By Janet A. Sesay
The defence counsels representing the twenty-sixth accused in the ongoing court martial trial have submitted their closing addresses before court.
Their submissions were made on Wednesday, 7 August, 2024 before Judge Advocate Mark Ngegba and seven Board Members where they said the prosecution failed to establish a case against the accused persons. Lawyer Ady Macauley before giving his address told the Board Members that they are judges of fact and he appreciated them for their time spent in listening to all the witnesses and looking at all the exhibits tendered before the court.
Addressing the Board on behalf of the thirty-third accused Abubakar Turay he said his client denied all the allegations levied against him and during his testimony before the court he explained that he was never part of the coup on November 26.
Lawyer Macaulay said even though when PW 28 testified before the court that he saw the twenty-third accused at a local bar at Murray town on the day of the incident, his client clearly testified that he does not consume alcohol. He said his client in further testimony said the reason why he left his post at the moment was to give medical attention to his daughter who was unwell. Lawyer Macaulay furthered that all the evidences brought before the court by the state did not touch on his client, adding that his client was charged with the offence of communication with the enemy but there was no call log shown before the court that his client was involved in the coup.
He said the Board Members are judges of the fact, adding that they have the responsibility to decide on the matter. He said the prosecution did not present call logs to show the right location of the accused during the day of the incident as they alleged that he was communicating with the enemy. He furthered that the prosecution woefully failed in that aspect and pleaded with the members of the board to return a verdict of not guilty on the twenty-third accused.
On behalf of the twenty-first accused, Staff Sergeant Ibrahim Thorlu Bangura, Macaulay submitted that on the day of the incident his client was at Makeni and the reason why he travelled was to attend the funeral of a family member. He said during the investigation PW 37 went to his client’s village at Makeni where he spoke with several people in the village but did not bring none of them before the court to testify.
Lawyer Macaulay added the prosecution instead brought in secondhand information before the court about his client. He continued that the twenty-first accused should be acquitted and discharged by the court as the prosecution failed to prove his guilt. On behalf of the ninth accused, Staff Sergeant Idrissa Kallon, lawyer Macaulay said the responsibility of proof was in the hands of the Board Members who he called on to do justice to his client.
Lawyer I. Bangura from the Sierra Leone Legal Aid Board representing 11 accused persons also did his closing addresses on behalf of each of the accused. On behalf of the 27th accused, Lance Corporal Abu Samuel Kamara, Bangura in his closing address said the state has failed to present the elements of the offences against the accused.
He said the 27th accused was not deployed at JLU at Murray town as alleged by the 6th accused, Corporal Edward Koroma, in an audio that was played before the court, but that his client was at the male correctional facility. Lawyer Bangura further addressed the court that the accused relied on his statement which he made to the Military Police in which he said the 6th accused approached him and told him that he had a mission for him without knowing what the mission was. Lawyer Bangura continued that even though several exhibits were tendered before the court, the objective of a criminal trial is to unravel the truth. He added that there were no voices, pictures or photograph expert to speak on the resemblance of images, adding that doubts would have been settled if there was an expert.
Addressing the Board Members on behalf of the 3rd accused, Sergeant Albert Bassie Conteh of 15th Battalion, he said his client admitted that he was in the picture displayed on the screen with the other assailants at Pa Sesay’s residence but said he had a reason for taking that picture. He said his client in his testimony said he went to Pa Sesay’s residence because he was having issues with his wife and the said picture was taken in August, adding that they were in court for a specific period, from 1-26 November, 2023 as alleged by the prosecution. He said such evidence raised a doubt, but it was for the Board Members to decide on the matter. He said the photo displayed on the screen had no date to decide when it was taken.
The 3rd accused he said testified and denied portion of his statement and said the reason why he did so was because the statement was not read over and explained to him as it was obtained from him in the absence of legal representation, adding that it is important as these are all aspects of the Judges’ Rules. He said his client even when testifying in the witness box could not read the statements as he did not understand the Military Police officer’s handwriting.
