This piece looks at the need to bring finality to ACC-related appeal cases, and how the Commission and the Judiciary can work together in ensuring that justice is done. As the Commission steps up efforts to combat corruption, while at the same generating funds for the government, it recently indicted three former members of the 50th Independence Anniversary Committee for corruption-related offences. William Conteh, Yeniva Sisay-Sogbeh, and Victor Cole face charges relating to misappropriation of public and donor funds, breach of procurement procedures, among others. William Conteh and Yeniva Sisay-Sogbeh were the Chairman and Executive Secretary of the Committee, respectively. Victor Cole was a private business man. The ACC also indicted Saidu Bangura, a prison officer at the Port Loko State Prisons and Ponga-Manor Sesay, a deputy Master and Registrar of the High Court of Sierra Leone in Makeni, for offences relating to soliciting and accepting advantages and abuse of office. In addition, a medical practitioner and a teacher based in the Bombali district were also indicted in mid October, 2011.
Amid these welcome developments, it is critical to reflect on the status of ACC-related appeal cases at the Court of Appeal. Since 2010, about 15 appeal matters have been filed with the court. While the court has acted on some of these cases, the majority of them are still pending. The question we ask is: who is responsible for such delays and how can this reinforce or undermine public confidence in the judiciary and the ACC’s relentless fight against corruption.
Section 7(1)(d) of the ACC Act 2008 grants the Commission powers to prosecute all corruption related offences. This usually starts with a trial judge at the High Court, and includes all proceedings that may extend to the Supreme Court. In other words, the responsibility of delivering justice in corruption-related matters should be fully discharged at every stage of the judicial process. Section 139 of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone gives authority to the Court of Appeal to hear and determine appeals from any judgment or order from the High Court. While this authority does not specify any period for appeals, Section 39 of the Appeal Court Rules, Public Notice No. 29 of 1985 provides 21 days for an appellant who wishes to lodge an appeal with the Court of Appeal to file such notice. It follows that any party wishing to appeal a decision on a corruption-related matter must file a notice of appeal with the court’s registry, and thereafter file the grounds of appeal. Whereas both the ACC and convicted persons appear to have been using these provisions, the question of when these appeal cases will be finally disposed of still remains unanswered.
Reginald Fynn Esq, Head of Investigations and Prosecutions, ACC
15 notices of appeal in corruption-related matters have so far been filed before the court: Francis Gabiddon’s notice of appeal was rejected for late filing, though. Three appeals have been determined, and judgments delivered for only one of them - the appeal made by Sarah Finda Bendu before Honourable Justice Hamilton, with Hon. V. Solomon and Hon. A. Fofana being the other justices. Judgments have been reserved in the matter involving Joe Michael Seiwoh et al and Sheku Tejan Koroma.
The majority of cases are still pending, either waiting determination by the court or for the parties to submit their appeal briefs. More alarming is the fact that some of the notices of appeal have been filed for more than six months. The responsibility of bringing closure to these matters rests not only with the court, but also with the defence and prosecuting teams. The question is: how will such unexplained delays undermine public confidence in the judiciary or the ACC’s effort in curbing corruption? Regardless of the implications of such delays for the judiciary and the ACC, it is always important to keep in mind that justice can only be brought to the victims (in this case the people of Sierra Leone) and the perpetrators (the accused) when the trials are held in a fair and expeditious manner.
The ACC alone cannot combat corruption in Sierra Leone. It requires support from various sectors of the society. Professional cooperation between the Commission and other independent agencies - and an effective judicial system – is required to combat the menace. Appeal proceedings do not necessarily require fresh evidence, barring exceptional cases where the appellants or respondents require it. It is difficult to pin down the actual culprit for the delays in appeal proceedings. In some situations, appellants have indicated their intentions to appeal by filing the required notice, but have fallen short of submitting their grounds of appeal in a timely manner.
