S v. Ibrahim Smart Kamara ([node:field-casenumber]) [2007] SLHC 7 (12 February 2007);



HOLDEN AT FREETOWN Criminal Jurisdiction



Coram: Shuster J

Mr. A.K. Barber for the Prosecution

Mr. A. S. Sesay and Mr. I Kanu for the accused

Judgment delivered 12th February 2007



The defendant is charged in an Indictment dated 26th June 2006 signed by the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, in accordance with the provisions of section 48 (1) of the Anti Corruption Act 2000 (as amended) the Accused faces two allegations of Misappropriation of Public Funds; involving allegations of the loss of 1,600,087.00 Leon, belonging to the GOSL The prosecution says funds were misappropriated whilst the accused was employed as a Ministry of Education Paying Officer at Makolo in the Northern Province of Sierra Leone. The first offence is alleged to have been committed between 01-09-03 and the 31-12-2003. The Second offence is alleged to have been committed between 01-01- 2004 and the 31-06-2004. These are serious offences because the allegations involve breach of trust by a public servant, who had control of public funds during the time shown in the Indictment.


Count one.

IBRAHIM SMART KAMARA on a date unknown between the 1st day of September 2003 and the 31st day of December 2003 in Makolo in the Northern Province of Sierra Leone misappropriated the sum of Leone 464,302.00, being an amount from a public fund, meant for the payment of salaries to teachers by which said act of misappropriation the Government of Sierra Leone was deprived of funds belonging to it.


IBRAHIM SMART KAMARA on a date unknown between the 1st day of January 2004 and the 31 st day of June 2004 in Makolo in the Northern Province of Sierra Leone misappropriated the sum of Leone 1,135,785..00 being an amount from a public fund, meant for the payment of salaries to teachers by which said act of misappropriation the Government Of Sierra Leone was deprived of funds belonging to it.

The offences are contrary to Section 12.[2].of the Anti-Corruption Act of 2000[as amended]


A person misappropriates public revenue, public funds or property if he willfully commits an act whether by himself, with or through another person, by which the government, a public corporation or, a local authority is deprived of any revenue, funds or other financial interests, or property belonging or due to the government; the public corporation or local authority.


Punishment is defined by section 41 of the Anti-Corruption Act [as amended] which states:- Any person who is guilty of an offence under section 12 shall on conviction be sentenced to a fine of not more than 30 million Leone or to a term of imprisonment up to TEN YEARS or to both fine and imprisonment. IN ADDITION the court SHALL order the forfeiture of the advantage corruptly acquired.


The accused appeared before the High Court on the 6th July 2006 where he was arraigned. The court accepted trial of this matter would be by judge alone. The accused pleaded hot guilty to the charges as is his right, and a trial date was set for Tuesday the 26th September 2006 at both prosecution and defence request. Disclosure was ordered of all material relevant to the case.


In considering this my judgment I consider and apply the following leading cases widely known throughout the Commonwealth. These cases are routinely applied in common law jurisdictions for offences; or allegations involving misappropriation Of public funds, larceny or cases involving dishonesty. They are to be applied here in Sierra Leone.

[a] R v BARRlCK 1986 7 Cr AR [s]. For allegations which might concern allegations Of Breech of Trust. It is trite law that a servant or an agent owes a high duty of care to his employer to carry out his duties properlys and more


important honestly. The higher up the scale one goes in a company, or organization, the higher the degree of responsibility is imputed in him by law; because without trust; the business world and all organs of government would be in chaos.

[b] R V GHOSH 1982 2 ALLER 689. Is the well known test for Dishonesty, which states; "it is dishonest for a defendant to act in a way which he knows ordinary people consider to be dishonest; even if he himself asserts or genuinely believes he is morally justified; in acting as he did."

[c] R v GOMEZ 1993 I ALLER 1. Authority for the well established test of; appropriation and or, misappropriation of property. This is a Leading House of Lords case which all legal practitioners in Sierra Leone should read, consider understand and apply in cases such as this.

[d] MACHENT v QUINN 1970 2ALLER 255 DC. It is not necessary to prove all the articles or values mentioned in the indictment to have been stolen, if it is

proved that the defendant stole any one of them.

[e] R v PARKER 53 Cr App R 289 CA per Donaldson at page 229. It is submitted that the jury must be agreed on which particular item or value was



Modern Law says I must consider and apply to any case before me, A defendant's good character directive" that is to say, good character cannot of

itself provide a defence to a criminal charge but it is evidence which I should take into account when I come to consider my verdict. See: R v Vye, Wise and

Stephenson 97 Cr App R 134: R v Aziz and others [1995 2 Cr App R 478. In this particular case I chose to consider and to apply a defendant's good character



As this is a trial before a Judge alone; I certify I have directed myself in accordance with the Law on the Burden and Standard of Proof in a Criminal Case. Where appropriate I have given the accused the benefit of doubt. The prosecution brings this case; they must prove this case beyond any reasonable doubt, so that I am sure the accused committed the offences. A defendant does not have to prove anything; as he is innocent until proven guilty. I have examined in detail all the exhibits tendered in this case.


The prosecution says the accused was at all material time the Paying Officer for the Port Loko School District. They allege that during the course of his employment he misappropriated the salaries of [1] Reverend Samuel KALOKOH and [2] his wife Wulaimato KALOKOH by not paying them their teacher's salary, owed during the two periods shown in this Indictment. They allege the accused forged signatures on documents used for an accounting purpose. They say their case is strong and ask me to convict the accused; on both counts.



The defence says the accused was acting under orders and was authorized to withhold the salaries of Reverend Kaloku and his wife, because he was no longer employed in the school in Makoloh. They say he obtained authority from his supervisors in the Education Ministry, and he is not guilty of these charges They say he misappropriated nothing, because he returned money to the Consolidated Fund, via the Bank of SL in 2004.


Nine Exhibits were tendered in this case:-

EXHIBIT A: - The ACC Interview Form dated 15-09-04

EXHIBIT B: - The Charge Statement dated 12-10-05

EXHIBIT C: - A letter dated 21-04-04

EXHIBIT D: - Payment Vouchers

EXHIBIT E: - A receipt dated 24-12-04

EXHIBIT F: - A receipt dated 16-09-04

EXHIBIT G: - A letter dated 10-05-04

EXHIBIT H: - A letter dated 21-06-04

EXHIBIT J, [1-5] GOSL receipts.


The court heard testimony from the following witnesses. PW1 ZAINAB OTHMAN

PW 1 was principal Investigating Officer for the Ant Corruption Commission, assigned to investigate this case. He started an investigation against the accused when he received a complaint from Reverend Kaloko and his wife in 2004. He took a number of witness statements and interviewed the accused on 15-09-2004. [EXHIBIT A] PW1 testified during the interview the accused admitted signing for and receiving the salaries of both Revered and Mrs. Kaloku for the period September 2003 to June 2004. That is why he was charged with the two offences on the 12-10-2005. The accused's Voluntary Caution Statement was not challenged by the Defence it went into evidence by consent. EXHIBIT B is the Accused's Charge Sheet; it was also admitted by consent.


PW2 is the Principal of The Industrial Technical Training Center in Wellington, which Reverend Kalokoh and his wife transferred to in September 2003. PW2 testified when a teacher transfer to another school, there is an arrangement with the Ministry of Education that the teacher's former school will continue to pay that


teachers salary until all necessary administrative arrangements were put in place and the formal transfer was complete. This applied to all grant aided schools. PW2 said this was common knowledge. When Reverend Kalokoh PW4 complained about not receiving his [and his wife's salary] PW2 wrote a letter to the accused on behalf of the alleged victims, the letter is EXHIBIT C


PW3 gave evidence he was at all material times attached to the Archive Office at the Accountant General's Officer in Freetown. He produced seven [7] archived payment vouchers for the Port Loko District Education District marked Exhibit's D1-7. These documents relate to teachers salary payments made during the times shown in the Indictment. They were admitted by consent. It is trite law documents in evidence stand on their own.


PW4 testified he has been employed as a teacher since 1993. The accused was PW4's paying officer, and based in Port Loko. PW4 testified he was employed as the head teacher in Makolo which is approximately 47 miles from Port Loko. His wife was also employed as an assistant teacher, and worked alongside him at the same school. In September 2003 they both moved schools to work in a secondary school at Waterloo, working under PW2 who was the school's Head Teacher. PW4 said it was government policy whenever a teacher changed schools, if the teacher worked in a government assisted school and transferred to another government assisted school; and the teacher's name had not been deleted from the previous schools register; then that teacher had the right to go back to his previous school to claim his or her salary; pending the completion of all necessary paperwork. PW4 testified he did not receive payment of his salary from the accused, neither did his wife. As a result of continued non payment of their salaries, PW4 complained to the accused, and to an official at the Ministry of Education. PW4 was given a complementary card by an official at the Ministry which he took back to the accused. PW4 again asked for their salaries, but he testified did not receive payment. PW4 identified Exhibit D a letter written by PW2 on his behalf to the Ministry of Education. As a result of not obtaining his/her salary PW4 reported the matter to the Anti Corruption Commission. The ACC carried out an investigation. PW4 continued to pursue the matter. PW4 testified at a point in time he was told by the accused, QUOTE "That a payment voucher was missing at the bank" PW4 gave evidence that on the16th August 2004 Some 11 months later PW4 testified he received a part-payment of his salary, the sum 300.000.00 Leone from the accused. His salary was supposed to be 291.000.00 Leone [per month] his salary later was increased to 305.000.00 Leone per month. PW4 told the court he was due FIVE [5] months salary as back pay. When he received this part-payment of 300.000.00 Leone from the accused, he signed for the money on a blank A4 paper, EXHIBIT E.


PW4 testified he never signed EXHIBIT D1-7. He saw his name and signature on the documents, at the ACC Office and in court but he testified it was not his signature. He Quoted "I never did receive one single cent from him, at the time."


The witness PW4 came over to me as a very truthful witness. He is educated he was clear in his mind what had occurred. He spoke clearly. He was unshaken in his cross examination and as a result of observing his and listening to his testimony I accept his evidence in its entirety and accept its truthfulness..

PW5 Wulaimatu KALOKOH

PW5 had been a teacher for the past 12 years. She is married to PW4. She testified the accused was a paying officer for Port Loko School District for teacher's salaries when she worked in Makolo. She testified she was not paid her teachers salary for about nine months. She told me she gave instructions to her husband PW4 to collect her salary, as they were man and wife, and as worked together. She corroborated her husband's version of events that they changed schools in September 2003 and as a result she was not paid what she was due. She denied a defence assertion that the accused told her she was not eligible to receive a salary. PW5 confirmed she made a complaint to the ACC over non payment of her salary.


I fully accept PW'5 evidence and in its entirety she corroborated her husband, description of the facts in this particular case. She is an honest witness.

The prosecution closed its case. 12. THE DEFENCE CASE

At the close of the prosecution case I explained the accused's rights, to him. That is to say he could either:-

[1] Go into the witness box and give evidence as others had done during this trial.

[2] To remain silent, because the prosecution brings this case and they must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt so that I am sure, an accused does not have to do or say anything.

[3] To give a verbal [or hand in a written] statement from the well of the court.

[4] To rely upon his Voluntary Caution Statement and

[5] To call any witnesses on his behalf.

