By Janet A Sesay
One of the prosecution lawyers, Adrian Fisher has replied to the no-case submission by the defence counsel, Anrite Thompson.
Counsel Thompson represents the second accused, Sahr Anthony Sinnah who is standing on similar charges of abetting and procuring the commission of treason.
The defence counsel had earlier submitted that his client had no case to answer as he said he observed the legally recognised procedures of registering and licensing a firearm.
In his reply, Fisher told the court that the second accused was charged with the offence of abetting in count 12 contrary to Regulations 23(1) of the Arms and Ammunition Act of 2010.
Fisher reminded the court that the second accused, on diverse dates, between 26 February and 3rd March 2020 procured the commission of an offence.
In count-4, Fisher said, the accused was charged with unlawfully issuing a firearm licence to the first accused, Alfred Paolo Conteh.
Counsel Fisher also submitted that the second accused, Sahr Anthony Sinnah the commission of the crime of treason through paper work.
“The ballistics expert in his report makes it clear that GLOCK-21 Pistol was in perfect working order, but the first accused did not renew the license instead he went to license Glock-17 which was not working,” Counsel Fisher submitted.
State counsel further submitted that Glock-21 produced more sound than Glock-17 and that the latter could be used easier with one hand.
“Evidence of this nature cannot be dismissed in a wave hand,” state counsel argued.
Counsel Fisher further argued that the second accused, Sahr Anthony Sinnah knew the process of obtaining firearm licence but failed to follow the procedures.
He also submitted that the prosecution is entirely clear in its case that the issuance of licence to the first accused Alfred Paolo Conteh was unlawful and it amounted to offering assistance to the commission of treason.
“The evidence is clear that the first accused Alfred Paolo Conteh and second accused Sahr Anthony Sinnah have a case to answer,” he argued.
In supporting his claim, Counsel Fisher urged the court to look at the characteristic of the second accused who, he said, was a soldier.
State counsel canvased the court to consider the act of carrying a loaded pistol to State House by the first accused, Paolo Conteh.
“Firearms, with or without license, the possession of weapon at State House is unlawful,” he submitted.
The prosecution counsel alluded to the testimony of the seventh prosecution witness who, he said, asked the first accused Paolo Conteh what he had in his bag.
Counsel Fisher reminded the court about the response of the first accused who, he said, responded to the question of PW-7 that it was a pistol but…
“It is the ‘BUT’ part of the response stated by the first accused the prosecution is dealing with,” he informed the court.
He also reminded the court that the issue of license is fundamental to the mind of the first accused in using and carrying a weapon.
He said the licensing process did not take place in one day, and the second accused, Sahr Anthony Sinnah issued the licence in a day.
“In simple terms, the question to ask is why the rush, and desperation that the licensing process, by all means, should be done the same day,” Counsel Fisher inquired.
He also mentioned the testimony of the thirteenth prosecution witness, (PW-13) who is the head of the Commission for Small Arms of which the second accused is an employee.
State counsel reminded the court that PW-13 previously testified that he would write the President if he was away from the office to give an order for his deputy to take charge.
Without that approval, Counsel Fisher submitted, the second accused had no authority to act as commissioner.
However, on the 3 March, this year, Fisher went on, when the commissioner went for medical service at 34-Military Hospital, the second accused issue licence to the first accused without his knowledge.
He continued that the PW-13 told the court that he only came to know about the issuance of such licence on the next day when he saw the first accused at the commission.
Counsel further reminded the court that the second accused is a soldier and has served the commission 12 years as a Deputy Commissioner.
“The second accused deceived his boss that it was a renewal of license when it was not and he needs to state the reason why he did such act,” he submitted.
He continued his submission by asking a question of why a man in a sensitive institution issues licence for firearms on the basis of friendship.
He told the court that no-case submission made by defense counsel for the second accused had no merit and thus unarguable in law.
“It is clear that the defence has difficulty to understand the prosecution’s case as the submission made by defence counsel for the second accused Sahr Anthony Sinnah is completely outside law,” he told the court.