While it is mandatory for them to fulfill these obligations, cases currently on appeal do not necessarily reflect this position. For instance, in the appeal case between Afsatu Kabba and the State, the appellant lodged her notice of appeal some eleven months ago, but the matter has effectively stalled. Yet again, since a notice of appeal was filed in July 2010 in the case of Adrian Fischer, it is still unclear why the matter has not been disposed of. Furthermore, between June and August 2011, the ACC filed notices of appeal against the full or partial acquittals of Alpha Turay, Philip Lukulay and Allieu Sesay et al. No verdicts have been handed down in these cases.
Allieu Sesay
Delay defeats the ends of justice; justice delayed is justice turned sour. Sarah Bendu’s case typically demonstrates how justice can be efficiently delivered within the shortest possible time: She filed an appeal in March 2011, oral submissions were concluded in August 2011, and a judgment delivered shortly afterwards. Is there any significant difference(s) between the Sarah Bendu’s appeal procedure and other appeal cases to warrant such delays?
We appreciate the fact that successful prosecution requires adequate investigation and time in order to adduce tenable evidence that would sustain the charges. That said, appealing a trial judgment does not necessarily require any proportionate investigation or evidence to be adduced in court. What is normally required is for a party to argue on a point of law/fact for which they believed a trial judge might have erred. When the ACC files an indictment, it does so safe in the conviction it has adduced sufficient evidence to get a conviction. Equally, once an accused and his/her legal team assess the charges preferred against them, they start preparations for a strong defence. At some point, they come to some kind of conclusion regarding the potential outcome of the trial. So when either of the parties files an appeal, it is presumed that it is based on points of law or fact – for which they should be able to file solid grounds of appeal without undue delays. Whatever the reasons for the delays are, it is important that the judiciary and litigants demonstrate a clear understanding of their priorities – to deliver justice in an expeditious and fair manner at all times.
In the case of Sarah Bendu, Judges of the Court of Appeal demonstrated that they can deliver justice in corruption-related appeals in an expeditious manner by determining an appeal within five months. Even if the ACC is planning to go to the Supreme Court, the interests of justice have been served, at least for now, as the successful appellant has been given an opportunity to continue from where she left off. Consider this: Joe Michael Seiwoh et al and Sheku Tejan Koroma are still waiting the outcome of their appeals only because the Judges have “reserved” judgement in both cases. Whatever that is, the Judges will need to explain. The appellants lodged their appeals in March 2010, and it is still unclear as to why there cannot be closure in these cases. Common to all persons facing corruption-related charges, they were suspended pending the outcome of investigations and trials. Mr. Sheku Tejan Koroma has since been relieved of his duties, while Mr. Joe Seiwoh is still technically suspended.
We at CARL are mindful of the fact that the judiciary is somewhat inundated, but that does not explain the excessive delays in trials. Like in the case of Sarah Bendu, justice should not only be done, but must be seen to be done. So we implore the judiciary to make a final determination in relation to reserved judgments so that successful appellants can either be reinstated or given an opportunity to move on. On the other hand, if trial convictions are expeditiously upheld, there will be reasonable time to pursue further judicial remedy. Bringing closure to corruption-related matters, particularly at the appeal stage, broadens the jurisprudence for the ACC and places it in a position to rely on the doctrine of binding precedence, which provides that a court with lower standing must follow the decision and principles of a higher court. Thus, bringing finality to judicial processes might not only serve the parties in a trial, but may also create the lexis for future determination through which parties can rely.
Hon. Justice Umu Hawa Tejan Jalloh, Chief Justice of the Republic of Sierra Leone
The judiciary must consider imposing fines on parties that unnecessarily cause delays in a trial process. By the same token, the Judicial and Legal Service Commission must constantly review the performance of Members of the Bench with the view to identifying, and imposing sanctions on members of the bench who are responsible for undue delays. It is strongly recommended that appeal proceedings are expeditiously determined to ensure that the interest of justice is served. Once again, CARL-SL welcomes recent ACC indictments for corruption-related charges, but we strongly urge the Commission and the judiciary to work together in expeditiously disposing of ongoing appeal cases.
