17

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of

2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1st  day of January 2016 and the 3tst day of March 2017, at Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Sheknatu Ramatulai Mansaray, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 18

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary Lo Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of

2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of' the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Hum an Resource Officer at The Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1st  day of Janua1y 2016 and the 30th day of April 2017, al Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Abdulai Pateh Barrie, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 19

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of

2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being  the  Senior  Human  Resource  Officer  at  the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between  the 1st day of January 2016 and the 30th day  of  April  2017,  at  Freetown  aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a  Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport on behalf of Havvao Jalloh, who is not  entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 20

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

 

 

6

 

f

 

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1st  day of January 2016 and the 30th day of April 2017, at Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Alhassan Daramy, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT21 STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008.

 

PARTICULAR S OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1s t day of January 2016 and the 30th day of March 2017, at Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on  behalf  of  lsatu Sillah, who is not entitle d to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 22

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1st day of January 2016 and the 30th day of April 2017, at Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Kelfala Kamara, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 23

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Arca of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the

 

 

 

 

 

7

 

..

 

 

1st day of January 2016 and the 31st day of May 2017, at Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Ibrahim Aziz Bangura, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 24

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of

2008.

 

PART ICULAR S OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Re public of Sierra Leone, being The Senior Human Re source Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on  diverse dates between  the 1st day of January 2016 and the 30th day of Jun e 2017, at Freetown  aforesaid,  abused his office Lo wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Pass port, on behalf of  Lamrana  Barrie,  who  is not entitle d to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 25

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. J 2 of

2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Are a of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human  Resource   Officer at  the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1st day of January 2016 and the 30th day of June 2017, at  Free tow n  aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Scrvic0 Passport, on behalf of Mar tin Conte h, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 26

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human  Resource  Officer at the  Office of the Administrator and  Registrar-General  (OARG)  on  diverse dates between  the 1st  day of January 2016 and the 30th day of June 2017, at  Freetown  aforesaid,  abused his office  lo  wit:  by  using  his  office  to  improperly  make  a  request  for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of  Mohamed Kamara, who is not entitled to be a ho1der of same.

 

COUNT 27

STATEMENT OF CLAI M

 

 

8

 

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED !<ALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1st  day of January 2016 and the 3l5t day of July 2017, at Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Mariama Jawaneh, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 28

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1st day of January 2016 and the 3l5t day of July 2017, at Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Mariama Conteh, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 29

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

J\buse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1s t day of January 20J 7 and the 31st day of July 2018, at Freetown  aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Khadijatu Koroma, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 30

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the

 

 

 

 

 

 

1st day of January 2017 and the 3pt day of July 2018, at Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Foday Sesay, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 31

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of

2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Re public of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dales between the 1st  day of January 2017 and the 3ist day of July 2018, at Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Isatu Dainkeh, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 32

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of

2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at The Office of the Administrator and Registrar -General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1st day of January 2017 the 31st Day of July 2018, at Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Christiana Biatta Coker, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 33

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of

2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED KALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the  Senior  Human  Resource  Office r at  the Office of the Administrator  and  Registrar-General  (OARG)  on  diverse dates  between  the 1 1 day of January  2017  and  the 31st  day  of  July  2018,  at  Freetown  aforesaid, abused  his office to wit:  by  using his office  to  improperly  make a  request for a  R public of Sierra Leo ne  Service  Passport, on  behalf  of Abdul  Bangura,  who  is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 34

STATEMEN T OF CLAIM

 

 

10

 

\ ' .

 

 

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of

2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALFRED !(ALLON of No. 5 Tough Drive, Allen Town, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Senior Human Resource Officer at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) on diverse dates between the 1st  day of January 2017 and the 3l5L day of July 2018, at Freetown aforesaid, abused his office to wit: by using his office to improperly make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport, on behalf of Musa Sesay, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 35

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Conspiracy to commit a corruption offence contrary to Section 128(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALIE JBRAHIM KANU of No. 1 Marikan Drive, Bawbaw, Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Executive Director of the Sierra Leone Institute of International La w, on diverse days between the 1st day of January 2018 and 30th day of September 2018 conspired with other persons unknown to commit a corruption offence to  wit: by making use of  his influence, to obtain Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passports through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (M FAIC) for certain persons who are not entitled to be holders of same.

 

COUNT 36

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Peddling Influence contrary to Section 31(3) of the Anti -Corruption Act No. 12 of

2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

ALIE lBRAHIM KANU of No. 1 Marikan Drive, Bawbaw, Free town in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Executive Director of the Sierra Leone Institute of International Law, on diverse days between the 1st day of January 2018 and 12th day of September 2018, at Freetown aforesaid peddled influence to wit: by accepting an advantage from Musu Abibatu Bangura the sum of Le. 10,000,0000/00 (Ten Million Leones), as consideration to make use of his influence to obtain a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and international Cooperation (MFAIC), for the said Musu Abibatu Bangura, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 37

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Peddling Influence contrary to Section 31(3) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of

2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

 

 

11

 

 

 

 

' .

 

 

ALIE IBRAHIM KANU of No. 1 Marikan Drive, Bawbaw, Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Executive Director of the Sierra Leone Institute of International Law, on diverse days between the 1s t day of January 2018 and 12th day of September 2018, at Freetown aforesaid peddled influence to wit: by accepting an advantage from Justina Williams, the sum of

$1,000/00 (One Thousand United States Dollars) as consideration to make use of his influence to obtain a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and international Cooperation (MFAIC), for the said Justina Williams, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 38

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Peddling Influence contrary to Section 31(3) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of

2008 .

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFE NCE

ALIE IBRAHIM KANU of No. 1 Marikan Drive, Bawbaw, Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Executive Director of the Sierra Leone Institute of International Law, on diverse days between the l51 day  of January 2018 and 12th day of September 2018, at Freetown aforesaid peddled influence to wit: by accepting an advantage from Ibrahim Sorie Koroma the  sum of $500 (Five Hundred United States Dollars) as consideration to make use of his influence to obtain a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and international Cooperation (MFAIC), for the said Ibrahim Sorie Koroma, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 39

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Conspiracy to commit a corruption offence contrary to Section 128 (1) of the

Anti-Corruption Act No. J 2 of 2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

AUE IBRAHIM KANU of No. 1 Marikan Drive, Bawbaw, Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Executive Director of the Sierra Leone Institute of International Law and Sulaiman Issa Turay of No. 6 Ascension Town Road, Freetown in the Western Area of The Republic of Sierra Leone, being The Head of the Consular Section, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MFA IC), on diverse dates between the 1st  day of January 2018 and 30th day of September 2018 conspired together with other persons unknown to commit a corruption offence to wit: by improperly making recommendations to Sierra Leone Immigration Services (SLIS) to obtain a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passports for certain persons who are not entitled to be holders of same.

 

COUNT 40

STATEMEN T OF OFFENCE

Ab use of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of The Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of

2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

 

 

 

 

 

 

SULA IMAN ISSA TURAY of No. 6 Ascension Town Road, Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Head of the Consular Section, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MFAIC), between the 1st  day of January 2018 and the 12th day of September 2018 at  Freetown  aforesaid abused his office to wit: by improperly making a recommendation to Sierra Leone Immigration Services (SLIS) for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passports for Musu Abibatu Bangura, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 41

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of The Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

SUL AIMAN ISSA TURAY of No. 6 Ascension Town Road, Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Head of the Consular Section, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MFAIC), between the 1st  day of January 2018 and the  12th  day  of  September  2018  at  Freetown aforesaid abused his office to wit: by improperly making a recommendation to Sierra Leone Immigration Services (SLIS) for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passports for Justina Williams, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 42

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti -Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008.

 

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

SUL AIMAN ISSA TURAY of No. 6 Ascension Town Road, Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the Head of the Consular Section, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MFAIC), between the l51 day of January 2018 and the 12th day of  September  2018  at  Freetown aforesaid abused his office to wit: by improperly making a recommendation to Sierra Leone Immigration Services (SLIS) for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passports for Ibrahim Sorie Koroma, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

COUNT 43

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No . 12  of 2008.

 

PART ICULAR S OF OFFENCE

SULAIMAN ISSA TURAY of No. 6 Ascension Town Road, Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, being the He ad of the Consular Section, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MFAIC), between the 1ST  day of January 2016 and the 3isr day of December 2017 at Freetown aforesaid abused his office to wit: by obtaining a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport from Sierra Leone Immigration Services for Ebunoluwa Finda Amanda M. Tengbeh, who is not entitled to be a holder of same.

 

 

13

 

 

 

 

1. This matter was first mentioned by this Honourable Court on the 11th day  of March 2019 with all three Accused persons present and represented by their respective Counsel. Charges as per  the  amended  Indictment  da ted the 26th day of March 2019 was put  to  all  three  Accused  persons separately on each of the Counts as they apply to each of them. The 1st Accused (hereinafter referred to as Al) pleaded 'not guilty' to Counts 1- 34 of the amended Indictment read out to him in open Court; the 2nd Accused (hereinafter referred to as AZ) pleaded  'not guilty  to  Counts 35- 39 of the amended Indictment read out to him in open Court and the 3rd Accused (hereinafter referred to as A3)  pleaded  'not guilty to  Counts  39  - 43 of the Indictment read out to him in open Court.

