By Janet A Sesay
Defence counsel Roland Wright representing the second accused, Sahr Anthony Sinnah in the treason trial, has urged the jurors to dispense justice fairly.
Mr Wright made the appeal when he was making his final address before Justice Momoh Jah Stevens on behalf of his client.
The second accused was arraigned in court alongside, Alfred Paolo Conteh and Prince George Hughes, first and second accused respectively for treason related offences.
Counsel Wright told the court that his clients’ lives were at stake and that they should decide between truth and false.
While making his final address, Counsel Wright laid foundation by making reference to the treason charge of the first accused being the precursor for subsequent charges.
The defence counsel reminded the court that the prosecution charged the first accused, Paolo Conteh with treason which had to do with assassinating President Julius Maada Bio.
He argued that: “There is no law that says assassination of the President is treason.”
Counsel Wright submits that assassination of a President is murder and not treason.
At this point, the defence counsel went on; the matter should come to an end as the prosecution cannot establish what treason is.
Counsel Wright defined treason as the means of overthrowing the entire government noting that it was one “wrong part” of the prosecution for failing to establish the offence of treason.
Mr Wright compared the treason charge to a tasteless food the prosecution has prepared and would not like to eat.
“The prosecution has cooked a food that they cannot eat because it is tasteless and they want the jurors to eat it,” Mr Wright submitted.
Evidence, Counsel Wright went on, indicated that he stopped at the gate and his name was ticked.
He also submitted that he went in State House and passed through the scanner and went through the reception desk and handed over his bag containing the pistol to the officers who directed him upstairs.
“There is no evidence in court that the first accused, Alfred Paolo Conteh was instructed to put his bag on the scanner or was instructed to pass through the metal detector,” he said. Defence counsel further submitted that the three police witnesses told the court that it was Sergeant Gima who intercepted the first accused to scan his bag.
Counsel Wright told the court Sergeant Gima told the court that he saw the first accused speaking with the officers.
“As defence, we did not know who is speaking the truth as the prosecution witnessed contradicted themselves,” he argued.
The defence counsel also brought in the issue of the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) which, he said was relevant to the trial to the trial.
The CCTV video footage, he said, would have provided a true account of what transpired at State House between the first accused and the police officers on 19th March, this year.
Defence counsel also submitted that the matter would have ended long time ago, if the CCTV had been produced in court.
The defence counsel told the court that people were not happy because the President called the first accused to help in the fight against Corona Virus pandemic.
He addressed the jurors that the second accused, Sahr Anthony Sinnah was charged with aiding and abetting and procuring which, he said were two different things.
Counsel Wright argued that the prosecution alleged that the second accused issued license to the first accused in a day but said that it was not possible for a license to be issued to a person in one day because they were many processes to go through.
“The prosecution has refused to accept the difference between application for a new licence and renewal of a license,” defence counsel submitted.
Counsel Wright further explained to the court that the first accused, Paolo Conteh went to the commission for renewal of a licence.
What the prosecution has failed to establish, Counsel Wright submitted, when all processes were completed, Haja Fatmata, one of the witnesses would forward the forms to the commissioner for official stamp.
If the Commissioner is not available, Counsel said, the second accused who is the Deputy Commissioner would stamp the file and issue the licence.
In the issuance of the licence, he went on; the second accused committed no crime.
“Under the Small Arms Commission Act, if the Commissioner is absent, the Deputy Commissioner takes over the administration of the commission. Therefore, it is not illegal or wrong for the second accused to issue the licence,” Counsel Wright submitted.
He said the commissioner admitted in court that he depended on his Deputy to do his work most times if he was out of the country.
“Today, the second accused is charged with the offence of treason for doing his job even though the job he did was based on what the law says,” he submitted.
He argued that the second accused was not supposed to be in the dock for performing his work.
Mr Wright told the court that the second accused rose to the rank of Colonel in the Sierra Leone Army, and served the commission as Deputy Commissioner for the past twelve years without any problem.
In his submission, the defence counsel also took on the prosecution on what constituted a public place.
The prosecution, he said, did not believe their case as they did not even know what a public place is.
The defence counsel defines a public as a place where people move up and down freely.
State House is a restricted place,” the defence counsel submitted.
Counsel Wright therefore urged the jurors to think before passing verdict on the accused as the crime of treason carries the death penalty.
He concluded that all what the prosecution had said in their evidence, there was no amount of treason.
Counsel Amadu Koroma who is representing the third accused, Prince George Hughes submitted that throughout the trial, there was no evidence that touched on the third accused.
Counsel Koroma however told the court that the closing address of State Prosecutor, Adrian Fisher indicated that if the third accused had not stood as guarantor for the first accused to license his pistol, the first accused would not have taken a loaded weapon to State House.
“Looking at all the evidence, the third accused has no business in the dock and when the charges were read to him he pleaded not guilty of the offence,” Counsel Koroma emphasised.
He continued that the third accused was charged on two counts and that in count twelve, he was charged with the second accused on the offence of abetting the commission.
In Count thirteen, state counsel said, he was charged with making false statements on oath contrary to section 31 of the Perjury Act 1911.
He submitted that both counts should be dismissed because the prosecution was not supposed to charge both accused persons on one count as they performed different duties on different dates in obtaining the licence.
He said the two witnesses from the commission never testified that the third accused made false statements on oath while signing as referee for the first accused.
“What the commissioner wanted to know was whether the third accused knew the first accused for a period of ten years,” Counsel Koroma submitted.
He said at the beginning of the trial, the Attorney General addressed the court that they had witnesses to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution called thirteen witnesses.
Defence counsel reminded the court that none of them said anything about the third accused that could prove his guilt.
“The prosecution has failed woefully to prove any guilt against the third accused,” he submitted.
In this regard, Counsel Koroma appealed to the Judge to acquit and discharge the third accused and also urged the jurors to waste no time to discharge the third accused.
“The people of Sierra Leone are interested in the outcome of the matter and the world is watching,” he said.