The accused indicated he understood his rights before the law. He was told he could speak with his lawyer and I would adjourn for a short while to allow him to


do that. I informed him the decision to give evidence or not, was for him to make. The accused was later asked if he wishes to give evidence to the court. He indicated he did and indicated he would be calling a number of witnesses for his defence. The same principles apply when it comes to hearing evidence from the defendant [and his witnesses] the defendant and his witnesses are to be treated exactly the same as any other witness was for the prosecution they are given equal time and weight.


The accused gave evidence on oath that he got to know Rev Kaloko in 2002. He accepted that Rev Kalokoh changed jobs in September 2003. Together with his wife they transferred to a secondary school in Waterloo. The accused admitted he prepared all necessary payment vouchers as part of his duties. He said when he has paid the salaries he took the vouchers back to the Treasury. He tendered EXHIBIT G which is a letter he wrote to the Inspector of Schools to get instructions on what to do about the payment of salaries to PW4 and PW5. Exhibit G is dated 10th May 2004 which is NINE months after Rev Kalokoh and his wife left the first school. The accused received a reply to his letter dated the 4th June [I ask myself why it took so long to write a reply] The accused tendered Exhibit's J1-5 which purports to show monies paid back into the GOSL Revenue account via the Bank of Sierra Leone;-

• The first receipt is for January, February and March 2004 payments/for 1,500.00.00 Leone. The amount was paid into Revenue on the 27th September 2004. against Receipt Number AG 11945

• The second receipt is for 90,000.00 Leone paid into Revenue on 12th October 2004 against Receipt Number AG 12206

• The third receipt is for May for 380,000.00 Leone and was paid into revenue on 28th September 2004 against Receipt Number AG 11960

• The fourth and last receipt for June and July is a Bank of Sierra Leone Paying-in-slip for June-July for 828,000.00 Leone and it is date stamped on the 14th September 2004

The accused testified he made loans to Rev Kaloko shown as EXHIBIT E, because he [Rev Kalokoh] was in his words "Suffering," in September October and November and August. He said there were conditions to repay the loan. Contrast the fact, he stated in his VCS interview in answer to question 29 that Rev Kaloko, was no where to be seen. In cross examination the accused accepted he answered question 30, and said he made loans in private to Rev Kaloko. Rev Kaloko said nothing in his testimony whatsoever to the court about receiving loans. He only said he received a part payment of salary and that was on the 16th September 2004 AND WAS JUST UNDER ONE YEAR AFTER HE LEFT MALOKO


DW2 and DW 3

I heard testimony from DW 2 and DW 3 who were the accused's supervisors. Their testimony is fully recorded in my notes. DW2 is the Deputy Director of Education in charge of Port Loko District, he testified as to his duties. He sent a letter of release to Rev Kaloko, and he identified various documents to the court. DW2 was not aware of any loan provisions between the accused and Rev Kaloko as that was he said a private matter. He accepted if salaries are not claimed by anyone they should go back into the Revenue Account or the consolidated fund. DW2 Is a teacher in Port Loko he explained he has known the accused and the alleged victims in this case since 2003 He described the accused's duties and indicated his duties was as a supervisor for Inspectors of School Districts in Port Loko. He told the court the procedures when a teacher leaves a school to move to another grant aided school. He talked about the procedure for letters of Release, and he indicated the accused was still working for the Ministry in Port Loko. He testified he had no cause to question the accused. In Cross Examination, he accepted if the accused had made a loan contract between Rev Kalokoh and himself that was a private contract. DW2 accepted the Rules were that if salaries were not claimed they go back to revenue.




THE LAW, says that it is a fundamental condition of the admissibility in evidence against any person, equally of any oral answer given by that person to a question put by a police officer and of any statement made by that person, that it shall have been made voluntary, in the sense that it has not been obtained from him by fear of prejudice or hope or advantage, exercised or held out by a person in authority, or by oppression. The Principle I have set out above is overriding and applicable in all cases. Non-conformity with these principles may render answers and statements liable to be excluded from evidence in subsequent criminal proceedings.


In this case Exhibit A1-9 is the VCS of the accused consisting of nine [9] pages, was admitted by consent of all parties. As it was freely admitted by consent it stands on its own. Now the accused was interviewed on the 15th September 2003 at the Offices of the Anti Corruption Commission. He answered a total of forty-two questions under caution, and signed his name against each and every answer. The accused stated in his VCS by way of background information that he was a Finance Clerk employed by the Ministry of Education Science and Technology he had been employed by the Ministry since the 6th September 1976. He described his duties, for example he was to prepare vouchers for D E C


Schools in Port Loko and make returns to the Treasury Department after payments of salaries were made. The accused confirmed he had worked in this capacity as a paying officer in Port Loko for approximately 18 months on the date of his VCS [15-09-04] he confirmed he knew both prosecution witnesses. [PW4 and PW5] who were employed as head teacher, and assistant teacher respectively at MAKOLOH School. He testified they each received payment of salaries until December 2003 and he was their paying officer and he confirmed both transferred to a school in Waterloo in September 2003.


I turn now to analyze in some detail the Question and Answers contained in the accused's VCS.

•Question No. 14. What was the last month that Rev Kalokoh received his salary? Answer: - December 2003.

• Question No. 18. When did she [Mrs. Kalokoh] receive salary? Answer: - In 2003 December.

• Question 21 asks the accused when he was shown documents,; "Will it surprise you to learn that Mr. Kalokoh said it was not him that signed for his salary for this month, and that it was not his wife that signed either? The accused's answer was ""It was Mr. Kalokoh that signed for himself and his wife on this exhibit, and I paid the two salaries to him, that was Leone 357,025.00.

• In answer to Question 24 the accused was shown exhibit SBNK/4 a payment voucher for January 2004 and was asked who signed for both Mr. Kalokoh and his wife? His answer was, "Mr. Kalokoh; to be candid has always been my friend and he gave me the mandate to be signing for his and his wife's salary, since January 2004, AND I HAVE BEEN TAKING CUSTODY OF THEIR SALARIES"

• Asked in question 25, "Is there a written authority to the effect mandating you to collect their salaries? He replied; "No, it was a verbal authority from Mr. Kalokoh."

• In question 29, I now show you Exhibit SBNK/5 being payment vouchers for March 2004, who signed and collected both the salaries of Mr. Kalokoh and his wife? He answered, "/ did it on their behalf, as per the verbal authority of Mr. Kalokoh gave me. I was in custody of their two salaries as Mr. Kalokoh was no where to be seen."

• Asked in question 30, "What happened to their salaries for the months of February 2004, May, June, July and August 2004? He replied,, "These salaries for the above including others were in my custody. According to the memo ACC Exhibit Z01,1 was informed by Mr. Kano about their unclaimed salaries, but he told me to withhold, but the Director Mr. Ibrahim Kalokoh and the Inspector Mr. M. S. Kanu told me to pay it into Revenue."


• The accused accepted in answer to question 32, as paying authority what is the procedure for one to sign for somebody's behalf on payment vouchers? He answered; "It is through written authority from the person, wishing the other to do it on his behalf, and the person doing it on his behalf signs for it on the payment voucher.

• Asked in question 34, ""Why haven't you been signing for all throughout, but instead you were signing directly against their names? He replied, "ITS JUST BECAUSE OF THE INTAMACY BETWEEN US THAT I WAS FORGING HIS SIGNATURE ON HIS BEHALF AND ALSO DOING IT FOR HIS WIFE."

• Asked in response to question 35, don't you consider this to be an offence? He replied, "YES NOW THAT I KNOW."

• Asked in reference to question 38 I am now putting it to you that you misappropriated these monies, but it is only after you smelled the rat that is knowing the matter is under investigation that you ran and paid these monies? He answered, "NOT EXACTLY. I should have paid these monies, BUT, I was only waiting for instructions from my bosses."