 

1. On applications made by their respective Counsel on the 11th day of March 2019 when this matter was fir s t  mentioned,  bail  was  granted all three Accused persons on the condition as  they  appear  in the Judge's note s on file. The Prosecutor was asked to serve all documents obtained during  the  investigations,  exculpatory  and  otherwise  on  Counsel  for  all three Accused persons. The Court is satisfied that the Court's direction was  complied with by the Prosecutor as con fir med  by each Counsel for all three Accused persons.

 

1. On the 20th  day of March 2019, the Prosecutor made an application pursuant to Section 148(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act  No.  32  of 1965 for an amendment of Counts 36 and 37 of the Indictment to wit: that   the   amount   $,1,000  in   Count   36   be   amended   to   read Le.10,000,000/00 and for the a mount Le. 1 0,00 0,0 00 / 00 in Count 37 to be amended to read $1,000. There being no objection by any of the Counsel for any of the  Accused,  the  said  application  for  amendment was granted.

 

1. Pursuant to an instrument dated the 13th day of March 2019 under the hands of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, an application that this Court tries this matter by Judge  alone  was  made  by the Prosecutor and there being no objection by any of the Counsel for the Accused persons to the said application, same was granted by this Court.

 

1. On the 27th day of March 2019, the Prosecutor again made a further application pursuant to Section 1 48 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 32 of 1965, for an amendment to the Indictment  hereinbefore referred so as to include an addition at Count to the said Indictment. The reason given by  the  Prosecutor  for  this  second  amendment  was that the Com m is s ion got the information it now wants to by on the indictment  after filing  the  Indictment  of  26th   March   2019.  An application for fur the r amendment was opposed by H.M Gevao Esq, no doubt because it will be a charge against  his  client, A3.  Gevao  argued that A3 already having taken his plea, ,in additional Count will amount to grave injustice as he, A3 would have had no opportunity to be

 

 

 

 

 

14-

 

questioned on the new allegation  now sought  to  be added. Referring to the case of Kamara V Kamara, for which no reference was given by Counsel, Gevao argued that Section 148(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act  of  1965   does   not   support   additional   Counts   on   amended Indictments .

 

1. In Counter argument, the Prosecutor referred to the case of Johal 1973 QB 475 where Ashford J said at page 481 that there is no rule of law which precludes amendment  of  an  Indictment  after  arraignment either by the addition of a new Count or otherwise. He referred to the case of Osaeh (1996) 1 WLR 1260 where it was held that the power to amend Section 5 of the Amendment Act 1915 was amongst  other things not limited by evidence served at committal.

 

1. The Prosecutor submitted that the question to be assessed before amendment is granted is whether or not the Accused will be unfairly prejudiced by the amendment. He submitted that he, A3 will not be prejudiced and that he, A3 has an opportunity to make his plea on the additional Count if accepted. On the strength  of  the  authorities referred to by the Prosecutor, including the  cases and Section  148(1) of the 1965 Act, local case law and submissions made by both Counsel, the application was granted.

 

1. Counts 36 and 37 were again read out in open Court to A2  who pleaded, 'not guilty' to the amended Counts. The additional Count 43 was read out to A3 in open Court to which he pleaded 'not guilty '. Th e Court began hearing testimonies of Prosecution Witnesses on the 27th day of March 2019.

 

The Law

 

1. Section 42(1) Anti-Corruption Act, 2008 reads:

A public officer who uses his office to improperly confer an advantage on

himself or any other person commits an offence.

 

To succeed on a Section 42(1) offence, the Prosecution must prove the

following:

 

1. that the Accuse d is a public officer -

In respect of Al, I refer lo Exhibit FFFl-118 especially Exhibit FFF4, answer to question 6 where Al confirmed that he, during the period covered by the Indictment was a civil servant occupying the position of Senior Human Resource Officer at the OARG. By his answer to question 8 on page 5, it is clear that he was employed by the Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL) on 27th November 2001 and was promoted and assigned to the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General (OARG) in February 2018. He confirmed in Exhibit FFF5 that he gets his salary from the consolidated revenue fund.

 

 

 

15

 

In respect of A3, I refer to Exhibit HHHl-31 especially Exhibit HHH2, 3 ,and 9 where A3 said that he was, during the period covered  by  the  Indictment, Head of the Consular Section at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Co- operation (MFAIC), having assumed that role in April 2016. lie confirms at Exhibit HHH22  that  he  was  during  the  period  under  consideration, a civil servant appointed to head the Consular section of the MFAfC on 8th day of April 2016, the period covered by the Indictment.

 

The OARG and the MFAIC qualify under the interpretation section of the 2008 Act as public bodies and their being members of those offices make both A1 and A3 Public Officers, as provided by the interpretation section of the 2008

Act. I am satisfied that both Al and A3 were, during the period covered by the Indictment, Public Officers.

 

1. that the Acc us ed used his office 'to improperly confer  an advantage on another' - Part of the allegation against Al is that as a public officer during the period covered by the Indictment, he improperly conferred an advantage on persons named  in Counts  2-34 of the Indictment. Part of the allegation against A3 is that as a public officer and during the period covered by the  Indictment,  he  improperly conferred an advantage on persons  named  in Counts  40- 43 of the Indictment. Proof of these allegations will best come out if at all, in evidence, so I shall look at and deal with the Counts one after the other and relate them to the facts and evidence as appropriate. The Prosecutor must prove that the Al and A3 dishonestly conferred an advantage or benefit on each of the persons named in Counts 2-34 and 40-43 respectively of the Indictment.

 

1. that the Accused ' improperly confer re d a n advantage on another'

- the word 'improperly' connotes an clement of dishonesty.

 

 

1. The elements of the offence of abuse of office was considered by  the Court of Appeal in the Attorney General's Reference (No. 3 of 2003) (2004) 3 WLR 45J where Pill LJ emphasized the need for 'a serious

departure from proper standards  before  the  criminal  offence  is committed' and that 'for such a departure to be  criminal  will  not  be  merely negligent'. He went on to say that a mistake, even if it is a serious one, will not itself suffice. For Lord Widgery, CJ, the neglect, if al all must be willful and not me rely inadvertence and it must be without reasonable excuse.

 

1. Lord Widgery, CJ, rejecting the argument in the Dytham  (J 979) QB  722 case staled that ' misconduct in a public office is more vividly exhibited where dishonesty is revealed '

 

In R V Barron (1820) 3 B (and) Aid 432, Abbott , CJ stated:

 

 

 

16

 

The questions has always been, not whether the act done might upon full and mature investigation, be found strictly right, but from what motive it had proceeded; whether from a dishonest, oppressive or corrupt motive under which description fear and favour may generally be included or from mistake or error. In the former case, alone, they have become the objects of punishment.

 

1. In the I long Kong Court of Final Appeal in Sin /(am Wah and anor V HKSAR (2005) 2 HKLRD 375, Sir Anthony Mason NPJ in giving the leading judgment set out a mental element solely in relation to misconduct whether by act or omission:

 

The present position, then, is that the misconduct must be deliberate rather than accidental in the sense that the official either knew that his conduct was unlawful or willfully disregarded the risk that his conduct was unlawful. Willful misconduct which is without reasonable excuse or justification is culpable.

 

1. It is clear from the above that there needs to be proof of a mental element, an element of dishonesty to succeed on a Section 42(1) Anti­ Corruption Act, 2008, charge.

 

Conspiracy

1. Section 128(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act, Act No. 12 of 2008 reads:

Any ... conspiracy to commit a corruption offence .... shall be punishable as if the offence had been completed and any rules of evidence which apply with respect to the proof of any such offence shall apply in like manner to the proof of conspiracy to commit such offence.

 

1. As per E.E. Roberts, J.A, as he then was, now JSC, in the case of The State Vs. Alphajor Y. Bah el al (unreported), Paul, J in the case of The State Vs. Solomon Hinda/a Katta & Oths (unreported), in the case of The State Vs. Mustapha Amara & Others (unreported), Section 128(1) of the Anti­ Corruption Act of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), creates the offence of conspiracy.

 

1. For the Prosecution to succeed on a charge of conspiracy,  it  must prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was:

 

1. an agreement between two or more persons
2. an agreement to commit a corruption offence contrary to the Anti­ Corruption Act of 2008.

