By Janet A. Sesay
Three appeal court judges has ordered former president Ernest Bai Koroma to pay Le70, 294, 264 (seventy billion, two hundred and ninety-four, two hundred and sixty-four).
Koroma should also refund US$3m at the ministry of finance for the biometric machine used during the 2018 election. All payments, according to the judges, should be made within thirty days from the day of judgement
Delivery her verdict, the lead judge, justice Fatmata Bintu Alhadi said in October 2020, Lawyers for the Appellant, former President Ernest Bai Koroma filed two notices of appeal challenging the ‘adverse findings’ of Justice Biobele Georgewill, lead commissioner in the defunct commissions of inquiry.
She said that the appellant also sought a declaration from the court voiding the acceptance of the government ‘White Paper’ dated September 2020, on matters affecting the former President as a Person of Interest and enter a judgment in his favour.
Justice Alhadi also stated that Koroma filed in seven grounds of appeals and in their first ground, lawyers Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara argued that the Sole Commissioners Justice Georgewill erred in law when he failed to consider and apply the immunity clause as provided under Section 48(4) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, which immunise the President from commencement or continuation of civil or criminal proceedings against any person holding office of President.
She further read that lawyer Kamara argued that the Sole Commissioner erred in law and acted in violation of section 150 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, Act No. 6 of 1991, when they proceeded to conduct the Commissions of Inquiry without the “rules regulating the practice and procedure” of the commissions of inquiry.
Lawyer Kamara, according to the judge, also argued that the Commissioner erred and without authority, indicted and tried the Appellant for the offence of Abuse of Office and corrupt acquisition of wealth, a power that was not conferred by the Constitutional Instrument 64 that established the Commission.
She said in addition, the lawyers stressed that the Sole Commissioner erred and misapplied the law to the facts when he opined that, “this Commission has critically reviewed, appraised and considered the totality of the evidence of the State against persons of interest and finds that the unchallenged evidence of the State has made out a prima facie case against them.
Lawyer Kamara also affirmed that the adverse findings against the appellant cannot be supported by the evidence presented and challenged.
Justice Alhadi said in response by the Solicitor General, Robert Baoma Kowa, he argued that Section 48 (4) of the 1991 Constitution states that, “while any person holds or perform the functions of the office of the President, no civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against him in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him either in his official or private capacity.”
She said lawyer Kowa further argued that ground one of the Appellant’s appeal dealing with the immunity provisions of Section 48(4) of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone amounts to a question of interpretation of the said Constitution hence, it cannot be formulated by way of an appeal and brought before this Court for interpretation.
the learned judge said lawyer Kowa said that, “Section 124 of the Constitution makes provision for the forum to which issues of interpretation of the constitution should be directed.”
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal had earlier ruled that a former President is not immune from prosecution stating that Section 48 (4) is very clear on the issue of immunity for only serving president.
She said lawyer Kowa called on the empanelled Judges to dismiss the ground of appeal and afford the appellant the opportunity to proceed to the proper jurisdiction for adjudication and determination.
She said according to lawyer Kowa, the Sole Commissioner was not given the mandate to interpret the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone adding that he was only bound by the Terms of Reference stated in Section 4 of the Constitutional Instrument No. 65 of 2018, which was to investigate persons who were President, Vice President, ministers and deputies within the period of November, 2007 to April 2008.
She further read that lawyer Kowa further submitted that the Constitutional Instrument No. 65 is not in any way inconsistent.
Justice Alhadi further read that lawyer Kowa further submitted that the Commissions were set up to investigate persons who were in control of government resources did act wilfully, dishonestly, complacently or abused their offices for private benefits that caused financial loss or damage to the Government and people of Sierra Leone by their actions and inaction.
Lawyer Kowa also said that the appellant, Koroma did fall under the categories of persons that are to be investigated pursuant to Section 4 (a)-(c) of the Constitutional Instrument No. 65 of 2018.
He also rebutted the position of the Appellant in respect of section 150 of the 1991 Constitution and argued that Justice Georgewill did not violate the said Section, stressing that the appellant failed or reneged in his submission to direct the court to any law or section of the provisions of Constitutional Instrument No. 65 of 2018 which has been found to be inconsistent with any provision of the 1991 Constitution that will necessitate the invocation of section 171(15) of the 1991 Constitution.
Justice Alhadi said lawyer Kowa continued that the Commissioner was correct in his fact-finding and in law that the appellant was in control of pecuniary resources of property disproportionate to his official emoluments and also maintained a standard of life above that which was commensurate to his official emoluments which is supported by evidence before the Commissioner in respect of property situated at Robureh, Makeni, Bombali District in the Northern Province of the country and that the total cost of the said house was USD 2,522,930 while the extra work costs USD 1,209,500.
She said lawyer Kowa canvassed the Court that the evidence before the Commissioners in respect of the allegations were uncontroverted which led to the publication of its complete report by the President pursuant to Section 149(2) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone contrary to what the Appellant claimed.
Justice Alhadi said ground five of the appeal spoke about terminal benefits and retirement payment of workers and she said there was no proof before the court that beneficiary retirement payment been made.
She further read that one of the witness said after signing his benefits he was given a fresh contract again in January, 2014.
She then asked this question on what basis were the retirement people given a fresh contract and on what grounds were they employed, adding that she found it difficult to understand saying it was illegal and unlawful and the adverse findings of the commissioner were correct.
Justice Alhadi further stated that section 26(1) of the constitution said public money could not be spent widely and there was no evidence in court showing that parliament approved the document of payment to beneficial retirement.
She said in terms of loan taken at the Ministry of finance for biometric boxes, she said the Directoriate of the ministry cannot give out loan without the approval of Parliament.
She said the action of the appellant were willful and cost a financial loss to the country. In that light, all seven grounds of appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed.