By Janet A. Sesay
Counsel Pious Musa Sesay has accused the state of ambushing and embarrassing the defence in respect of an application made by one of the prosecutors, Ahmed James Bockarie.
The application borders on an amendment of the indictments dated 10 January, 2024 on the alleged treason charges against Amadu Koita, Makolo and 11 others.
Counsel Sesay represents Amadu Koita and others in a treason trial going on in court.
He made his application pursuant to section 148 (1)(2) of the criminal procedure Act No.32 of 1965, adding that the provision of sub section 2 of section 148 of constitution required the endorsement of the amendment set on the face of the indictments.
He argues that the amendment does not in any way violate the consent and writing of the said indictments, noting that they do not add any other counts or offences not ordered by the court.
The indictments, he went on, would not in any way prejudice matters of the accused persons.
He added that the overt act of the first count they are seeking is to include that on counts 5 and 27 November, 2023 in Sierra Leone Amadu Koita Makolo and others conspired with other persons unknown to overthrow the government of Sierra Leone.
The state counsel also submitted that another amendment should also be on 5 and 26 November, 2023 Amadu Koita Makolo incited Staff Sergeant Alhaji Koroma, Ibrahim Bundu and Mohamed Jalloh by giving them money to be used in furtherance of the plot to oust the government.
After his application, lawyer Africanus Sorie Sesay On behalf of the eight accused, Bai Mamoud Bangura replied they had had heard the lengthy amendment made by the state but they are not privy to it.
“It is very unfair to MY client as we are not copied with the amendment of charges; we are taken by surprised,” Counsel Sesay submitted.
He therefore requested for an adjournment to have conference with his client, Bai Mamoud Bangura in order to determine their next step adding that issues raised by the state were very expensive and factual in nature.
He said it was important that they went back to their clients and discussed the issues.
In his reply to the state counsel’s submission, Counsel Pious Sesay adopted the application made by his colleague counsel, Africanus Sesay as he reiterated that they were embarrassed and ambushed by the state.
He said there was danger posed by the state especially the overt issues raised which were factual.
All other defence counsels also adopted the reply made by Africanus Sorie Sesay and Musa Pious Sesay.
State counsel lawyer Bockarie, in reply, to the defence’s submission, said his application was wrong, adding that section 23(4) that he relied on did not exist in the 1991 constitution.
He said another issue raised by defence lawyers was that they were not served with the indictments adding that section 148 was not mandatory that they should serve the defence with the proposed indictments.
He said they were all listening to his application for an amendment and that he had no intention to ambush or embarrass the defence team.
The accused persons, he said, knew from the start the offences with which they were charged and that no new charges were added.
He however requested the court that the order for an amendment on the indictments be granted.
Justice Komba Kamanda, having heard arguments from the two sides, ruled in favour of the prosecution team saying that granting an order for an amendment would not lead to injustice because the accused persons were aware of the charges against them.
“No new charges have been added in the amended indictments,” he emphasised.
He said that he has also consider the application of section 23 of the 1991 constitution act No.6 of 1991 and both provisions of the laws are not at variance but they bordered on fear trial.
Justice Kamanda went on to state that the first issues he considered was whether the instant application made by the prosecutor fell within the ambit of the law.
From the reading of section 148(1) (2) of CPA No 32 of 1965, the instant application was made at the right stage and time as it was only after an order had been granted allowing the prosecutor to amend that which they could amend.
He said any service of the proposed indictments without an order from court was illegal, and therefore, the application was properly made.
He said where an order was granted for an amendment to be made it beheld the bench to now make consequential orders in line with section 23 of the 1991 constitution.
The learned judge therefore ordered that that “the prosecution is granted leave to amend the indictments in line with the proposed indictments before the court.”
The judge also said it was for the prosecution to file and serve the amended indictments on all accused persons not later than 1.pm of 2nd February, 2024 so that the defense counsels could go through them and have conferences with their clients.
The matter adjourned to 7th February 2024 for further hearing.
It could be recalled that the accused persons Amadu Koita Makolo, Mohamed Jalloh, Sergeant 10020 Emmanuel Salifu Kamara, Ramatu Kamanda Conteh, Alimatu Hassan Bangura, Hassan Leigh, Mohamed Woodie, Bai Mamoud Bangura, ASP Ibrahim Sesay, Tamba Yamba, Kabba Kamara and Abdul Sorie Hassan Kamara were brought to court for treason, misprision, harbouring and other related offences.