 

1. It must be noted that with the offence of conspiracy, the evidence required need not include evidence of some tactic agreement on  the part of the alleged conspirators to commit any  crime. It is enough  that it can be safely inferred that the role of each  of  the  alleged conspirators show that they were part of a larger  scheme  which resulted in the Principal; in the instant case, which  resulted  in obtaining Service Passports by persons who were not  eligible  for same. In other words, if the alleged conspirators agreement is carried

 

 

17

 

out ;n accordance with their intention, it will amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of them. Such agreement can, as said be inferred; it need not be specifically proven. The evidence that must be adduced by the Prosecution is the  role played by each of the alleged conspirators showing that they were in fact part of the enterprise which resulted in the commission of the corruption offence.

 

1. Proof of mens rea is important in proving the offence of conspiracy much as is in proof of any other crime. It was he ld in R Vs. Griffiths (1966) 14 8 589 that for an offence to be complete, the Defendants must   adopt   a   criminal    design   as  their  common                           purpose. The Prosecution must prove that the Accused had in mind  a  common design or purpose and did certain criminal acts in pursuance of this purpose. With conspiracy, proof of mens rea is found in the Accused' willingness to perform his own part of the plot. The Accused  may know    full    well    that    the   entire   enterprise       would                                                       involve   the commission of offence(s) by one or more of the conspirators. Lord Bridge in R Vs. Anderson (1986) /\C. 27 H.L said: "The necessary mens rea of the crime in my opinion is established if it is shown that  the Accused when he entered into the agreement intended  to  play some  part in the agreed course of conduct in pursuance of the criminal purpose

which the agreed course of conduct was  intended  to  achieve,  nothing less will suffice, nothing more is required". Arch bold at para 4075 of it s 36 th Edition says, the Prosecution need not prove that a party to the conspiracy had knowledge of the illegality of the acts to be  done. Where proof is available however, R Vs. Siracusa 90 Cr. App. R. 340, (cited favourably in Archbold 2001 Edn p 2641) says it is sufficient that the Accused knew that there was going to be the commission of some offence.

 

Burden of Proof

 

1. This Court sits both as a tribunal of fact and as a tribunal of law. I must therefore keep in my mind and in my view at all times, that in all criminal cases it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its  case  beyond  a reasonable doubt That the principle enshrined in the  case of Woolmington Vs. DPP applies to all crim in al cases, is without doubt. The principle that the burden of proof in all criminal cases rests with the prosecution is applied much more strongly when the Judge is both Judge of law and fact. Numerous Sierra Leone cases have confirmed this principle; those which have been reported include /-Jail Vs. R {1964-66) ALR SL 189; Labor-Jones Vs. R {1964-66) ALR SL 471; Koroma Vs. R {1964-66) ALR SL 542; Bob-Jones l's R (1967-68) ALR SL 267; Amara Vs. R (1 968 -69) ALR SL 220; Kargbo Vs. H (1968-69) ALR SL ]54. Those not reported include The State Vs. Francis Mohamed Fofanna !{oineh and John Mans (unreported); The  Stale  Vs. liamzza Alusine Sesay & Sarah Finda Bendu (unreported); The State  Vs.  Philip  Conleh   &   Two   Oths   (unreported)   The  State  Vs.  Philip   Lukulay ( unreported) and 7''1e State Vs. Alieu Sesay & Four Oths (unreported). All of

 

 

 

 

 

 

• ,

these cases confirm that the legal burden of proof in a criminal case always rests on the prosecution and that the burden rests on Lhe prosecution to prove every element of the offence with which an accused person has been charged beyond reasonable doubt.

 

1. If there is any doubt in my mind, as Lo the guilt or otherwise of any of  the Accused  persons,  in  respect  of  any   or  all  of  the   charges  in  the Indictment, I have a duty to acquit and discharge the  said  Accused  person of that charge or charges. I must be satisfied in my mind so  that  I am sure that the Accused persons have not only  committed  the  unlawful  acts charged in the Indictment, but that each or any of them did so with the requisite mens rea, that is that the acts were done willfully.

 

1. I am also mindful of the principle that even if I do not believe the version of events put forward by the Defence, I must give it the benefit of the doubt if the Prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. No particular form of words is 'sacrosanct or absolutely necessary' as was pointed out by Sir Samuel Bankole Jones, P, in the Court of Appeal in Koroma V R (1964-66) ALR SL 542 at 548 LL4-5. What is of importance is that the Prosecution establishes the guilt of the Accused beyond a reasonable doubt. A wrong direction in this all important issue will result in a conviction being quashed.

 

1. The Court refers to the case of Sahr Mbambay V The State App. 31/74 CA (unreported)-the cyclostyled judgment of Livesey Luke, ]SC at pages 11-13. At Page 12, where Luke ]SC referring to Woolmington V R said, that 'if at the end of the whole case, there is a reasonable doubt created by the evidence given either by the Prosecution or the prisoner

... the Prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal'. The onus is never on the Accused to es ta blis h his defence any more than it is upon him to establish provocation and any other defence apart from that of insanity.

 

1. I must also bear in mind and keep in view at all times that though the Accused persons are tried jointly, the  case against each of them  must be treated separately. At no time must I treat evidence which is only applicable to, or which inculpates only one Accused person against the other Accused person(s). Each Accused person is entitled to  an acquittal if there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, establishing his guilt, independent of the evidence against his co-Accused.

 

1. The Court notes that after the Prosecution's case, upon being  put  to their elections as required by Section 194 of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 32 of 1965, the Al and AZ persons chose to testify on oath which they did separately in their defence; A3 chose to rely on his statement he made to the ACC. I must state that an Accused  person need not give evidence on his own behalf but when he does, the Court takes it into consideration and accords to it such weight as it thinks appropriate in the circumstance. The Accused does not bear the

 

 

19

 

burden of disproving the case of the Prosecution, nor of proving his own innocence. What this Court is concerned about is whether the explanation given by the Accused raises a reasonable doubt in  the mind of the tribunal of fact. If it does, the Accused is entitled to an acquittal.

 

1. Having stated the applicable law and its elements, I shall now proceed to evaluate the evidence before the Court.

 

Background

1. The allegations against Pach of the 3 Accused perso11::; is that during the period covered by the Indictment, they each  conspired  among  themselves and with other persons unknown to assist in one way or another, and  did assist, persons who were  not entitled  to  Service  and  Diplomatic  Passports in Sierra Leone to acquire  same  by  fraudulent  or  unlawful  means.  All three the Accused persons deny the allegations against them on  the Indictment.

 

The Evidence

1. Count 2-34

It is the Prosecutor's case that Al improperly made a request for the issuance of Service Passports for the benefit of the following persons who are not entitled lo same as shown by Exhibits in the following orders and on the following Counts:

 

Count 2: Samuel Dawo - Exhibit M1-6; Count 3: Assiatu Suma - Exhibit Ll-6;

Count 4: Leslie Sylvanus Roberts - Exhibit Kl - 6; Count 5: Abu  Melleh  Kargbo -  Exhibit  Jl  - 6 Count 6: Abdulai B. Feika - Exhibit 111-6;

Count 7: Alimatu Bangura - Exhibit Gl -6; Count 8: Bernadette Conteh - Exhibit Nl-6; Count 9: Sabieu Mansaray - Exhibit 01-6; Count J 0: Samba  Barrie -  Exhibit Pl-6; Count 1J: Lansana Suma  -  Exhibit  Ql-6; Count 12: Samuel Olu Johnson - Exhibit Rl-6; Count 13: Alieu Jalloh - Exhibit Sl-6;

Count J 4: Princess Davies - Exhibit Tl -6

Count 15: Deborah Christiana Nyuma - Exhibit Ul-6; Count 16: Alhassan Kamara - Exhibit Vl-6;

Count J 7: Sheknatu Ramatulai - Exhibit Wl-6; Count 1 U: Abdulai  P. Bah -  Exhibit Xl-6; Count 19. Hawao Jalloh - E>.h1bit Yl-6;

Count 20: Alhassan Daramy - Exhibit AAl-6; Count 21: lsalu Sillah - Ex hi bit BBl-6;

Count 22 Kaifala Kamara - Exhibit CCl-6; Count 23: Ibrahim A Bangura - Exhibit DDl-6; Count 24: Lamrana Barrie -  Exhibit  EEl-6 Count 25: Martin  Conteh  -  Exhibit  FFl-6; Count 26· Mohamed Ka ma r a - Exhibit GGl-6;

 

 

 

 

 

 

r'-

 

 

Count 27: Mariama Jawaneh - Exhibit HHl-6; Count 28: Mariama Conteh - ExhibitJJl-6; Count 29: Khadijatou Koroma - Exhibit l<Kl -6; Count 30: Foday Sesay - Exhibit LLl -6;

Count 31: Jsatu Dainkeh - Exhibit MMl-6;

Count 32: Christiana Biatta Coker - Exhibit NNl-6; Count 33: Abdul Bangura - Exhibit 001-4;

Count 34: Musa Sesay - Exhibit PPl-6.

 

1. Sectio n 1 28 (1 ) of th e Anti-Co rr uption Act No. 12, 2008

I ref er to the final addresses submitted by Counsel on behalf of both  the pt  and 2nd Accused in which both Counsel submit that Section 128(1) of the Anti­ Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008 does not create an offence. I refer to the judgment of this Court dated 6th day of November, 2017, The State V  Mohamed  Sesay & Anoth (unreported) where relying on the judgment of E.E Roberts, j.A as he then was, in the case of The State V Alphajor Y. Bah et al (unreported) and on the judgment of Paul J, in the case of The State V Solomon Hindolo Katta & Oths (unreported) and in the case of The State V  Mustapha  Amara  &  Oths (unreported), I held that Section 128(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of  2008 does create the offence of conspiracy. I did say in the said judgment, that is The State V Mohamed Sesay & Anoth that conspiracy is a common law  offence made statutory by Section 128(1) of the Act and that the term  'conspiracy' describes the offence of conspiracy to commit an offence. My position in respect of Section 128(1) of the Act has not changed.

 

Counts 2-29

1. I refer to the second pages of Exhibits M, L, K, J, 11, G, N, 0, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, AA, BB, CC, DD, EE, FF, GG, HH and JJ 3rd column of each, under the rubric 'Recomme nder' where the name Mariama Seray Kallay, the then Administrator and Registrar General is inscribed with an email address thereon.

 

1. I refer to the testimonies of PW2 and PW3, Abdul Rashid  Bayoh and Haja Mariama Seray Kallay, both retired civil servants. PW2 was Director General HRMO between 25th March 2013 and  May  2018  and PW3 was Administrator and Registrar-General, Office  of  the Administrator and Registrar General, OARG between February 2008 and July 2018.

 

1. PW2 referred to Exhibits M4, L4, K4, }4, H 4, G4, N4, 05, PS, Q4, RS, S4, T4, US, VS, W4, X4, Y4, AA4, 884, CCS, DDS, EES, FFS, GGS, HHS, JJS and KK4 in favour of persons named therein and as they relate to Counts 2-29 and denied the signature on each of those said Exhibits as his. The Court notes that the Exhibits referred to are letters of appointment for each of the persons referred to in Counts 2-29  including appointments as Payroll Officers, Registration Officers, JCT Officers and Estate Officers.

 

 

 

 

21

 

 

 

 

I    .,

 

 

1. PW2's duties and responsibilities included supervising in  the  day Lo day affairs of about 7 Directorates including the Recruitment and Selection Directorate in the Civil Service between the period March 2013 and May 2018. He explained the procedure for such recruitment, including requests for specific vacancies at the HRMO. On satisfaction of the necessary criteria, a Form is endorsed by the I-IRMO  in respect of the particular MDA making the request or where the vacancy is at. The vacancies are then advertised and inter views conducted by the respective Commissions which then issue an Order for the appointment of the successful candidate(s).

 

1. The HRMO then issues a letter of appointment to such Appointee(s) stating certain det ails including the grade and job Litle. These letters of appointment are produced in 8 to 12 copies signed by PW2 in his capacity as Director General, ]-IRMO save for appointments under Grade 5 which is signed by the Director of Recruitment and Selection. If he is on leave, he delegates signing of these appointment letters  to the Director of Recruitment and Selection. After verification and meeting all necessary requirement including health and fitness, the Appointee(s) name(s) is/are imputed into the Government payroll.

 

9.1. 4·. The witness told the Court that in the Civil Service, the Administrative cadre is  a  separate  cadre  and  that  appointees  are  recruited  in  the administrative services as Cadet Officers and that the Civil Service does not appoint Administrative Officers to any particular office including the OARG. In respect of appointment of Estate Officers, the witness told the Court that the Civil Service does not appoint Estate Officers; that there is no such post in the Civil Service.

 

9.1.5. ln answer to questions put to him in cross examination by Counsel for the Al, PW 2 told the Court that he is no t aware that there are Estate Officers at the OARG. The Court note s the witness' testimony to be that the Civil Service does not appoint persons as Estate Officers. It is therefore not for the witness to tell Counsel whether or not there are Estate Officers at the OARG especially appreciating that the evidence before the Court is a letter of appointment allegedly signed by the witness for the position of an Estate Officer. He told the Court that issued letters of appointments are copied to the office which needs the new staff/ appointee and such other offices including the Accountant­ General's Department. He said he sig ns all appointment letters which are for Grade 7 upwards appointees and letters of promotion, lea ve, terminal leave except if such letters a re needed at a time that he is not available but that even at that, the H MRO will wait for him because of the sensit ivities of issues.

 

9.1. 6. In answer to questions put to him by Counsel for A3, referring to Exhibits Cl -1 3 and C-PP, as they cover Counts  2-34, the  witness  said his signature is common in  MDAs  for as  long as issues dealt with  have Lo do with the Civil S •r vice transfers , pro motions, discipline etc. during

 

 

 

 

 

 

the time of his tenure. l le agreed the layout of the form in Exhibits G  to PP is usually what comes for the HRMO and that he will be the  last person to say whether or  not the signatures  on  Exhibits  G  to PP were his signatures.

 

9.1.7. PW3, Haja Serray Kallay identified Al as the former Head of  the Human Resource Section of the OARG. She agreed there were staff members of the OARG who held Service Passports and these she said included the Deputy Administrator and Registrar-General, the Deputy Head of Intellectual Property and other staff member in the  senior cadre of the OARG, that were staff members, Grade 5 and above and that she it was who facilitated the issuance of these Service Passports for the said staff officials of the OARG in her capacity as Administrator and Registrar-General. To implement the above, PW3 told the Court that she wrote directly to the Director-General of the MFAIC.

 

9.1.0. PW3 told the Court that when staff members of the OARG who were below the senior staff cadre, wanted to  travel  outside Sierra  Leone, she will direct a letter to the Chief Immigration Officer for purposes of obtaining an ordinary passport for such staff members. She said no other person had the mandate or authority to request for a Service Passport from the MFAIC other than herself as Head of OARG during the period concern.

 

9.J.9. The Court recalls that during the PWl's testimony, Al denied the signature on Exhibit ODO4 as his as a result of which  the Court called in an Expert hand writing Court witness, Mr. Abubakarr Sanu  who made his appearance before the Court. Having done his analysis of documents submitted to him, including Al's statement  to the ACC  as in Exhibits FFFJ-118, D and E and Al's specimen signature, the Court witness, in respect of Exhibit ODO4 and Count 6 concluded  that there is a high probability that Al signed Exhibit DOD4 because he found identifying characteristics in the signature on Exhibits DOD4 and D5 and E when compared with Exhibit FFFl-118. The Court notes that Exhibit FFFl-118 is Al's caution statement to the ACC which he acknowledged as true and accurate by signing on each page and which he, in testimony under oath, admitted to be true and  accurate .  In answer to questions put to him under  cross  examination  by Counsel for Al, the Court witness said that his analysis of Exhibit DOO4 and other documents submitted to him connotes the highest degree of certainty and that he left only a small room because  he  was  not present when Al signed the said document. I have looked at Exhibits DDD4, 0, E and FFFl-118 and I am satisfied that Al did sign Exhibit DDD4 as evidenced by the Court witness' Report in Exhibit 0001-5.

 

1. I refer to Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, in respect of Samuel Dawo, Assiatu Suma, Leslie Sylvanus Robert, Abu Melleh Kargbo, Abdulai Bangalie Feika and Alimatu Bangura ,

 

 

 

23

 

' .

 

 

1. PW3 referred to Exhibits M2, L2, K2, J2, G2, H2 in respect of the said Counts 2-7 and denied the signatures on page 2 of the  said  Exhibits as hers. PW3 referred to Exhibits DDD4 and PPP2 dated 30th December 2015 and 28th January 2016 respectively , titled "Request for the issuance of six Service Passports in respect of the undermentioned officials of the Administrator and Registrar General's Office" in favour of Samuel Dawo, Assiatu Suma, Leslie Sylvanus Robert, Abu Melleh Kargbo and Abdulai Bangali Feika in respect of Counts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Indictment herein.

 

1. Both Exhibits D0D4 and PPP2 were signed by Al for, as he allege, PW3, the Administrator and Registrar Ge ne ra l. PW3 now tells the Court that it was not part of Al's responsibilities to make and sign requests for issuance  of Service Passports  to staff  members. She denied ever giving Al  instructions to write and send out Exhibits DDD4 and PPP2.

 

10.1.2.1 refer to Counts 8, 9, 10, 11 and J 2 in respect of  Bernadelle  Conteh­ Barrat, Sabieu Mansaray, Samba Barrie, Lansana Suma and Samuel Olu Joh ns o n. PW3 referred to Exhibits N2 , 02, P2, Q2 and R2 in respect of the said Counts 8 to 12 and denied the signatures on page 2 of each of the said Exhibits. I refer to Exhibits NS and 04 letters of 'Request for ECOWAS service  passports"  in  favour  of  Bernadette  Conteh-Barrat and Sabieu Mansaray in respect of Counts  8  and  9  respectively, allegedly written by PW3 in her capacity then as Administrator and Registrar-General which PW3 denies; she said she never made such request. I further refer to Exhibit P4 letter of "Request for ECOWAS service passports" in favour of Mr. Samba Barrie, Mr. Lansana Suma

,md Mr. Samuel Qiu John in respect of Counts 10, 11  and 12 respectively, allegedly written  by PW3  in  her  capacity then as Administrator and Registrar-General which PW3 denies; she said she never made such request.

 

1. I refer to Counts 13, 1'1·, 1 5 , 16 and 17 in respect  of  Alieu  Ja lloh, Princess Davies, Deborah Nyuma, Alhassan Kamara and Sheknatu Mansaray. PW3 referred to Exhibits S2, T2,  U2, V2 and  W2  in  respect of the said Counts 13 to J 7 and denied the signatures  on  page  2  of  each of the said Exhibits. I refer to Exhibit U3 letter of "Request for ECOWAS service passports" in favour of Ms. Princess Davies and Ms. Deborah Christiana Nyuma in  respect  of  Counts  14  and  15 respectively, allegedly written by PW3 in her capacity then as Administrator and Registrar -General which PW3 denies; she said she never made such request. I refer to Exhibit V3 letter of "Request for ECOWAS service passports" in favour of Mr. Alhassan Kamara and  Ms. Sheknatu Ramatulai  Mansaray  in  respect  of  Counts  16  and  17 respectively, allegedly written by PW3 in her capacity then as Administrator and Registrar -General which PW3 denies; she said she never made such request.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. I refer to Counts 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 in respect of Ab d u!a i Ba r rie, Hawao Jallol1, Alhassan Daramy, lsa ta Sillah and Keifala Kamara. PW3 referred to Exhibits X2, Y2, A/\.2, 8B2 and  CC2 in respect of Counts 18 to 22 and  denied  the  signatures on  page 2 of each  of the  said  Exhibits. I refer to Exhibit U3 letter of "Request for  ECOWAS service  passports" in favour of Mr . Abdulai Pateh Barrie and Ms. lsa tu Sillah in respect of Counts 18 and 21 respectively,  allegedly  written  by  PW3  in  her capacity then as Ad minis t ra to r and Reg is tra r-Ge n e ra l which PW3 denies; she said she never made such request. I refer  to  Exhibit  AA3, CC4, DD4, letters of "Request for ECOWAS service passports" with the same contents, in favour of Mr. Alhassan Daramy and Mr. Kelfala Kamara in respect of Counts 20  and  22  respectively,  allegedly  written by PW3 in her capacity the n as Administrator and Registrar-General which PW3 denies; she said she never made such request

 

1. r refer to Counts 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 in favour of Ibrahim A Bangura, Lamrana Barrie, Ma r t in Conteh, Mohamed Ka m a ra a n d Mariama Jawaneh. PW3 referred to Exhibits OD2, EE2, FF2, GG2 and HH2 in respect of the said Counts  23  to  27 and  denied  the  signatures  on  page 2 of each of the said Ex h ib its. I refer to Exhibits EE4 and FF4 letters of 'Request for ECOWAS service passports" with the same  contents  in favour of Ms. Lamrana Barrie and Mr. Martin Conteh in respect of Counts 24 and 25 allegedly written by PW3 in her capacity then as Administrator and Registrar-Genera! which PW3 denies; she said  she never made such request. I refer to Exhibit GG4 letter of "Request for ECOW/\.S service passports" in favour of Mr. Mohamed Kamara  in respect of Count 26, allegedly written by PW3 in her capacity then as Administrator and Registrar-General which PW3 denies; she said  she never made such request. I refer to Exhibit HI 14 and JJ4  letter  of "Request for ECOWAS service passports" with  same contents in  favour of Ms. Mariama Jawaneh and Mariama Conteh in respect of Counts  27 and 28 respectively, allegedly written by PW3 in her capacity then as Administrator and Registrar-General which PW3 denies; she said she never made such request

 

1. I refer to Counts 28 and 29 in favour of Ma ria ma Conteh and Khadija t u Koroma. PW3 referred to Exhibits JJ2, and KK2 in respect of the said Counts 28 and 29 and denied the signatures on page 2 of each of the said Exhibits. I refer to Exhibit KKS, letter of 'Request for ECOWAS service passports" in favour of the said Khadijatu Koroma in respect of Count 29 allegedly  written by  PW3 in  her capacity  then  as Administrator and Registrar-General which PW3 denies; she said she never made such request.

 

1. PW3 told the Court that the stamp used on each of the said Exhibits is not what was used in her office during the period concerned and that the email address used on page 2 of each of the said Exhibits has never been her email address.

 

 

 

 

 

 

25

 

1. PW3 referred to the names on Exhibit s JJ4, KI<S, HH4 and GG4 above referred to and told the  Court  that  she  is  not  familiar  with  those names as staff members of OARG during the period covered by the Indictment during  which   said   period   the   Court   notes,   PW3   was Administrator and Registrar- Ge ne ra l of the OARG.

 

1. In answer to questions puts to her  in  cross examination  by Counsel  for Al , PW3 told the Court  that she was  familiar  with  all  her  s ta ff members including messengers as  her  staff strength  was not  up  to  50 in Freetown and not more than 10 in the provinces. She told the  Court that she has a list of staff at  the  OARG  tor the  past 2 years from  the date of her testimony in her possession;  Counsel  was not  minded  to ask for production of the list.

 

1. She agreed she gave instructions, written and oral during her tenure to Al but clarified that such instructions were  only  in  respect  of  staff  matters not for issuance or facilitation of the issuance of passports. She reiterated that the Al was in the Human Resource Section of the  OARG  but insisted that his duties did not include facilitation even of Ordinary Passports for public officers let alone Service Pass ports .

 

11.l. The Court  not es  that the name of the  recipient of all the  Service Passports on the applications made pursuant to Exhibits Ml-6 to PPl-6 relating to Counts 1 through 29 of the Indictments was that of Al.

 

Counts 30 - 34

1. PW2 was referred to Exhibit Cl -1 3 as  they relate to  Counts 30  to 34; he told the Court he did not sign any of those  documents  which  the  Court notes  are appointment  letter  signed  in  his  name  as  Director  General, I IRMO. I refer specifically to Exhibits CS, 10, J I, 12  and  1 3  as  they relate to Counts 30-34. The witness denied signing any  of  those  appointment letters in favour of the said Foday Sesay, lsatu Dainkeh, Christiana Bia tta Coker, Abdul Bangura and Musa Sesay. He drew  the  Court's  attention  to Lhe date in Exhibit C8, 30th March 201 2, in favour of  Christiana  Biatta Coker in respect of Count 32 by which date he said, he was not Director General of HRMO, having been appointed only on 25t11 March  2013.  He said the Litle Payroll Officer as  appear  in  Exhibit  CS is a  strange  term  in the Civil Ser vice.

 

1 2.1.          He refer red to Exhibits C2 and C3 both of which the witness said  he did not sign and  that  the title  of  the  job, 'Payroll Officer'  is strange in the Civil Service; that Budget Officers are not recruited in the Accountant General's Department. I le said Budget Officers a recruited in the Budget Bureau under the Ministry of Finance and then posted to the Ministry as Budget Officers. He reiterated that no one is recruited as a Budget Officer in the Civil Service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. PW2 referred to Exhibit C4 to which he said he did not sign. He said the Civil Service does not appoint Business Registration Officers; that rather a Registration Officer is appointed.

 

1. He referred to Exhibits CS, Budget Officer, C6 for Registration Officer, C7 for Budget Officer, al l of which said recruitment he told the  Court,  are never done in the Civil Service.

 

1. PW2 referred to Exhibit C13 for the position of Senior JCT Officer in favour of Abdul Bangura as in Count 33 for MOFED and told the Court that the Civil Service does not recruit ICT Officers for any particular MDA; that the ICT cadre is under the Ministry of Information and Communications which said Min is try posts the ICT Officers to the MDA where the appointee will be needed. He told the Court that apart from the Ministry of Finance where JCT Officers are brought in as Consultants on a World Bank funded project, the HRMO does not appoint JCT Officers. He denied the signature of Exhibit C13 as his.

 

1. He referred to Exhibits Cl0, Cll and C12 for the positions of Budget Officers and Payroll Officers in favour of lsatu Dainkeh, Musa Sesay and Foday Sesay in relation to Counts 30, 31 and 34 and denied the signatures thereon as his.

 

1. PW 4 was Mr. Richard R Williams , the Accountant General. I refer to Counts 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 as they relate to Foday Sesay, Isatu Dainkeh, Christiana Biatta Coker, Abdul Bangura and Musa Sesay, PW4 referred to Exhibits LL2, MM2, NN2, 002 and PP2, in respect of the said Counts 30 to 34 and denied  the  signatures on page 2 of each  of the said Exhibits as his. He denied recommending issuance of  service Pass ports to any of the persons referred to in counts 30 to 34.

 

12.1.6.1 have looked at the 2nd   page of Exhibits LL, MM,  NN, 00   and   PP, third column thereto under the rubric "Recommender" with the name Mr. Richard S. Williams, the then Accountant  General  thereon  stated,  with an email address on each of the said documents. I have also loo ked at Exhibits LL4, MM4, NN4 and PP4 letters titled 'Request for Service Passport" for persons therein referred.

 

1. In these proceedings PW4 told the Court that he assumed office as Accountant-General on is1 August 2017. He told the Court that the Assistant Accountant-General, Mr. Kainwah has the responsibility of taking care of staff matters including making requests for Service Passports on behalf of staff members and  that  this  responsibility covers the period before he was appointed Deputy Accountant­ General in April 2007.

 

1. PW4 denied the stamp on each of the exhibits and denied the email address listed as his on each of the said Exhibits. He referred to Exhibit LL4, MM4, NN4 and PP4 requests for service passport in

 

 

 

 

 

 

•

I

 

 

favour of Foday Sesay, lsatu Da ink e h, Christiana Biatla Coker, Abdul Bangura and Musa Sesay mentioned in Counts 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 and he denied  signing  the  said  documents  of  requests.  PW4's testimony remained unshaken in cross examination.

 

1. He tendered Exhibits RRRl-3; he tendered and SSSl-J 2 a list of staff members at the Accountant General's Department for the period 2011 to 2018, the period covered by the Indictment.

 

1. I refer to Exhibits LL3 & 4, MM3 & 4, NN3 & 4, 003 and PP3 & 4 which refers to the persons therein listed as staff of the Accountant Ge11erc1I'::. Department. I have looked at Exhibit RRRJ-3 and  SSSl-12. I  am  salisfied that the names Foday Sesay, lsatu Dainkeh, Christiana Biatta Coker, Abdul Bangura and Musa Sesay mentioned in Counts 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the Indictment were not  staff  members  of  the  Accountant  General's Department during the period covered by the Indictment.

 

1. The Court observes that the recipient on each of the Service Passports as in Exhibits LLl-6, MM-16, NNJ-6, 001-4 and PPl-6 were the beneficiaries themselves. I am not a handwriting expert but it is clear to me that the person who wrote out the name Richard S. Williams on the 2nd page of each of those Exhibits as 'Recommender' was the same person who wrote out the names of the recipients of those said Service Pas s po r ts.

 

1. More interesting, in respect of those Counts, 30 - 34 against the A1 is the testimony of PWl when he told the  Court that a search was executed in Al's office during which certain documents were found in his, Al's bag and ceased. These documents so found and ceased, the Court notes include Exhibits C12, Cl0, CB, C13 and Cll as they touch and concern  Counts 30-34 and are  in  fact the  same letters of recommendation for  Service  Passports  found  in  the  application jackets in Exhibits LL to Exhibit PP.

 

13.l.2. For the avoidance of any doubt and for clarity, Exhibits  C12,  Cl0,  CS, C13 and  Cll    are letters of appointment from the J--IRMO, Ministerial Building, Freetown, for Foday Sesay, lsatu Dainkeh, Christiana Biatta Coker, Abdul Bangura and Musa Sesay as payroll officer in the MOFED, Budget Officer in the MOFED, Payroll Officer in the MOFED, !CT Officer in the MOFED and Budget Officer in the MOFED respectively, same as are attached to the applications as  in  Exhibits  LLS,  MMS,  NNS, 003 and PPS. PW2 has already  told  the  Court  that  the 'civil Service  docs not recruit Payroll Officers, Budget Officers or JCT  Officers  and  this piece of evidence has not been controverted.

 

13.1.3.1 refer again to Exhi bits Cl-13, especially Exhibit  CB, Cl0, Cll, C12 and C13 as they relate to Count 30-34. PW2, A.R Bayoh, whose signature appears on each of these Exhibits deny signing any of them. Mr. Bayoh retired as Director General of HRMO in May 2018 having assumed that role on 25111 March 2013. I refer Lo the date on Exhibit C8

 

 

28

 

in favour of Ms. Christiana Biatta  Coker  by which  said  date, according to Mr. Bayoh's testimony on oath, he was not even Directo r-Ge ne ra l for HRMO. Mr . Bayoh, PW2 referred to Exhibit C13, the supposed appointment letter of Abdul Bangura in respect of Co u n t 33 and to ld the Co u r t that the Civil Service does not recruit ICT Officers for any particular MDA and that the ICT cadre is under the  MIC which  will then post such officers to MDAs as necessary. This  piece  of evidence was not controverted by Counsel for any of the Accused persons.

 

1. I refer to Exhibits Cl0, 11 and 12 which as said, PW2 denied any knowledge of. Exhibits Cl0 and 11 relate to lsatu Dainkeh and Mus a Sesay charged under Counts 31 and 34 respectively  of  the  Indictment; the said Exhibits are appointment letters for  these  said  two beneficiaries for the positions of Budget Officer at the  MOFED.  PW2 told the Court that Budget Officers are not recruited in the Accountant General's Department. Rather, they are recruit ed in the Budget Bureau under the MOFED after which they are posted to the  Ministry  as Budget Officers. Exhibit C12 is the appointment  letter  for Foday Sesay as Payroll Officer in the MOFED, a title which PW2 refers to as strange because according to him, such persons  are  not  recruited  within  the Civil Service. These pieces of evidence remain untainted.

 

1. As a way of tidying up on Counts 2-34,  the  Court  refers  to  the testimony of PW6, Unisa Small Sesay,  a  Senior  Human  Resource Officer at the OARG, who tendered Exhibit WWW 1 -42, a list of payroll from the Accountant General's Department with the names of all staff members of the Office of the Administrator and Reg is tr a r Ge ne ra l during the period covered by the indictment  in  respect of Counts 2-34, for the period 1st January 2016  to  31st  July  2018.  I  have  perused Exhibit WWW 1-42 from which it is clear that aside the name Abdulai Bangalie Feika which appears in Count 6 of the Indictment, none of the beneficiaries referred to in Counts 2-5 and  7-34 were staff  members  of the OARG during the period covered by the Indictment as they relate to those said Counts.

 

1. It is of vital importance to note that PWl's testimony that Exhibits Cl-

13 were found in the possession of J\1 was  never  contested  on oath nor in the Al's statement to the ACC. I  have no  reason  to doubt that Al, being a Senior Human Resource Officer at the  Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General between the 1ST  day of January 2017 and 3pc day of July 2018 abused his office by using  his office improperly and dishonestly to make a request for a Republic of Sierra Leone Service Passport on behalf of persons who  were not entitled to be a holders of same.

 

1. The Court takes note of the testimonies of the then Administrator and Registrar General when she referred to staff members entitled to Service Passports; the beneficiary in Count 6, Abdulai Bangalie Feika,

 

 

 

29

 

..

 

 

 

the  Court notes, is not one of such staff members. The Court also note s that the recipient of Feika 's Service Passport was Al.

 

1. I have stated the law above as it relates to conspiracy as  charged contrary  to Section 128(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act  No. 12  of  2008. I refer to  Count 1 of the  Indictment and  I adopt my reasoning and the entire content hereinbefore referred touching and concerning the Al and hold that it  is  proven  beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  Al  did conspire with other person(s) unknown  to  commit  a  corruption offence to  wit:  by  improperly  using  his  office  Lo  improperly  make requests for and obtain Service Pass ports for persons referred to in Counts 2-34 above who are not entitle d to same.

 

1. Counts 36-38 charge the A2 with the offence of peddling influence contrary to Section 31(3) of the Anti-Corruption Act No.  12  of  2008.  Section 31(3) provides:

 

A person who solicits, accepts or obtains an advantage from any other person for himself or for any other person in order to make use of his influence, real or fictitious, to obtain any work, employment, contract or other benefit from a public body commits an offence.

 

1. It is clear that persons who commit a Section 31(3) offence need not be public officers. The elements to be proven by the Prosecutor are as follows:

 

1. the accused must have solicited , accepted or obtained an advantage from another person;
2. the advantage could be for the accused himself or for any other person;
3. the purpose of the advantage must be to make use of the accused' influence which said influence could be real or fictitious;
4. the influence must be for purposes of obtaining work, employ m e n t or other benefit;
5. what is obtained or the benefit must be from u public body.

 

1. The Court takes note that the  A2  was, during the  period  covered  by the Indictment the Executive Director of the Sierra Leone Institute of International Law. The evidence before the Court is thr1t A2 used his influence to obtain  Service  Passports   for   Musu   Abibatu   Bangura, Justina Williams and Ibrahim Sorie Koroma.

