Relying on several legal authorities, the lead defence counsel in the trial of Alfred Paolo Conteh has submitted that his client should not stand trial on a charge of treason.
Dr Abdulai O. Conteh made the argument during a no-case submission at a high court hearing yesterday presided over by Justice Momoh Jah Stevens.
“The fiat under which the accused, Dr Abdulai O. Conteh stands trial is defective. The fiat States that the accused stands under the offence of treason, but does not rely on any authority,” Dr Conteh submitted.
He argued that section 1(2) of the Treason Act says the Attorney-General (AG) should have consent to a of charge treason with facts.
“In this case, the AG did not state any fact but rather proceeded to charge the first accused, Alfred Paolo Conteh with treason. This is bad in law,” Dr Conteh also submitted.
The lead counsel reminded the court that the fact about the treason should be stated first in law before the accused is charged. Dr Conteh also submitted that this is the first case in this country where a treason matter is charged and the prosecution did not mention an overt which is defined in the 7th edition of 1999 Law Dictionary.
Considering the defective nature of the fiat, Dr Conteh touched on the jurisdiction to try the accused.
“There is no jurisdiction to try the first accused Alfred Paolo Conteh on the charge of treason since the Fiat is defective,” Dr Conteh argued.
He also argued that the AG has robbed the court since the Fiat is defective, and there is insufficiency of facts to prove the charge of treason against Mr Paolo Conteh.
“The court has no right to try the first accused as the proceedings started on an insufficient fiat by the prosecution and fiat goes into the heart of the matter,” Dr Conteh emphasised.
Counsel Conteh further argued that there was no overt laid in the indictment in the trial of treason for which the first accused, Alfred Paolo Conteh stood trial.
This is very wrong and untenable, and so the first accused Alfred Paolo Conteh should not be called upon or stand trial for treason,” Counsel Conteh stressed.
Counsel Conteh also did not lose sight of conspiracy being a charge that usually precedes the charge of treason.
The act of conspiracy, Dr Conteh said, involved two or more people conspire to over throw a government.
“Conspiracy is the lynch-pinch for a charge of treason,” Dr Conteh said.
Counsel Conteh, in his submission, told the court that he found it difficult to believe the prosecution’s claim that one man can walk to State House to over throw a government.
“The prosecution has failed to prove that the first accused went to State House to assassinate the president,” Dr Conteh argued.
He also submitted that to be found with a gun at State House did not mean treason, noting that Alfred Paolo Conteh surrendered his gun to the security officers guarding the presidency.
Touching on the testimony of Superintendent M.K. Allieu, Dr Conteh reminded the court that Mr Allieu was investigating the accused for unlawful possession of arms and ammunition before the matter was sent to the law office for advice.
The subsequent advice of law office, Counsel Conteh went on; change the matter from the offence of unlawful Possession arms to treason. “The said charge was not supported in the indictment,” he submitted.
The lead counsel also argued that the evidence of the prosecution is tenuous noting that they had not laid any foundation before the court on the charge of treason.
“The prosecution’s case is weak and vague and the absence of overt is inadmissible and the matter should be disposed of as there is no overt to lead to a charge of treason,” he said.
Dr Conteh made reference to counts 5,3 and 9 to which, he said, the prosecution failed to lead any evidence that the first accused Alfred Paolo Conteh did not produce valid license for the GLOCK-17 pistol.
“The brown bag where the pistol was found contains valid license for his weapon, and PW- 10 explained the process of obtaining small arms license,” Counsel Conteh reminded the court.
He also drew the court’s attention that the tenth prosecution witness produced, in evidence; exhibit Y1-11 dated 10 February 2017 which, he said was an application form of the accused to obtain a license.
“How can the prosecution come to court and state that the accused, Alfred Paolo Conteh does not not have a valid license for his weapon?,” Dr Conteh wondered.
Conversely, Dr Conteh insistently argued that the first accused, Alfred Paolo Conteh had valid licences for the two pistols contrary to the prosecution’s claim.
Dr Conteh also urged the court to dismiss Count-7 of the indictment noting that no section of law was cited to justify the charge.
He reminded the court about the law on criminal procedure in all courts in Sierra Leone. The Criminal Procedure Act of 1965, Dr Conteh argued, frowned at charging anyone to court without a section of law.
Dr Conteh also punched the prosecution’s claim on count-8 that the accused imported firearm into the country.