• When asked in question 40 if he misappropriated 3,129,400 Leone he admitted he paid Leone 1,970.00.00 Leone into Revenue which he says was reflected in Exhibit 20-3, 4 and 5 respectively.

• The accused when he was asked do you wish to make a statement in answer to question 42 said. "The only thing I need to clarify is the December 2003 salary. I was not the one who signed for those two salaries, but Rev Kalokoh."


The answers given by the accused to these questions contained in the Accused's own VCS are the central Issues in this case in determining whether the accused is guilty or not guilty of misappropriating public funds. Applying the test for dishonesty enunciated in the case of R v GHOSH. I must ask myself at the very least the following question[s]

• If a person has been employed for 18 months as a Paying Officer for the Ministry of Education Science and Technology, if he forges another's persons signature on a document [or form] used [or kept] for an accounting purpose; and ,if he forges those same signatures again and again; in what is known as a continuing course of conduct, then if I am a reasonable honest person and I apply the universal test for Dishonesty, can that persons actions, the forgeries which the person admits doing ,in an official VCS be taken to show there is evidence of a dishonest act and his dishonest intention, and does this provide the court with evidence of his willful dishonesty?

• Do his actions by forging signatures and names on accounting documents go even further, and show an intention that the person meant to


dishonestly misappropriate public property for which he had a duty to account; and are his actions aggravated by being committed repeatedly over a fairly long period of time?

Applying any form of common sense the short answer is,


In my view the accused convicted himself by his CLEAR admissions contained in his VCS. The accused admitted in his VCS forging Rev Kalokoh [and his wife's] signatures, on documents used by the GOSL for an accounting purpose more than once.

Any document used to record payment of money particularly if it is a salary payment is an important document. The law is very clear. The law says, a document is forged,

• IF IT TELLS A LIE ABOUT ITSELF The accused admits in his VCS he forged Rev Kalokho's signature AND the signature of his wife

• Accordingly I conclude this is very clear evidence of the accused's blatant dishonesty and of his misappropriation of government funds over a considerable period of time.


EVERY SIGNING OFFICER OF WHATEVER STATUS OR RANK has a duty to account honestly and accurately, for all monies in his [or her] care custody or control. The duty to account for monies or in this case salary which is then paid out on a monthly basis. MUST BE:-

• That public money is to be accounted, for at the end of each and every calendar month and, that is without exception.

• The same principle must apply to weekly paid persons the duty to account must be weekly.

For example money kept back, or not paid out in the month of January 2007 for any reason whatsoever, must at the very least be PAID EITHER:-

 [1] Paid to whom it belongs, is due or owing and be paid out within one calendar month [i.e.] by the last working day of February 2007 [if the due date is the last day of the month] .or

• [2] Be returned from whence it came; in this case be paid back to the GOSL Consolidated Fund within or no later than 30 days from the due date of due payment.


Any person who is a:-


• Paying Officer, or Accounting Officer of the GOSL,

• Or of any other Agency to which section 12 of the ACC Act of 2000 [as amended] APPLIES;

• Who keeps in his or her care, custody or control:


• Public money whatsoever,

• WITHOUT [either]

• PAYING IT PROPERLY against receipt to whom it intended or,

• If not collected and signed for, by that person,

• Who fails to transmit, it on a RETURN basis and

• BANK IT within 30 days and against official receipt,

IS AT THE VERY LEAST {in the absence of extenuating circumstances?}



It is no defence for this accused or for ANYONE else to say I was waiting for instructions from higher up, on what to do with the money. The duty of [honest] accountability for all public funds is a personal one; and it applies to each and every single Accounting or Paying Officer here in Sierra Leone.


• I find as a fact the accused was at all material times a GOSL paying Officer for Port Loko Education District, during the material times shown in this indictment.