Lawyer Bangura said the statement should have been read to him for him to confirm that it was his, asking which statement would the court choose: A statement that was not made under oath or statements made under oath? Lawyer Bangura furthered that his client admitted that he didn’t have a pass to leave his post as he took advantage of the weekend to do his business but returned to his duty post on Sunday.
He said his client explained that on the day of the incident he went to Joint Force Command at Murray town and met with some personnel and explained his situation, adding that one of the prosecution witnesses confirmed that during his testimony. He therefore asked if that amounted to mutiny or failure to suppress mutiny after his client had reported himself and explained his situation. He furthered that his client was also supplied weapons to help repeal the assailants, asking that if what he did amounted to mutiny. He added that his client was subjected to investigation because that was not his unit.
In his submission on behalf of the 10th accused, Corporal John Turay of 5th Battalion, Wilberforce, lawyer Bangura said his story was as pathetic as that of PW 28, Colonel Sandi who in his testimony before the court related how he was captured by the assailants. He said that was the same experience his client experienced while executing his duty that night at Wilberforce Barracks. He added that his client was captured by the assailants who forced him to join them but later escaped like Colonel Sandi, adding that it was a bad day for him.
He furthered that the accused did not only escape from the assailants but also reached out to his wife and explained to her what had happened. He said his client explained that to the Military Police but they did not contact his wife to investigate the matter. He furthered that the fact that his client was captured and experienced firsthand torture led to a traumatic situation, adding that he could not have participated willingly to committing mutiny “but the decision rests in your hands (Board Members)”.
On behalf of the 14th accused, RSLAF 18181346 Abdul Razack Kamara, he said he was deployed at AFPC Benguma and his superior, Captain Senessie, on that day took him out to provide security for them at a carnival without him knowing that he was part of the assailants.
Lawyer Bangura furthered that his client heeded to his superior and the captive took him in their vehicle and instead of them taking him to where they had agreed, they took him to 5th Battalion, Wilberforce, where Captain Senesie who is on the run was deployed. He was, however, able to escape from them and informed the authority at Benguma Barracks. He furthered that there is no evidence before the court to suggest that his client knew about the plans of the captive and therefore said the accused was not supposed to be before the court.
In further address in respect of the 18th accused, Corporal Abu Bakarr Koroma of 4th Battalion, who was shown in a photo display on a screen by the prosecution, he submitted that that was the only piece of evidence levied against his client by the state and said he was relying on his client’s statement to the Military Police that he was not in town that day. He furthered that since the inception of the trial, the accused has been affected by epilepsy, adding that even in the commanding officer’s note it was stated that he was about to be relieved of his duty due to his health condition. He also urged the Judge Advocate and Members of the Board to look at the medical report of the accused which showed that his situation affected the soundness of his mind and his reasoning power.
In his submission on behalf of 13th accused Lieutenant Col. Musa Maligie of 15th Battalion, he said his client was old enough to say that he travelled from Lungi to Freetown without a pass to settle a land dispute. He said he also relied on his client’s statement to the Military Police that he was at Rokel village and was not in any of the places where the attacks happened. He said his client in his testimony mentioned the name of his brother where he passed the night on the said day which amounted to an alibi.
In law, he said when an issue of alibi is raised, the burden of proof shifts onto the prosecution to prove whether he was there or not but the prosecution he said failed to do so and so the alibi remained uncontroverted. Bangura further submitted that no factual witness was brought before the court to say that they saw the accused on that day with the assailants, adding that what was displayed before the court was a photo showing resemblance of the accused with another person at Pa Sesay’s residence. He said for the prosecution to have removed all doubt an expert would have been brought before the court for proper identification of the accused on the picture, but it was not done. He said the herbalist was never brought before the court to confirm that the accused persons went to his house but the only piece of evidence the prosecution relied on was the statement the 6th accused made to the Military Police in which his client denied the allegation. He furthered that his client having learnt about the coup went back to his post at Lungi and on his arrival was subjected to a beating.
He said the onus of proof rested with the prosecution to prove each and every element required on all the count charges and therefore implored the Board to return a verdict of not guilty one behalf of the accused persons. “Mr President and Members of the Board, you were here when the witness testified that he was attacked and received serious beating,” he submitted.
On behalf of the 8th accused, Lieutenant Col. Eustace Neka, lawyer Bangura further submitted that one of the prosecution witnesses, Major Gassama, confirmed before the court that the 8th accused on the day of the incident obeyed laws and instructions as he was with them when they went to Wilberforce to repeal the assailants. He added that the accused was with the loyal force but was only making a call. He added that another prosecution witness, Lieutenant Colonel Joel told the court that they suffered multiple attacks at Wilberforce and while the attack was ongoing the 8th accused was making a call while he was with them.
He said no call logs were tendered in court in respect of the calls made by the accused on that day, adding that this should have created a doubt and he urged the Board Members to rule in favour of the accused as his client denied making a call because his phone was switched off on the day of the incident. His clients’ testimonies he said remained uncontroverted as he was also captured by the assailants. He further submitted that the 8th accused testified in court that he does not have a WhatsApp phone which should also have created doubt on the prosecution’s case. He furthered that his client having escaped from his captives returned to Cockerill where he was given a serious beaten as instructed by Lieutenant Joel who testified in vengeance against the accused.
“If you have (a) doubt of any of the allegations against the 8th accused, return a verdict of not guilty. The images shown before the court suggesting that it was the 8th accused were not clear but you are the deciders,” he stated.
Addressing the Judge Advocate and Board Members on behalf of the 20th accused, Sergeant Fofanah Kemoh of AFTEC, he said his client was standing before the court on several counts ranging from mutiny, conspiracy to commit murder, aiding the enemy and communicating with the enemy. He therefore urged the Board to return a verdict of not guilty as his client was not part of the coup, neither did he participated on the said unlawful conduct. He said indeed an audio was played in court showing that it was the accused speaking but he denied that the voice note was not his.
The accused in his testimony denied his image in the CCTV footage and when they looked at the photos it only showed a face and head, adding that the prosecution could have brought an expert witness to confirm if the photo was the accused, but they fail to do so. He therefore left it to the discretion of the Board Members.
The numbers he said that were displayed in court as that of the 20th accused communicating with Koita was not his client’s number, adding that proving the elements of those offences rested on the prosecution. He said the accused in his testimony denied certain portions of his statement, noting that what was written in the statements were not said by him.
In his closing address on behalf of the 24th accused, Sergeant Rashid Koroma of AFTEC, he revealed that his client had a pass and was in Freetown at Aberdeen enjoying his social life. He said his client in his statement said on the day of the incident he arrived at Murray town Barracks and showed his pass to one W.O. Gbla and that evidence he said remained uncontroverted. He said the prosecution failed woefully to adduce evidence connecting the accused to the offences against him and in the circumstance implored the Board “not to be removed from the reality of things”.
Lawyer Bangura said his client was not found with ammunitions nor rifles, asking if that did not create any doubt in the prosecution’s case, which doubt he urged them to use in favour of the accused. The 24th accused he said denied portion of his statements saying that it was not read over and explained to him during the investigation and that the uniform that was found on him was for his own use and not for the assailants.
In furtherance of his address on behalf of the 26th accused, Lance Corporal Hassan Sesay of Joints Logistics Unit that his client was on duty on the 26th November, 2023, and was supplied with a rifle magazine which he did not use because he was afraid to shoot the assailants and had an instruction from his superior not to shoot.
He therefore asked questions if that amounted to mutiny and he said the answer was no. The prosecution he said told the court that they went to the 26th accused’s residence and discovered live rounds but none of the live rounds were tendered in court.
Lawyer Bangura added that the 3rd accused, Sergeant Albert Bassie Conteh, left Lungi to Freetown. The 10th accused, Corporal John Turay, he said was on duty that night and had a gun which was confiscated by the assailants who threatened to kill him if he did not obey their instructions.
In conclusion he pointed out an important aspect of the 7th accused’s (Sergeant Mohamed Kamara) testimony where he stated that he was captured. Other defence counsels also made their closing addresses before the court.
The matter comes up today for continuation.