By Janet A. Sesay
Justice Komba Kamanda has on Tuesday, 18th June, 2024 adjourned the matter between the state and Amadu Koita Makalo and eleven others for ruling after both the prosecution and defence teams have made their oral submissions before the court.
Lead defence counsels, Musa Pious Sesay, Ady Macauley and others representing Amadu Koita Makolo, Bai Mahmoud Bangura and 10 others have requested before the judge to acquit and discharge all the accused persons based on the grounds that the prosecution failed to meet the elements on the threshold offences of treason, misprision of treason, murder, harbouring and other related offences.
Lawyer Sigismond A. Conteh, defence counsel representing the first accused Amadu Koita Makolo in his submission, said even though his client is charged with several counts of murder touching and concerning the issues around November 26, 2023, the witness of fact brought by the prosecution, especially Major General Alpha in his testimony before the court said he saw Sorieba Mansaray approaching Cockerill headquarters, but did not mention the name of his client.
He also submitted that the testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Sandi who said he was at Cockerill HQ stated that the first accused Koita was in the vehicle but did not state in his testimony his intentions or purpose for him being in the vehicle.
Counsel Conteh furthered that the testimony of PW 27, Staff Sergeant Alhaji Koroma, is corroborated by the caution statements Koita made at the police station.
He said Staff Sergeant Alhaji Koroma in his testimony said while he was at Murray town on that day he was informed that first accused Koita had been captured.
Following up on that he said PW 30, Inspector Mohamed Jusu, the cyber expert tendered the phone he recovered from Koita and while testifying before the court he did not distinguish whether the photos he saw in the gallery of Koita’s phone were sent by him, adding that Koita in his statement to the police said he went to one Pa Sesay’s place for traditional help.
Lawyer Conteh furthered that the testimony of PW 27 also corroborated about the said photos, adding that only one photo in the gallery was shown to his client.
In closing of his submission, Conteh said the CCTV footage played in court showing an image of his client crossing the street at the Pademba Road Prison gate was confronted to him during his statement making to the police and he stated very clearly that he was under the custody of the assailants.
Lawyer Conteh added that there was no link between his client and those that were murdered, because no weapons or magazines were found with his client when he was captured.
He submitted that the prosecutor did not present any evidence linking the accused to the offences levied against him.
He therefore submitted that the learned judge discharge the accused for lack of evidence.
Lawyer Foday Mansaray in his oral submission on behalf of the second accused Mohamed Jalloh said the manner in which the offences were charge by the prosecution demonstrate that his client and the first accused Koita were the only ones that murdered individuals during the incident but said the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses had not portrayed such charges as a joint enterprise.
He said count one of the said charge is an overt act, adding that several individuals according to the allegations conspired to overthrow the government.
However, he said there is no evidence to fulfil the overt act requirements, especially the autopsy examination in which Dr Simeon Owizz Koroma said the death of these individuals were caused by bullets and there is no evidence to link his client to the said bullets.
He said the manner in which the offences were charged against his client does not suffice him being charged with murder.
He said that there is no evidence to show that his client was caught with weapons that led to the deaths of these individuals.
He submitted that the second accused should not answer to any allegation because there is no evidence against him.
He added that in respect of counts six, which is shooting with intent and the indictment, said his client together with Koita shot Major General Alpha but during his testimony, Major Alpha said he knew the second accused as a former soldier and he was not the one that shot him.
In conclusion said the prosecution failed woefully to prove the elements on counts six against his client.
He furthered that in counts 1 and 2 of the indictment, he submitted that section 54(3) of the 1991 Constitution does not expressly repeal the Treason and State Offences Act.
Lawyer Ady Macauley in his oral submission for the third accused Emmanuel Salifu Kamara submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements which his client was charged with, which is treason and misprision of treason.
He said it is very clear that the third accused spoke on the phone with two of the assailants who happened to be his workmates and that he said was a fabrication by the prosecution.
He referred the judge to exhibit DD 1 to 6 and the call log of Sorieba Mansaray which showed that on the 20th to 25th November, 2023, his client was in Makeni and he never left for anywhere, contrary to the assertion of the prosecution who said that he abandoned his duty post.
He added that exhibit showed that his client was in Makeni.
Lawyer Macaulay furthered that the prosecution painted the allegation to show that his client was in constant communication with the assailants.
He referred the judge to exhibit AAA 1-15 and BBB 1-16 which showed that his client spoke to Sorieba Mansaray at 8:50am on 25th November, 2023 but said that was a fabrication made by the prosecution to mislead the court.
He said Exhibit AA 1 to 15 and BBB 1 -14 showed that his client spoke to Yapoo Sesay on the 27th November, 2023 and not the 26th as alleged.
He submitted that the prosecution had nothing to show regarding the allegation of misprision of treason against his client and pleaded with the judge to accept his no case submission and not that of the prosecution’s.
In his oral submission on behalf of the fourth accused Alimatu Hassan Bangura, lawyer Emmanuel Teddy Koroma adopted his written submission on the no case.
