Many Sierra Leoneans, following the current Commissions of Enquiry, are quite not satisfied with the manner in which the various lead counsels are handling their witnesses on behalf of the state.
The motive of the Commissions of Enquiry is to bring out the truth, and there is no doubt that, there exists an overwhelming bundle of evidence against the persons of interest currently before the COI. Various Auditor General’s reports, between 2007 and 2018, have also consistently cited a number of irregularities in different procurement processes and many such procurement processes are now an issue for the COI.
To a very large extent, it is the view of many Sierra Leoneans, including the Institute of Governance Research (IGR), that the scope of the Commissions of Enquiry is too wide and this will involve sufficient time and resources on the part of the state. IGR has recommended, in their recent survey on the COI, that government reduce the scope and concentrate on very key issues.
Fear is currently being manifested by the ability of the lead counsels to effectively execute their mandate as required by the Practice Directions of the COI. Their role is very critical to the process no matter the evidence currently available against these persons of interests.
The lead counsels have to interview quite a huge number of witnesses to be able to uncover the truth; and from what we have been following so far, the lead counsels have not been able to have sufficient time to have conferences with witnesses before bringing them up to take the witness stand.
The recent disqualification of two state witnesses, from the Sierra Leone Commercial Bank, by Justice Biobele last week, is a significant case in point.
Justice Biobele dismissed them when they told the commission that they are new or do not have the information they are been questioned on by the led counsels.
Nightwatch also recall several instances where witnesses have to appear more than one time. This is because, in their initial hearings, they were not in possession of key documents which would help them in making their case. This would have been avoided if proper conferencing was done with the witnesses for the state.
The state has the burden of proof to bring the evidence against the persons of interest, which will enable the Commissioners make their reports to Government.
It is becoming clearer by the day that the lead counsels, on behalf of the state, are overwhelmed with work and cannot follow up properly and have conference with their witnesses. Is it that the COI were hurriedly started leaving the lead counsels to haphazardly struggle through the process as we are now seeing?
It is also rumored, in close SLPP party quarters, that some members of the lead counsel are being influenced by senior members of the ruling party to use the Commission as a witch bunt to hound ruling party members currently holding senior positions of trust in the government. This people have been merely called to serve as witnesses for the state.
There is no need to victimize witnesses when their business at the COI is to help the state. We should be clear to bring people based on their level of involvement. If they are persons of interest we should bring them as such and not delay the Commissions’ time by attempting to bring them as witnesses.
The Attorney General should get the lead counsel of the state to focus on the bigger picture of bringing out the evidence against the persons of interest, be they APC or SLPP.
There should also be a conscious effort, on the part of the AG’s office, to recruit more counsel for the state as it has become very clear that the lead counsels are increasingly coming under pressure from both the Commissioners and the defense counsel. They have been called upon to observe the normal rules inherent in Commissions of enquiry, with specific reference to properly serving their colleagues from the defense and also not being able to conference with their witnesses before bringing them to take the witness stand.
The Commissioners have maintained severally that the state and the lead counsels have the obligation to do everything in their power to ensure that all persons of interest are properly served well ahead of time, but the problem keeps rearing up its ugly head.
This, from all indications, is showing that the lead counsels are overwhelmed with work.