• I find as a fact the accused had a duty to account honestly for all money held by him, for and on behalf of the GOSL, and, further that duty runs on a month to month continuing basis.

• I find as a fact the accused did not properly or honestly account for the money held in trust for and on behalf of the GOSL, for the payment of salaries to Rev and Mrs. Kalokoh, for and during the period shown in this indictment

• I find as a fact the accused deliberately and dishonestly forged the

signatures of Rev and Mrs. Kalokoh on payment vouchers [Exhibit D] and, that he admitted same in his VCS to Officers at the Anti Corruption Commission on the 15th September 2004.

• I find as a fact the VCS admitted by consent dated 15th September 2004 was a voluntary statement in the true sense of the word.


• I find the accused had no excuse whatsoever for keeping salaries of Rev Kalokoh and his wife, whilst he purportedly awaited instructions from his superior officers. That is NO DEFENCE to these charges.

• I find as a fact the accused failed to return monies belonging to the GOSL consolidated fund within [or no later than] 30 days of their non-payment to Reverend and Mrs. Kalokoh; [NB the employees were paid on a monthly basis.]

• I find as a fact the duty to properly and honestly account for public funds is a personal one, that duty cannot be abrogated to any other person.

• I find the as a fact the accused did not discharge his duties properly efficiently or at all, in dealing with the issue of non-payment of salaries to Rev and Mrs. Kalokoh, during the time frame shown in this indictment.

• Considering all the evidence, in particular when looking at the accused's admissions in his VCS to forging signatures on official documents, I find the accused GUILTY as charged of two counts of misappropriating public funds and GUILTY of both counts in this indictment. The prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt so that I am sure the accused committed these offences.

• I wish to say in my view, this accused should to have interdicted by his Department, after being charged with these serious criminal offences. The accused was arrested by the ACC in 2004 charged in 2005, and by his own admission he forged signatures used in accounting documents. Yet he was still employed in a position of trust in Port Loko. I am amazed at this course of action, simple amazed. Perhaps my comment might be brought to the attention of his Minister and Head of Department by the ACC.


I heard mitigation from Learned Defence Counsel, and the accused himself. The accused has six children his oldest is 30. He is the main breadwinner if he is sent to prison it will have an effect upon his family. [It usually does affect every person who is involved in white collar crime] I said in open court clearly what the accused did was wrong. His actions merit an immediate custodial sentence, because this case involves a clear breach of trust, and a continuing course of conduct. There is no doubt the accused deprived Rev Kalokoh and his wife of their salaries, for just short of one year and that the accused forged accounting document. I do take into account the fact the accused fully assisted ACC Officers in their investigation. I take into account the accused admitted these two offences when he was confronted by the ACC officers some time ago but ask myself why then did he maintain a not guilty plea? I cannot give him any credit for the time he spent in court fighting this case .I do recognize and accept he in no way delayed these proceedings, that I put down to [1] witness problems, and[2] the absence of lawyers both for the prosecution and the defence. I take into account the accused led an unblemished life to today's date, and the fact he is a first offender. I also take into account what the accused said to me when he


addressed the court that these were very difficult times; but that does not give any accused person, a right to misappropriate funds that do not belong to him ,or to forge accounting documents. However his conduct during his VC interview clearly mitigates any sentence I pass.

Looking at all the circumstances of this case I sentence Mr. KAMARA to a period of IMPRISONMENT for ONE YEAR concurrent on each of the two counts to run concurrently;-I WILL NOT SUSPEND THIS SENTENCE IN VIEW OF THE FACT OF THE FORGERY..

I order the accused repay to the Government of Sierra Leone, the sum of Le. 1,600.087.00 which is the amount misappropriated by noon on the 28th May 2007 the payment to be made through this The High Court. I further bind the accused over in the sum of one million Leone to come up for Judgment if he does not comply with this court order for the repayment of funds

Judge of the High Court 12TH February. 2007