The fourth accused he said is before the court on one count of misprision of treason, adding that it is an essential element in which the prosecution must prove that his client had knowledge with respect to the planning of the act, which is treason.
The prosecution he said wilfully and unlawfully failed to disclose same to the appropriate authority.
He referred the judge to Exhibit BB 1 to 14 which is the voluntary caution statement of the accused where it was put to her that she committed the offence of misprision of treason by failing to inform the appropriate authority and she responded that she failed to do so because she did not confirm whether it was Koita’s numbers or not.
Lawyer Koroma also referred the judge to the call log of his client, adding that it was one sided messages and there was no communication between her and Koita.
He said the message read were stated “Hi, Hello” and there was no response.
Lawyer Koroma said the prosecution has failed to answer and submit that paragraph 50 of the reply sent by the prosecution had no merit, adding that nothing came up from the cyber analyst in respect of knowledge to the commission of the offences.
In conclusion he submitted that his client is just wasting her time being in court, adding that her liberty has been deprived and justice must be served.
Lawyer A.A. Bangura in his oral submission on behalf of the sixth accused Hassan Leigh said the accused was charged with two counts of misprision of treason and unauthorised wearing of military uniform.
The offence of misprision of treason he said is a common law offense and seems to be unsettled.
He added that the 6th accused had no knowledge of the offence.
The prosecution he said is under obligation to prove that the sixth accused had knowledge of the said treason but failed to confirm with the relevant authority.
He said in the circumstance the prosecution has failed woefully to prove a case against the accused.
He said on counts 12 of the indictment, which is unauthorised wearing of military uniform, his client was never found with any military uniform, adding that an exhibit was tendered in court which showed that the accused was forced to wear a military uniform.
In conclusion, he said the prosecution failed to reach their threshold in proving their case against the accused.
Lawyer Hassan Kamara in his oral submission on behalf of the 7th accused Mohamed Woodie said his client was arrested together with one Rashid Koroma standing trial at the court martial.
He submitted that being arrest with other person does not fall under the overt act and the prosecution he said failed in reaching their threshold.
The 7th accused he said told the investigators that he went to visit his girlfriend who resided at Murray Town and there is no evidence showing that he was part of the assailants’ that came.
He said the cyber analysts tendered call logs of the 7th accused and he also tendered 5 mobile phones that his client’s phone was not among, and when asked the reason why he did not tender the 7th accused’s phone he said there was nothing of police interest in it.
He submitted that a jury properly directed will not convict the accused due to the weak evidence led by the prosecution.
In conclusion he said the prosecution failed woefully to adduce any evidence against the accused, adding that in respect to conspiracy it is the duty of the prosecution to prove same but failed to do so.
He said justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. He pleaded with the judge to discharge the accused.
Lawyer Ady Macauley in his oral submission also on behalf of Bai Mahmoud Bangura said the prosecution failed to prove the elements in all the 8 counts against the accused.
He referred the judge to Paragraph 66 to 67 of the reply by the prosecution and exhibits U 1 to 17 which is the caution statement of Bai Mamoud Bangura, adding that it clearly stated that he had known the 2nd accused since 2019 as his tenant.
In the area of conspiracy, he said not a single item or exhibit has shown that Bai Mahmoud Bangura has conspired with anyone and the prosecution has failed to prove that and the caution statement of the second accused corroborated same that he has been staying with Bai Mamoud Bangura.
The prosecution he said failed to prove the elements of misprision of treason, harbouring and other related offences and further referred the judge to the case of Lansana and 11 others. He said the court will be left with no alternative but to acquit and discharge the accused.
In respect of the 9th accused, lawyer Macaulay again said the prosecution has failed to prove the elements on which the accused was charged, which is misprision of treason and harbouring.
He said his client ASP Ibrahim Sesay said in his caution statements that his house was searched but nothing of police interest was found and said it was uncertain and bad in law for the prosecution to assume so.
He furthered that his client was also charged for harbouring Ibrahim Thorley Bangura which the prosecution also failed to establish, adding that it is bad in law.
In closing, he said the accused only spoke to the police on the 1st December 2023 but the allegation by the prosecution was that he refused to give information to the police about the 26th November 2023 incident when the police only spoke to him on the 1st December 2023.
He said there was no evidence to show that he spoke to the police on the 26th November 2023 and in the circumstance pleaded with the court to discharge the accused noting that the prosecution failed to prove the elements on which the accused was charged.
Lawyer Pious Sesay in his oral submission on behalf of the 10th accused Tamba Yamba said there is no evidence to show that the crime was committed by the accused and the only relevant person was the evidence of PW 30 showing that the person on the CCTV footage was the 10th accused.
He drew the attention of the judge to the voluntary caution statement of the 10th accused where he said he was not confronted with the CCTV footage and that he said does not constitute evidence.
He said the medical personnel testified in court but said there was no evidence connecting the accused to those murders and it also came clearly that the accused was given instruction by his boss to go and repeal the assailants.
For the offences of treason the prosecution he said has woefully failed to provide evidence on those elements.
He requested the court to strike out the whole proceedings and relied on Lansana and 11 others. He furthered that the Fiat does not contain requirements and facts upon which the offences are founded.