 

14.1.2.1 refer to the testimony of PWB, Mr. Olu Campbell  who  told  the Court that it was through the  help  of Al  that  he obtained  Service  Pass ports  for Justina Williams, and Ibrahim Sorie Koroma as in Counts 37 and 38 of the Indictment.  He  stated  in  no  uncertain  terms  in  his  testimony, that A2 had nothing to do with  the  issuance of Service  Pass ports  to Ibra him Sorie Koroma and Justina Williams ; that the role A2  played was in respect of issuing letters of employment to these two persons

 

 

 

30

 

 

 

 

and assisting and rather unlawfully, with the issuance of American visas to attend the UNGA meeting 2018 in New York

 

1. There is no charge on the Indictment for using his influence to obtain American visas. According to PW8, A2's role, in  respect  of Counts  37 and 38 only came in after he, PW8 had obtained Service Passports for persons named in those Counts through Al.

 

1. I also refer to the testimony of PW7, Ibrahim Serie Koroma who told the Court  that he got to know Al  through  PW8, Olu  Campbell. Campbell was to assist PW7 obtain an America n visa on a Service Passport for which said Service Passport  he  said,  he  met  Al  at  the Immigration Department. He obtained the Service Passport as in Exhibit AAAl-6 but was refused visa at the American Embassy in Freetown. Justina Williams in respect of Count 37 also obtained a Service Passport to which she is not entitled  but was  refused  entry visa to the United States of America.

 

1. I have stated the elements that need to be proven for the Prosecutor to succeed on a charge for peddling influence and those elements must include, in this case, A2 the accused must have

1. solicited, accepted or obtained an advantage from another person;
2. the  advantage could be for the accused himself or for any  other person;
3. the purpose of the  advantage must be to make  use of the  accused' influence which said influence could be real or fictitious;

ct. the influence must be for purposes of obtaining work, employment or

other benefit;

e. what is obtained or the benefit must be from a public

 

1. l refer again to Counts 37 and 38 of the Indictment and note that the Prosecutor did not adduce any evidence to prove that $1,000 (One Thousand United States Dollars) was  solicited, accepted  or obtained by A2 from Justina Williams nor did he adduce evidence to prove that A2 solicited, accepted or obtain ed $500 from Ibrahim Sorie Koroma as advantage to use his influence to obtain Service Passports for them as charged.

 

1. I refer to Count 36 and to the testimony of PWl0 Musu Abibatu Bangura who told the Court that A2 assisted in getting a Service Passport for her as in Exhibit BBBl-7 but that she was also refused entry visa to the Unit ed States. Her testimony to the Court was that A2 accompanied her to the Immigration Department to do her photo for her Service Passport.

 

1. The testimony  of  Musu  Abibatu  Bangura  is  that she  paid  Le.10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Leones) to one Issa Kamara and not to AZ as appear on the Indictment. In cross examination by A2, she  said when she made her statement to the Anti-Corruption Commission, being that she was pregnant when she was refused an entry visa to the

 

 

31

 

..

 

 

United States and was arrested with other persons including A2, she was confused and so gave information against A2 that was incorrect. The position of the Court is that to make out a successful charge of a Section 31 (3) offence, the person who is alleged to have used his influence and in this case A2 to obtain a Service Pass port for the said Musu Abibatu Bangura must have solicited and accepted an advantage whether for himself or some other person(s) for the purpose of using his influence. 'Advantage' is defined in Part 1, Section l(l)(a-g) in the interpretation section of the Anti-Corruption Acct, 2008. The testimony of PWl0 was quite clear, that she paid no  advantage  lo /\2 for purposes of obtaining a Service Passport. The Prosecution also did not prove that A2 solicited, accepted or obtained an advantage from PWl0 or anyone else for purposes of using his influence to obtain a Service Passport for PWl 0. Counts 36, 37 and 38 the re fore fail.

 

14.1.9.1 have above stated the la w as it relates to the offence of conspiracy. I refer to the Counts of conspiracy against A2 as in Counts 35 of the Indictment and hold that the Prosecutor failed to prove that A2 conspired with any other person to commit a corruption  offence by  his making us e of his influence to obtain Service Passpor ts for persons not entitled to same. l also refer to Count 39 and hold  that  the Prosecutor has not proved to the  Court that A2 conspired  with A3  and / or w it h any other person(s) to commit a corruption offence by improperly making  recommendations   to   the   Sierra   Leone Immigration Serviced for the issuance of Service Passports to persons not entitled to same; no such recommendation for issuance of Service Passports to persons not entitled was shown  to  the  Court  by  the Prosecution.

 

1. The above notwithstanding, one would expect much better from A2 as a lawyer of at le as t over 25 years standing and having worked in the developed world in no lesser capacity than  an  Ambassador  for  Sierra Leone Lo the United Nations. A2 , I believe was a very much respected personality, respect which could no longer be accorded him by any right thinking person of society for  his  unlawful  act  of  attempting  in  a fraudulent and dis honest manner to obtain American visa s for persons  who he very well knew were not staff members of his institution. The testimonies of Ibrahim Sorie Koroma, Musu Abibatu Bangura  and  Mr. Olu Campbell are quite clear on A2's dishonest and fraudulent conduct.  Eve n if they were staff members of his institution, the Sierra Leone Institute of

In ternational Law,  by  the  provisions  of  the  Cabinet  conclusions  as  in Exhibits JJJ1-2 and  EEEl-4,  such persons  were  not entitled  to  Service  Pass ports and he knew that; according to Musu Abibatu Bangura, AZ it

was, who handed over her package including her Service Passport Lo her at the frontage of the American Embassy on  the  day  they  were  refus ed entry visas and arrested by the Anti -Corruption Commission. Mr. Alie Ibrahim Kanu's name is clearly tainted  by  his  unlawful  conduct  even though b the elements of  the  offence charged  on  the  Indictment  against him were not proven by the Prosecutor.

 

 

 

 

 

32

 

1. I refer to Counts 40-43 of the Indictment herein against A3 who is charged on the Indictment for the offence of abuse of office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 12 of 2008. I have above stated the law as it relates to a Section 4-2(1) offence and the  elements  that must be proven by the Prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

 

1. I refer to Count 40 of the f ndictment in respect of Musu  Abibatu Bangura. I note that unlike Counts 2-34 and Count 43  which  are supported by application forms or  jackets,  Counts  40,  41  and  42  are not so supported. I refer to Exhibit 8881-7 which shows a  Service Passport in favour of Musu Abibatu Bangura issued to her on the 5th February 2018 and an appointment le tt e r by A2 and a pay slip for the month of August 2018. I have already stated  in  reference  to  Counts 35-39 touching on A2 that all of these attached documents were fake documents deliberately  and  fraudulently  used  for  purposes  of  obtaining entry visas to  the  United  States of America. That said,  there is nothing  in  evidence  to  suggest  that A3  made  any  recommendation to the Sierra Leone Immigration Department for the  issuance  of  a Service Passport to Ms. Musu Abibatu Bangura.

 

1. I refer to Count 41 of the Indictment in respect  of Justina  Williams.  I have said that Counts 40, 41 and 42 are not supported by application forms/jackets  which  could  have  shown  who  made  recommendations for issuance of Service Passports for persons  referred  to  in  those Counts including Count 41 of the Indictment for  Justina  Williams.  I refer to Exhibit YYl -8 which shows a Service Passport in favour  of Justina Williams issued to her on the 11ch  July  2018  and  an appointment letter by A2 and a pay slip for the month  of June  2018.  I have already stated in reference  to  Counts  35-39  touching  on  A2  that all  of  these  attached  documents  were  fake  documents,   deliberately and fraudulently used for purposes  of  obtaining  entry  visas  to  the United States of America. That said, there is nothing in evidence  to suggest that A3 made any recommendation to the Sierra Leone Immigration Department for a Service Passport for Justina Williams. I refer to the testimony of PW8, Olu Campbell who told the  Court  that apart from A1, A2 and A3 did not assist him in obtaining  Service Passports  for  his  customers  including  persons  named  in  the Indictment.

 

15.1.3.1 refer to Count 42 of the Indictment in respect of Ibrahim Sorie Koroma. Again, unlike Counts 2-34 and Count 43 which are supported by application forms or jackets, Count 42 is not so supported. I refer to Exhibit AAAl-6 which shows a Service Passport in favour of Ibrahim Sorie Koroma issued to him on the 11th July 2018 and an appointment letter  by A2 and  a  pay  slip for the month  of August  2018. I  have already stated in reference to Counts 35-39 touching on A2 that all of these attached documents were fake documents, deliberately and fraudulently used for purposes to obtaining entry visas to the United

 

 

 

 

 

33

 

...

