By Janet A. Sesay
The former Skye Bank Manager, Ikubolaje Nicole, on Tuesday, 19th March, 2024, made another appearance before Justice Adrian Fisher of the High Court and has been charged with a fresh indictment by prosecutors of the state.
During proceedings, state prosecutor Ahmed G. M. Bockarie informed the court that they have filed fresh indictments on the accused dated 18th March, 2024 which have been served to his lawyer Roland Wright.
The accused Ikubolaje Nicol is now arraigned before the court on three counts charges of conspiracy to murder, manslaughter and perverting the course of justice.
State alleged that the accused on 15th October, 2022 in Freetown, conspired with unknown persons to murder Sinnah Kai Kargbo.
The prosecution further alleged that the accused on the same date unlawfully killed Sinnah Kai Kargbo.
Counts three added that the accused perverted the course of justice while in police custody.
When the charges were read and explained to the accused, he did not make any comments as to whether he was guilty or not.
Defence counsel Rowland Wright while addressing the court said on the last adjourned date the prosecution team made a promise to progress with the matter, adding that they are now faced with retrogression and not progress in the sense that his client is being served another indictment, which means that they now have two separate indictments before the court.
Defence counsel Wright told the prosecution team not to listen to the voice of their master, adding that their action shows obsession and abuse of the legal process in a way to deny his client a fair trial.
He said in light of the Supreme Court ruling the application that was made before the court by the state asked the judge to defy the instruction handed down by the Supreme Court.
The judge’s refusal to grant an amendment for manslaughter instead of murder means he obeyed the directive of the Supreme Court which he said was the correct thing to do.
He said a second indictment has been proffered and served on the accused and it contained the exact charge that the prosecution did on the amendment for manslaughter, adding that this actions itself is contempt of court.
He furthered that the state is abusing the judicial process and attempting to subvert the direction of the Supreme Court.
He said the action of the prosecution is to apply for a trial by judge alone.
The prosecution, defence counsel said, agreed to the amendment charges on the basis that they did not have sufficient evidence to try his client on the offence of murder and this was said in their own confessions to the court.
He said the prosecution is casting aspersion on the Judiciary of Sierra Leone and their act is now a vendetta and persecution.
‘You are depriving my client of a fair trial in accordance with the constitution and the accused person has been incarcerated for two year and his trial has not started which shows an abuse of the process,’ he stated.
Lawyer Wright submitted further that after the preliminary investigations, the prosecution knew that the evidence was not sufficient to proceed with murder yet they charged the accused with murder.
He submitted that any attempt to reduce the charge of murder to manslaughter is an abuse of the judicial process.
The indictments he said is not based on any legal foundation.
He submitted that if the prosecution intended to do a fresh set of indictments the accused should be acquitted and discharged.
The second indictments he said is not based on any legal foundation in law.
He said they ought to have either reopened a preliminary investigation but the prosecution wanted to eat their cake and have it.
He said they have filed an indictment which is in contempt of the court’s ruling.
He furthered that in the circumstance his client will not make a plea and will not be forced to do so.
He made reference to his application pursuant to section 136 of the 1991 Constitution, adding that his clients was committed to the High Court for murder and not manslaughter, and the court has already ruled that they cannot substitute to manslaughter.
Lawyer Wright submitted that the accused has not been given a fair trial and his constitutional right is being trample on, and in light of such abuse of judicial power, it must be stopped.
He described the action of the prosecution as witchcraft, noting that they knew the evidence they have is not sufficient to charge for murder and yet they did charge the accused for murder.
He said the accused should be given a fair hearing but they want to force him to make a second plea to the new indictments, which have no basis in law.
He urged that the prosecutor should not listen to the voice of their master.
He said there should be equality before the law, adding that the accused should not be subjected to inhuman treatment.
‘Should the office of the Attorney General be in violation of the Supreme Court and High Court ruling?’ he asked.
In conclusion, Wright said the action of the Prosecution has amounted to settling a personal vendetta.
He said even if the second indictments had any legal foundation, it is now fictitious as long as it is based on the trial.
His submission was made pursuant to Rule 99 of the Supreme Court Rule, section 23 of the 1991 Constitution, section 124, which deals with the mandatory directives of the Supreme Court, and section 136 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules.
The state prosecutor Ahmed G. M. Bockarie responding said what is before the court is a mixture of an objection by the defence and so they are constrained to reply.
He said the defence made reference to an indictment which they informed the court they had served but was not put to the accused.
The case before the court he said is an indictment dated 18th February, 2023, and what lawyer Wright spoke about is not yet before the court and therefore could not speak on it.
Bockarie furthered that the fresh indictments should take three days before they argue on it in court, but in the circumstance requested the judge to abandon the defence counsel’s submission.
He said they cannot respond to the defence counsel’s submission because the indictments were not properly before the court.
His submission was made pursuant to section 140 (B) of the Criminal Procedure Act no.32 of 1965.
Lawyer Bockarie intimated the court that they have filed an indictment dated 18th March, 2024, containing three counts of offences.
He said the indictments have been served on the accused and said the charges must be read to the accused and they will make a decision.
He applied for the indictments dated 18th April, 2023, that is before the court to be stood down and for the new indictments dated 18th March 2024 to be read.
Lawyer Wright objected to their application for the second indictment to be read and the first to be stood down.
He urged the judge to send the issues raised by the state to the Supreme Court for clarification and interpretation.
At this juncture state counsel Bockarie requested for an adjournment to reply to the legal issues raised by the defence counsel, adding that they want to take a sufficient and adequate decision on the first indictment dated 18th April, 2023.
He said it is as if the accused is being given special treatment in his trial.
Justice Adrian Fisher having listened to the arguments made by both counsels ruled that the charges being put to the accused and for the prosecution to elect which indictment to put next.
After the ruling the second indictment was read and put to the accused.
Defence counsel Rowland Wright applied for bail on behalf of his client, but his application was refused.
The matter was adjourned to 26th March, 2024, while the accused was remanded in prison.