RULING ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTION BY ALFRED PALO CONTEH AND MADINA S. RAHMAN - PERSONS OF INGTEREST

By a prclimin aty objection submitted to the Secretariat of this Comm iss ion Num ber One, Alfred Paolo Conteh and Madina S. Rahman  -  persons of interest are challenging the juri sdiction of this Commission to continue with its proceedings on the ground that the Constitutional Jnstrum ent No. 64 of 201t setting it up was inconsistent with the provisions of Section 150 of the 1991 Constitution of Siena Leone and therefore, invali d, null and void to the extent of the inconsistency by viitue of Section 171(15) of the 1991 Constitu tion of Sierra Leone. Further that the Commi ssion lacks the powers to make the Practice Direction to guide its proceedings in addition to the Rules of the High Cou1t of SieJTa Leone 2007 as adopted by the Commission.

On Monday, 11' h day of Februa1y 2019, counsel to the parties were dir ected to submit and exchange written addresses on the issues raised in the preliminary objection, and which direction has been complied with and the written addresses were duly adopted and adumbrated upon by counsel to the pa1ties.

 

RUU  NG fll ' /TON JUSTICE BTOJJELE GEORGEIVILL SITTING IN COMMIS SIONOF INQUIRY NO.  I FREETOWN

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have taken time to review and consider the submissions of  counsel  to  the  patties,  namely: Ady Macualey Esq., for the persons of interest and 0 . V. Robbin - Mason Esq.,  with Khadija Zainab Bangw-a Esq., and Gershom Maccaithy  Esq.,  for  the  State,  and  noted the judicial and statutory authorities relied upon by them a11d it does appear to me  that the only issue germane for determination in this preliminaiy  objection  is  whether having regards to all the circumstances as re]ied upon in the preliminary objection and considering the provisions of  Section  6  (1) and  (2)  of the  Constitutional Instrument  No. 64 of 2018, in the light of the provisions of Sections 150 and 171(15) of the 1991 Constitution of Siena Leone, this Commission of Inquiry is inval.id  by reason of Section 6(1) and (2) of the said Constitutional Instrument No. 64 of 2018, being inconsistent with  the provisions of Section 150 of the 1991 Constitution  of Sierra  Leone?

In considering  this  preliminary  objection,  J bear in mind from  the onset that  in  law  the is sue of competence is of utmost importance. This is so because where the requisite ju1isdiction to hear and entertain any matter is found to  be  lackin  g  by  reason  of  any  ground of inco mpetence , that is indeed the end of the matter and it does not matter how meritorious or even how painful or difficult the result may be on the party  whose  originating process turns out to be incompetent. This is so because in law without jurisdiction,  the  laborers that is the litigant and counsel on the one hand and   the

 

 

 

 

RULING BY HON .!UST/CE BIOBELE GEORGDVJJ,l, SITTING IN COMMISSION OF INQUIRY NO. 1 FREETOWN

 

Commission on the other hand labor in vam. lt is for this reason that the issue of competence, that is juri sdic tion, can even be raised suo motu by this Commission to ensure that matters before it are competent in order that the Commission does not end up acting in vain and in nullity if it turns out in the end that it indeed lacked the requisite competence  to have heard and determine the matters placed before it.

The law ha s been well se ttle d and it no longer admi ts of any arg um ent that jtirisdiction as estab lished within the remit is the ve1y basis and the life wire of eve1y matter and on which any Commission hears and makes its findings and recommendations to the appointing   authorities.   lt  is,   thus  metaphorically  speaking,   the   life   blood   of  all

proceedings before a Commission of lnqui1y , without  which  all  such  proceedings, findin gs and recommendati ons are a nullit y and it does not matt er how well or meticulous such a proceeding had been condu cted or how sound or profound the resultant findings and recommendations. lt is sim ply a nullity. May l take the liberty to cite the Nigeri"11 Court  of App eal decision  in Madukolu  V.  Nkem dilim  (1962)  2 SCNLR 341@) P 348.

In Macj,,y r,-: VA C Ltd. (1962) 1 AC I OO @ p. 160, the immortal words of the erudite law lord,  Lord Denning  springs fo1th thus:

"ff an act is void, then it is in  law a  nullity. it is not  only  bad, but incurably  bad.  There is no need for  an order < {  Court to set  it aside.  It is  automatically

11111/ and void without much ado, tltough it is sometimes convenient to htll'e an order declare it to be so. And eve1y proceeding which is founded on it is also

 

 

RULING 111'" !I ON JUS TICE B/0 /1ELE GEORGEWTLL SITTING IN COMMISS ION OF INQUll ff NO. I FREETOW N

1

 

 

 

 

bad and incurahly hall  You cannot put something on nothing and expect it  to

 

stay there. It will collapse"

 

In this vein, the question of jurisdiction is a fundamental and threshold issue and in the absence   of   which   there   can   be   no   validity   in    any    proceedings,    findings    and recom mendation s and th us can be raised  at  any stage of the proceedings even for the first  time  on  appeal  or  application  for  review  by  any  of  the  parties.  Thus,  once  the  issue   of

jurisdiction is raised, who or when or how it was raised is of no significance and should ordinary not give the Commission any concern and it must  be considered  and  resolved  first since it is indeed the epicenter of the entire adjudicatory process and goes to the competence  of the  Commission  to commence  or proceed  with  its  proceedings over any

matter  placed  before  it  and  looking  and  considering  the remit  as  to  the  matters set out

 

there under for this Commission to inquire in to, I ha ve  no  difficulty  stating  that  the subject matters of this inquir y are perfectly within the jurisdictional competence of this Comm ission and I so hold.

 

Having held as above, the next pertinent question is whether the subject matter of the prelimina1y objection is within the jurisdictional competence of this Commissi on to detennine as being urged upon it by the person of interest? To answer this question 1 have had recourse to the succinc t provisions of Section 124 (2) of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone and it does appear certain to me beyond any argument that the power to interpret the provisions of the 1991 Constitution of Siena Leone is one which is vested and resides exclusively in the Supreme Cowi of Sierra Leone, whose original juri sdiction

RULING BJ'  HON JUSTICE  BIOBELE GEORGEWI.Ll SITTING TN COMMISSION OF INQUIRY NO. 1 FREETOWN

4

 

it is. This Commission of lnqui1y is undo ubtedly not the Supreme Court of Sien-a Leone and therefore, in law lacks the jurisdictional competence to interpret the provisions of the 1991 Constit ution of SietTa Leone, inclu ding the issue raised by the person of interest in the prelimi nary objection touching on the  interpretation of Sections 150  and  171(15)  of the Constituti on  of Sierra Leone in the light of the provisions of Section 6(1)  and (2) of the Constit11tional Instrument No. 64 of 2018.

ow, having further he ld as above, can this Commi ss ion proceed to state a case for the determin ation of the Sup reme Comt and stay its proceedings pendin g the determination of the case stated by the Sup reme Court by virtue of Section 124(2) of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone as urged upon it by th e person of interest? While counsel to the person of interest had vehemently contended that this Commission has the powe r to so do as the only option open to it in the circumstances, it was equally the vehement contention of the counsel for the state that this Commission lacks the power to so do.