 

 

States of America. That said, there is nothing in evidence to suggest that A3 made any recommendation to the Sierra Leone Immigration Department for a Service Passport for Ibrahim Sorie Koroma. I must refer to the testimony of Ibrahim Sorie Koroma when he said that the persons he dealt with in respect or obtaining his  Service  Passport were Al and PW8.

 

15.1.4. I refer to Count 43 or the Indictment herein and to the testimony of PW 5, Ms. Ebunoluwa Finda Amanda Tengbe, a Legal Practitioner. She Leid the Court that she knew when she obtained a Service Passport, that she was not entitled to same. She told the Court that A'3 it was who obtained a Service Passport to which she was not at the material time entitled, from the Sierra Leone Immigration Department for her.

 

15.1.5.1 have looked to Exhibit QQQl-7 and I note from Exhibit QQQ2 that A3's name is inserted as the person who recommended issuance of a Service Passport for Ms. Te ngbe . I see Exhibit QQQ4 and note that A3's name is inserted as the person who made the request for issuance of a Service Passport to Ms. Tengbe. I have looked at Exhibit QQQ7 and I note that A3's name is inserted as recipient of Ms. Tengbe's Service Passport. Ms. Tengbe was issued and she did obtain a Service Pass port as in Exhibit LLLl-10 on the 1st day of December 2016.

 

1. The Court notes that Count 43 is an additional Count and was not addressed during A3's interview by the  Anti-Corruption Commission. It is however appreciated that A3 was given ample time to accept or deny the allegation in Count 43 of the Indictment.

 

1. I refer to paragraphs 99 and 100 on pages 30 and 31 of the Prosecution's Final Address where Counsel, relying particularly on Exhibit QQQ2 and 4 stated as follows:

 

Crucially, the 3rd Accused never contested his authorship of the said two exhibits when Liley were being tendered in evidence by PW1 ... that Counsel for the 3r d Accused failed to cross examine Lo throw any doubt on or provide any contrary proof of what PWl and PWS testified  to  in  their  respective examinations in chief'.

 

1. I also refer to paragraph 102 on page 32 of  the  Prosecutions  Final Address where Counsel states as follows:

 

".... The 3rd Accused persons elected to rely on Exhibit HHHl-31 in his defence ....

Crucially, Exhibit HHHl-31 only concerns Counts 39 to 42, being that Count 43 was added to the Indictment by way or a subsequent amendment after the trial had opened .... The 1st  Accused (I believe Counsel meant the 3rd Accused) had an evidential burden to discharge ... which the 1st  Accused (3rd Accused) neglected to discharge by relying on Exhibit HH I-I J -31 only in defence to the charge against him ... and failing to open a defence with respect to this Count "

 

 

 

 

 

 

34

 

1. In light of the  Prosecutor's  reasoning  as  shown  in  the  above quotations, l wish to reiterate the burden of proof which rests on the prosecution, at all times; it is indeed a heavy burden. I ag r e e wit h Counsel that in some instances the evidential burden does shift to the Accused but did the evidential burden of proving  that  the A3  did  not sign Exhibit QQQ 2 and 4 in particular shift in the instant case? I think not.

 

1. It is wrong of the Prosecutor to have concluded as  he  did  in  his  Address that the authorship of Exhibit QQQ2 and 4  was  n eve r  contested  by Counsel for A3. I r e fe r Counsel to page 35 of the Jud g e's notes, where H.M Gevao Esq, Counsel for A3, contesting A3's signatures on Exhibits KKl-6, LLl-6, MMl-6 and N Nl - 6 sa id "The last Count for Ebunoluwa Finda Tengbeh should have a jacket like the rest so that we see the signature thereon". I r e fe r to the Court's instructions thereafter that "the Prosecutor tenders the Pass port jacket for Ms. Tengbeh re Count 43".

 

1. I refer to the Court's hand writing expert's testimony especially  on page  46  of  the  Judge's  notes  where  he  acknowledged   receipt  of, among other documents, an Application Form A w it h serial numbers, 027575 in respect of Ms. Tengbeh, allegedly sign ed by A3 which the Court Expert Witness  marked  as  his  Exhibit  C3.  The  Court  notes  that   the   Exhibit marked C3 by the Court Expert witness is the same as Exhibit QQQ2-4.

 

1. The Court refers to the testimony of the  Handwriting  Expert  witness of the 15th and 22nd May 2019 on pages 44 to 55 of the Judge's notes and especially his conclusions on page 49 and in  Exhibit  0001-5 where he said that the similarities in Exhibits C3, KIO, MM3, LL3 and J--IIIHl-31 when compared to A3's specimen signature as in Exhibit G, are not sufficient to conclude on a similarity or dissimilarity   in  authors hip. I refer to page 52 of the Judge's not es where the Court expert witness said "it is not easy to say A3 was the author". 1 sense a doubt cast by the Court witness as to whether or not the A3 signed Exhibit QQQ2, 4 and 7

 

1. It is also not correct as the Prosecutor stated in his Fina l Address that Counsel for A3 never contested the authorship of Exhibit QQQ2 and 4 when they were tendered by PW1. I must state at this juncture that on the 22nd May 2019, after the testimony of the expert Court Witness, PW1 continued his testimony before the Court. I  refer to page 52 of  the Ju dg e's notes where PW1 was about to tender Exhibit QQQl-7, Gevao Esq said: "We object on that document being tendered on the grounds that the authorship of same is in dispute". The note s  show that the objection was overruled and Exhibit QQQ 1-7 was admitted, advisedly, for reference and completion of the records, this being a Court of law and facts.

 

1. It is A3's right to rely on his statement he made to the ACC. Why would he not rely on his statement? He must have known that the burden is

 

 

 

 

 

35

 

J j ' '

 

 

on the Prosecution to prove his signature on the contested documents. The Court's Expert witness advises by his testimony and Report as in Exhibit 0001-5 that it will be unsafe to convict the A3 on the disputed Exhibits NN3, LL3, MM3 and QQQl-7 especially QQQ2, QQQ4· and 7. I am guided by the Court's Handwriting Expert. Appreciating that I am not a handwriting expert. I remind myself that if there is any doubt on my mind, as to the guilt or otherwise of any of the Accused persons, in respect of any or all of the charges in the Indictment, I have a duty to acquit and discharge the said Accused person of  that  charge  or charges. Jam also mindful of the principle that even if I do not believe the version of events put forward by the Defence, I must give it the benefit of L11e doubt ii' the Prosecution has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

16.1.4·. I have above slated the law as it relates to the offence of conspiracy as charged contrary to Section 128(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act  No. 12 of 2008. I have also stated the Court position that Section 128(1) does create a statutory offence of conspiracy.

 

16.1.5. I refer to paragraph 95 on page 29 of the Prosecutor's Final Address where the Prosecutor states that PW8, Mr. Olu Campbell and PWl1, Mrs. Khadijatou Bassir were unfavorable witnesses. It appears to me that Counsel knows that the Prosecution failed to prove the charge of Conspiracy charged in Count 39 touching on the A3.

 

1. The records show that PWl was an investigator; he was a formal witness. PWl never told the Court that he was present when A2 and A 3conspired and with other persons unknown to commit a corruption  offence  neither has Counsel pointed to any inference that can be made by the Court from evidence adduced thatA3 conspired with A2 or  with  other  persons unknown to commit a corruption offence. If the Prosecutor tells me that PW8 and PWll on whom he relied were not helpful to his case, I wonder which part of PW8 and/or PWl l's testimony Counsel urge the Court to consider in making a finding  other  than  one  of  'nol  guilty'  against  the  A3 in respect of Count 39.

 

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, I R ETURN THE FOLLOW I NG VERDI CT:

 

Al

Count 1 - Guilty

Co u n t 2 - Guilty Count 3 - Guilty Count 4 - Guilty Count 5 - Guilty Count 6 - Guilty Count 7 - Guilty Count 8 - Guilty

Count 9 - Guilty Count 10 - Guilty

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Count 11- Guilty Count 12 - Guilty Co un t 14 - Guilty Co un t 15 - Guilty Count 16- Guilty Count 17 - Guilty Count 18 - Guilty Count 19 - Guilty Count 20 - Guilty Count 21 - Guilty Count 22 - Guilty Count 23 - Guilty Count 24 - Guilty Count 25 - Guilty Count 26 - Guilty Count 27 - Guilty Count 28- Guilty Count 29 - Guilty Count 30 - Guilty Co u n t 31 - Guilty Count 32 - Guilty Count 33 - Guilty Count 34 - Guilty

 

AZ

Count 35 - Not Guilty Count 36 - Not Guilty Count 37 - Not Guilty Count 38 - Not Guilty Count 39 - Not Guilty

 

A3

Count 39 - Not Guilty Count 40 - Not Guilty Count 41 - Not Guilty Count 42 - Not Guilty Co un t 43 - Not Guilty

 

 

 

 

 

 

..............................................)......J....A...............................

Ho no u r a ble Justice Miatta Maria Samba, J.A

 

 

37