He said the issue of aiding and abetting survived under common law which made it indictable in Sierra Leone and that the second accused is charge with a secondary offence.
He argued that Regulations 23(1) says: “No person shall carry a loaded weapon in a public place.”
He said the first accused; Alfred Paolo Conteh did not deny having weapon in a public place.
Touching on the submission of what constitutes a public place, Counsel Fisher agreed with the defence that State House is a ‘public place’ but it does not mean it is should be open to all jack and Jill.
He said that no court of law can determined the exact meaning of a public place.
He submitted that state house has security guards and those guards are there for the public.
Counsel fisher ended his submission that adequate grounds existed for the first and second accused persons to answer to the offences for which they were arraigned. “Sahr Anthony Sinnah has sufficient knowledge of the offence itself as he issued a dubious licence to the first accused Alfred Paolo Conteh. By issuing the license to the first accused, Paolo Conteh, he has given him the authority to take a loaded weapon to a public place which shows that the second accused has knowledge,” Counsel Fisher summed it up.
Counsel Thompson replied to Fisher’s submission based on two key words: ‘abet’ and ‘Procure’ which formed the basis of the charge against the second accused.
He argued that to ‘abet’ and to ‘procure’ are not and cannot mean the same thing.
“A person can abet without procuring or can procure without abetting. Both can be charge on the alternative and not in a single charge,” he submitted.
Defence counsel drew the attention of the court that the prosecution had duplicitously charged the second accused.
Counsel Thompson also did not lose sight of what he referred to as deception of the court by the prosecution.
“The prosecution misled the court when Fisher said all the authorities cited are based on legislature, and the prosecution has failed to satisfy the evidential burden of proof in all the areas cited by the defense on the balance of probability for the case to proceed further,” defence counsel submitted.
In his ruling, Justice Momoh Jah Stevens defined a no-case submission where an accused person in a criminal trial seeks for a discharge.
Justice Stevens said if the Judge did not accept such application, the matter should continue in court and the defence opens their case.
He said where the Judge comes to the conclusion that it is the duty of the jurors to proceed with what they are empanelled for and they must be given the opportunity to listen to both the prosecution and the defense and decide the outcomes.
Justice Stevens made reference to the case of Lansana sheriff and thirteen others in 1971 saying the following principles were established among which the prosecution relied on the consent of the Attorney General which was established consistently on this case.
He said defense stated that count 12 of the indictment is duplicitous, but looking at it there are no single counts that he found duplicitous on the case.
He referred to section 17 of the Treason Act 1970 noting that the second accused, Sahr Anthony Sinnah is charged separately and submitted that it holds.
Justice Steven said defence counsel, Abdulai Conteh cited the insufficiency of the fiat and the absent of overt act but in reply by the prosecution they said that they relied on the testimony of the thirteen witnesses.
He furthered that on count-7, the defence asked that it should be struck out but ruled that every counts is in place because he wanted to hold the balance on both sides and he will direct the jurors on the above based on the law.
He said treason and State Offence Act came into existence two years after Sierra Leone gained independence and that every treason offence concerned the safety of the nation.
He said the argument on both sides are part of the evidence before the court and the other sides must be heard which is a fundamental right.
He therefore ruled states that the first and second accused persons to open their defence for the prosecution to listen and decide.
In opening their case Dr. Abdulai Conteh said the first accused would testify on himself and additional witnesses would all testify for the second accused.
Defence counsel Roland Wright said they relied on their statements made to the police and the good judgment of the jurors.
For the third accused, Counsel Amadu Koroma said he would indicate to the court that his client will testify in the dock and he would later address the jurors.
Dr. Abdulai Conteh said the charges against the first accused are grave and that they need time to have conference with their client.
Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara said they should be given the opportunity to read the ruling by the judge which contain six pages and to understand it well and discuss with the first accused about its implication.
The defence said they needed time to prepare for their defence since this is a very serious offence.
The matter was adjourned to the 19th June 2020.