By Janet A Sesay
Lead defence, Dr. Abdulai Osman Conteh has made bail application for the appellant, Alfred Paolo Conteh whose appeals hearing has commenced at the appeals court.
The appellant’s counsel seeks to quash high a court conviction presided over by Justice Alhaji Momoh Jah Stevens and 12 jurors.
Paolo Conteh who served the past government as Minister of internal Affairs was convicted of two counts out of a 16-count indictment filed against him.
The counts relate to keeping a large number of arms and ammunition other than specified in the licence and carrying a loaded weapon to a public place.
The defence team did not agree with the Justice Jah Stevens verdict prompting an appeal.
The state is represented by Director of Public Prosecutions, Easmond Ngakui and other team of lawyers.
The appeal is being heard by a panel of three judges with Justice Ivan Sesay as the presiding judge.
Before his application for bail, Dr Conteh submitted an affidavits and exhibits supporting the motion.
He said their appeal came to the court against the back drop of a treason charge brought against his client by the state.
Dr Conteh emphasised that their grounds of appeal was for the appellant to be put on bail pending a hearing and determination of the appeal against the sentence dated 1st July 2020.
“The two counts my client was convicted are summary offences. The judgment by Justice Alhaji Momoh Jah Stevens was a draconian and very harsh,” Dr Conteh submitted.
He said his client should not have been given a custodial sentence but a pecuniary one since the appellant was a first-time offender.
The application before the court, Dr Conteh, submitted was a way of notice of motion dated 14 July 2020 supported by the applicant’s affidavits dated same.
The affidavits were attached with several exhibits ranging from exhibit APC-1 which is the preliminary investigation at magistrate court, APC-2 being section 136 used by the prosecution to bring the matter to the high court, APC-3 the conviction certificate and APC-4 the notice of appeal against his conviction dated 14 July 2020.
Dr Conteh further submitted that the appellant is a family man who has served the nation and is not in any way a flight risk.
He told the court that he had credible sureties ready to go into recognizance for the bail.
He made the bail application pursuant to section 67(2) of the court Act No31 of 1965 pending the determination of the appeal. He submitted that the said Act conferred on the bench the discretion to grant bail for offences of such nature.
In canvassing support for bail, Dr. Conteh told the court that the state had nothing to lose if the appellant was put on bail.
He made reference to the verdict of Justice Momoh Jah Stevens noting that the judge did not state any reason for sentencing the appellant.
Dr Conteh emphasised that the appellant had good grounds of appeal with good prospect of success.
He pleaded with the bench to grant bail to his client pending the determination of the appeal in the interest of Justice and humanity.
He informed the court that his client had been in solitary confinement since 20th March, this year.
In response to the defence’s submissions, Lawyer Joseph Sesay said the court had to see it fit to exercise the discretion for or against the appellant’s application.
“The determination of an appeal should be used judiciously. In reaching such conclusion, the court must take certain issues into consideration,” he urged.
The court, he said, should not shut their eyes to the fact that the appellant was not at the court on a trial, but had been convicted and sentenced at the high court.
He submitted that the burden was on the appellant to show that a circumstance existed that made his situation exceptional.
He argued that with the exhibits and oral submissions made by the appellant, nothing had been said that would amount to an exceptional circumstance warranting the granting of bail to the appellant pending the determination of the appeal. He said the issue of the appellant being a first-time offender was not a fact to be considered by the judges.
In further submission, state counsel said what constituted an exceptional circumstance was whether a considerable proportion of his sentence had been served.
He submitted that the appellant could not show that the grounds of appeal stated on both affidavits were strong and good grounds by referring to section 67(3) in which they canvassed that the respondent (state) would not be at a loss if the application fails or succeed.
He therefore submitted that in the absence of any exceptional circumstance, bail should not be granted pending appeal hearing.
He stressed that the appellant was found guilty on two counts and sentenced to two years imprisonment.
The period the trial took, he said, must not be considered because the court was an appeal court and not a trial court.
He said section 79 of the criminal procedure Act should not be considered at this stage by the court to grant bail pending appeal. In her reply, Lawyer Wara Serry Kamal informed the court that the appellant since the inception of the matter in March had no access to his family and had been in solitary confinement.
She said the appellant had been denied of her basic rights which prisoners were supposed to enjoy.
At this juncture, the presiding Judge, Ivan Sesay asked the applicant whether he had access to his family.
He responded that he got the first contact with his family two days back since he was incarcerated in March.
The statement was buttressed by counsel Wara Serry Kamal.
Having heard from the two sides, Justice Ivan Sesay said the ruling would be reserved and notice would be sent to both sides.