“The prosecution has failed to prove any evidence that the first accused imported any fire arm into the country,” he submitted.
In the ninth count, the lead counsel submitted, he was charged with concealment of loaded pistol in respect of which, he said, no evidence was led.
“No evidence of concealment has been laid and is not supportive of any iota of evidence,” He emphasised.
Dr Conteh also urged the court to dismiss the tenth count since the accused Alfred was charged with keeping greater number of small arms.
Dr Conteh argued that keeping and owing were two different things adding that it was completely bad charge.
He said from the prosecution’s witness Colonel Kposowa told the court that the magazine was attached to the gun but was not ready.
Dr Conteh thus submitted that the prosecution’s evidence was tenuous to the count for which the accused was standing trial.
For the charge of perjury, Dr Conteh argued that no witness has led such evidence in court. He alluded to the testimonies of and PW 8 and 9, Issa Sesay and Bockarie Noah respectively, who, he said, told the court that although the accused was investigated for perjury, he was never charged to court or convicted by a court outside the jurisdiction.
“I don’t know what the prosecution is up to, but it should also be dismissed as perjury is a very serious offence which needs corroboration,” he argued.
In his submission, defence counsel, Anrite Thomson, in his no case submission, said the second accused Sahr Anthony Sinnah is charged with the offence of abetting the commission of a felony.
Counsel Thompson submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredient of regulation 32(1) to show that exhibit-A which is Glock-17, was a loaded small arm.
He argued that witness eleven, during cross examination, said he never carried out any test on the pistol to show that the pistol was impotent and could not ascertain that those cartridges shown to him were the ones he investigated.
He said the prosecution in their indictment states that a loaded weapon was taken to a public place.
He submitted that under the same section of regulation 32(1), the prosecution has woefully failed to show that State House is a public place.
“For premises to be regarded as a public place, the place must be free and fatal as it is a common knowledge that State House enjoys the tightest security covered by different personnel,” He submitted.
He relied on the case of Williams and DPP 1968 where it was said that a premises that contain physical obstruction before entry cannot be strengthen by an imagination and cannot be called a public place but a private place.
He also argued that where access to premises was controlled and restricted by security, such premises would not constitute a public place.
He said most importantly the onus is for the prosecution to prove that State house had unrestricted access to the public which, he said, the prosecution has failed to do.
“The prosecution has failed to prove that State House is a public place and the legal authority of the second accused has shown nothing but that the law has a position to show public place and the prosecution has right to only prove before the court that State House is not a public place but it is a prohibited place,” he submitted.
He said PW7, in order to gain access to State House, not only on appointment the person must be thoroughly searched at the gate and PW2 Vackie , PW5 Gima during their testimonies before the court told the court that when somebody entered State House they will need to pass through the scanner and a metal detector.
He submitted that Lord Parker’s practice direction states that where the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged element, the defence should uphold a no-case submission in that regard.
Counsel Thompson also submitted that the first accused cannot be found guilty of carrying a loaded weapon in a public place because State House is not a public place.
“State House is a prohibited place and if the first accused cannot be found guilty of that offence, then the second accused cannot be found guilty of an offence of abetting and procuring as charged in count 12 of the indictment,”
He said the prosecution had also failed to adduce any evidence to the court to show that the second accused knew of the alleged action of the first accused or intended to bring about that result at the time he was issuing the license and all what the second accused did was an act of diligent carrying out his administration and statutory work of the commission.
He said section-5 of the Small Arms Commission Act 2010 which is the Act that established the commission, states that the second accused Sahr Anthony Sinnah does not need any consent whether in written or otherwise from PW-13 who was the Commissioner to act on his absence.
He said section 528 of the commission stated in the absence of the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner have the right to perform functions of the commissioner, and if both of them are absent, a senior officer can take their place.
He said merely issuing a license to the first accused could not be said to constitute the offence of abetting and that the second accused on 3rd March 2020 issued a valid fire Arms to the first accused only for personal protection
Alfred Paolo Conteh, alongside two officials of the Commission for Small Arms, Colonel Sahr Anthony Sinnah and Prince George Hughes is standing trial for treason and other related offences at the high court of Sierra Leone.
The prosecution alleged that the first Accused Paolo Conteh attempted to assassinate President Julius Maada Bio and took over administration of the state.
Paolo Conteh has been on remand since his arrest about four months ago although he denied all charges.