I ha ve taken tim e to carefull y go th rough the provisi ons of Section 12 4 of the 1 99 1 Constitution of Sie1Ta Leone and considered the submissions of coun sel to the parties. I have also gone through the provisions of Section 171( 1) of the  1991 Constitution  of Sierra Leone as to the meaning of the word "Court" as used in Section 124 of the 1991 Constitut ion of SieITa Leone and it does appear so clear to me, and l so hold, that this "Commi ssion of Inquiry" is not a "Court" within the provisions of  Section  124  of  the 1991  Constitution  of  Sieffa  Leone  as could  state  a case to  the Supreme Cornt  for its

 

 

RULING Br HON JUSTICE BIOJJELEGEORGEWILL SIT77NG IN COMMISSIO N OF INQUIRJ" NO. I FREETOWN

5

 

 

 

 

 

determination. By virtue of Section 171 ( 1) of the 1991 Constitution of SieITa Leone, a "Cowi means any Court of law i n Siena Leone including a Cow1 Ma1t ial)

1t is als o not in an y contention that this Commi ssion had not stated any case to the Supreme Court as requi red as a condi tion precedent for the invocation of Section 12 4 (2) of the 199 1 Constitution of Sierra Leone and having alr eady held that this Comm ission, not being a Court lacks the power to state a case to the Supreme Court, it follows therefore this Commi ssion would also lack the power to stay its proceedings on account of the provisions of Section 124 (2) of the 199 1 Constituti on of Sierra Leone. 1 so hold.

Furt hermore, and happil y, since once the persons of int erest had already submitted the subject matter of in terpretation of the provisions of Section I 50 of the 199 1 Constitution of Sierra Leone to th e Supreme Court for deten nination, it has become obvious that this Commission, which is inferior in eve1y material respect to the Sup reme CoUtt , c annot proceed to pronoun ce upon the merit or otherwise of the same issues fonniug the subject matter of th e claim s of one of the persons of in terest in this preliminmy objection.

Consequently, and by reason of the above findin gs, this preli min my objec tion is in my view itself inco mpetent and liable to be struck out. Accordingly, it is hereby struck out for being incompetent.

However, be the above decision of this Commission as it may, J havein the due exercise of caution not to fail to determine the issue placed before me at a ll on the merit, resolved to consider it in the merit, albeit briefly. Having considered the totality of the submi ss ions

 

RULING fJ.}  HON JUSTICE 11/ 0 BELEGEORGEWILL SITTING IN COMi\ll SS/0 .\' OF INQUIRJ' NO. 1 FU EETOW/1;

6

 

of counsel to the parties,  1  have  no  doubt  in  mind,  and  have  come  to  the  inescapable  conc lusion that the preli mina 1y objection of the persons  of  in terest  lacks  merit  and therefore,  ought to  be  dismissed  in  its  entirety by this Commission.

Tn ruTiving at the above ine sca pable co ncl usion, 1 have reasoned thus:

 

The provisions of Sec tion 150 of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone are ve1y clear and unambi guo us and therefore, needs no extrapolation  for  its  proper  interpretation  and application and does not in my view provide for the application of rules of evidence by a Commission of Tnquiry. All that Section 150 of the 1991  Constitution  of  Sierra  Leone  require s is the application of rules of practice and procedure mad e by the Rule s of Court Committee.  The  Sierra  Leone  Hi gh  Comt  Rul es  2007  was  made  on  3 l /5/2007  by  the Rul es  of  Co ur t C ommi ttee.  By Section  6( I) of  the  Constitutional  Instrument  No.  64  of 20 I 8, the  Sierra  Leone  High  CoUI1 Rules  2007  made  by  the  Rules  of  Comt  Committee was  made  applicable  to  this  Commission.  This  Commission  by  the  terms  of  its  remit  has a limited subject matter within  its  scope  of  jurisdiction  far  less  than  the  plenitude  of subject matters provided for  by  the SieITa Leone  High Court  Rules    2007.