He requested for the proceedings to be struck out as it has to do with jurisdictional issues.
Lawyer A. R. Gbla in his submission said the 12th accused Abdul Sorie Hassan Bangura was charged with two counts of treason and murder and the prosecution in that light failed to prove their case.
The elements of proof he said can be substantiated where there is proof, adding that like when PW 30 Mohamed Jusu revealed that the mobile phone of the 12th accused was searched and nothing of police interest was found.
He added that the twelfth accused was seen passing with one Amadu Koroma which the prosecution failed to prove.
The accused he said in his statement told the police that he was captured by the assailants and others, adding that in respect to the CCTV footage a weapon was pointed on his client and was not seen firing or trying to break into Pademba Road Prison.
He further submitted that during the said CCTV footage there were no conversations between the accused and others, and the prosecution he said has failed to prove that the 12th accused took part on the November 26th attempted coup.
Lawyer Gbla said no evidence was adduced to show that the 12th accused provided arms and ammunition to free inmates and call on civilians to join them overthrow the government.
He said the elements of conspiracy are key when it comes to the elements of proving conspiracy. He said there was no proof to show that the 12th accused partook in any form of murder and the prosecution he said has failed to meet a threshold.
In conclusion he submitted that the 12th accused be acquitted and discharged accordingly.
The state prosecutor AJM Bockarie in response to the all the oral submissions made by defence counsels, submitted that they relied entirely on the evidence adduced before the court and for which he said none of the witnesses were discredited.
Firstly he said for the no case submission for the first accused Amadu Koita Makalo, he relied on the evidence of PW 1,7,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,24,29,30 and 31, adding that the evidence before the court remained uncontroverted that there was a coup plot and the evidence of these witnesses proved systematic attack on government officials on their indictments.
He said there is no denial that Cockerill, Wilberforce and Murray town military facilities were attacked, adding that they cannot deny that the second accused explained in his caution statements the preparation conducted by the first accused and even went further to explain their endeavour to overthrow the government, of which the first accused was a key player.
The testimony of the 30th witness he said showed documentary evidence extracted from the mobile phone of the first accused showing his involvement in the November 26th coup.
He further submitted that he relied on Exhibit Q1 to 33 and also RRR 1 to 5, which is the CCTV footage showing the first accused giving directions at Pademba Road Prison, adding that the accused in his statement admitted to the incidents at Murray Town and Congo Cross.
In respect of the second accused Mohamed Jalloh he said they relied entirely on his confessional statement and the evidence of PW 8,9,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,30 and 31st witness, adding in his statement he admitted to having military regalia.
In respect of the 3rd accused, he relied on their reply to the no case submission and further submitted that the evidence that was presented before the court was tested under cross examination and no signs of fabrication he said were disclosed before the court. He distanced himself from the statements of lawyer Macauley that their evidence was fabricated.
He said exhibits BBBBB 1 to 18 showed that the accused Emmanuel Salifu Kamara had knowledge and was aware of the offences and relied on those exhibits in proving their case against the accused.
In reply to the oral submission in respect of the 4th accused, he said relied on their response found at pages 16 to 18 paragraphs 46 to 55 of their reply and the evidence of PW 10 and 30.
He said on the submission of 6th accused he relied on his confession where he admitted to having knowledge of the coup and was arrested with full military uniform. He also relied on the evidence of PW 3,4 and 5 and also Exhibit M showing the accused in full military regalia.
In respect of the 7th accused Mohamed Woodie he relied on their submission made at pages 18 to 20 from paragraphs 16 to 23 and the evidence of PW 24 and 30, and further relied on Exhibit LLL1 to 15 and JJJJ 1-5.
In respect of the 8th accused they relied on their submission at pages 20 to 23 running through paragraph 16 to 22 and in support of their case relied on exhibits DD 1 to 35.
Counsel Bockarie said when lawyer Macauley was making his oral submission for the 9th accused ASP Ibrahim Sesay he brought out fresh issues and relied on paragraph 35 to 45 at pages 12 to 16.
He said the issue of duplicity and uncertainty raised by the defence under counts 16 which was harbouring created only one offence and nothing more.
He said in respect of the 10th accused he relied on exhibits UUUUUU 1& 2 which is the Fiat of the Attorney General, adding that on the day it was tendered lawyer Pious Sesay was absent in court, and referenced the court to paragraphs 11 to 21 of their responses.
In respect on the 12th accused Bockarie he said they relied on the evidence of PW 30, Exhibits X 1 to 16 and Exhibits RRR 1 to 5 which is the CCTV footage and the reports therein, and the evidence of PW 21.
Lawyer Bockarie in conclusion said the evidence led before the court which has remained unconverted by the defence showed that the prosecution proved a prima facie case against the accused and therefore pleaded with the court to discountenance the submission made by all the defence counsels and for the accused to be put to their elections.
Justice Komba Kamanda having listened to both sides adjourned the matter to Wednesday, 26th June, 2024 for ruling on the oral no case submission while the accused persons were remanded in prison.