For the above reason, this Commission cam1ot and is not in a  position  to apply  wholly  the provi sions of the Sierra Leone High  Court  Rules  2007  to  its  limi ted  subject  matter  but could  only  apply  the  said rule s  mutatis  mutandis  in  respect  of  all  relevant  provisions as are applicable to its proceedings. Therefore, it is my considered  view  and  I  so  hold  that Section  6(1)  of  the  Constitutional  lnstrument   No.   64  of  2018   merely  empowering     this

Commission   to  apply  the  Sierra   Leone  High  Court  Rules  2007  mutatis  mutandis     is

RULING llY IIO N JUSTICETJTOBELE GEORGEWILL SITTING IN COMMISS ION OF INQUJJ ff NO. 1 FREETOWN

7

 

 

 

 

 

neither illega l nor in any way incons is tent with the provisions of Section 150 of the 1991 Constitution of SieITa Leone as vehemently but eIToneously contended by counsel for the persons of in terest. Section 6(2) of the Constitutj onal Instrument No. 64 of 2018 which excludes the application of Rules of Evidence before this Commiss io n is not in any way inconsistent with the provisions of Section 150 of the 1 99 1 Consti tuti on of Sierra  Leone in that under the aforesaid Section  150  of  the  1991  Constitution  of Siena Leone  there is no provision requiring the application of rules of  evidence  by  Commissions  of  Inquiry . This is so because Rule s of Evid enc e pract ices is not and does not cons titut e pa1i of the Ru le s of practice  and procedure as provided for by Section  150 of the  1991 Cons tit ution of Sierra  Leone.

Conseq uently, and by reaso n of the above , it is my firm view and I so hold  that Section 6(2) of the Constitutional I nstrument No. 64 of 2018 is neither inconsiste nt  with  the provisio ns of Section 150 of the Constitution of  SietTa  Leone  nor illega l in  any  manner and therefore, valid in la w.

At any rate, I am of the firm view that even if assu ming but  no t so  dec id in g  that Section 6(1) and (2) of the Co nstitutio nal Instrument No. 64 of 2018 is inco nsistent with the provision of Section 150 of the  19 9 1  Constitution  of  Sierra  Leone,  under  the  laws  of Sien a Leone such an  Act  of Parliam ent  is not rendered  wholly  invalid but only  to the  ex tent of the incons istency. Consequently, even if Section 6 (1) and  (2)  of  the Constitutional Instrument No. 64 of 2018 is asswned  but no so holding  to  be inconsistent with Section 15 0 of the 1991 Constitution of SieITa Leone, it is o nly 1he afo resa id Sectio n

RULING BJ" HO N JUSTICE BIOBELE GEORGEWILL SITTING IN COMAI/SSION OF INQU IRY NO. 1 FREETOWN

8

 

6(1) and (2) of the Constitutional Instrument No. 64 of 2018 that would be rendered invalid by virtue of Section 171 (15) of the 1991 Constitution of Siena Leone and not the entire Constitutional Instrument No. 64 of 2018 . Thus, Sections I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of Constitutional Instrument o. 64 of 2018 which remained unaffected by the provision of Section 150 of the 1991 Constitution of Sien-a Leone and therefore, remained valid and thereby rendered this Commission valid in law as duly established by the Parliament of Sierra Leone.

By reason of all I have stated and found as above, 1 hold finnly that Constitutional lnstTument No. 64 of 20 I8 is in law valid and therefore, this Commission of lnqui1y is both legal and valid under the laws of Sie1rn Leone. See Section 147 of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone which vested the power and authority to do so on the President of the Republic of Sierra Leone.

In the result, the prelimina1y objection challenging the jurisdiction of this Commission by Alfred Palo Conteh and Madina S. Rahman is hereby struck out for being incompetent and or dis missed in its entirety for lacking in merit.

Hon Justice Sir BiobeleAbraham Cieor•  will!c,1.1:;    °I

C'fzairman and Sole Commissioner

 

 

 

 

 

RULING IJY /ION JUS 11CE BTOBELE GEORGEWILL SITTING IN COMMISSION OF INQUIRY NO. 1 FREETOWN

9

 

COUNSEL:

 

Ady 1Wacauley  Esq.,.for the Persons of Interest

 

0. J< Robbin - Mason EwJ., with Khadija Zainab Bangura Esq., and ( ,'ershom

McCarthy  Esq., for the State