Court Trial on SAMURA KAMARA & OTHERS…

Justice Fisher Overrules ACC’s Objection

During the cross-examination of the Anti-Corruption Commission’s witness, Joseph Bockrie Noah, Lawyer Pa Momoh Fofanah, Defence Counsel for the first accused, Sahid Nallo, in the on-going trial of Dr Samura Kamara and 5 others versus the State corruption matter, presented correspondence that stated his client only acted on instructions from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and that at no point in time was money paid into his account for any transaction with respect to the said matter.

The Defense Lawyer tendered five correspondences forwarded by the ACC from various parties of the contract for the reconstruction of the Sierra Leone Chancery Building. Three of the letters, signed by the President of Fair Field Construction Associates, Jules S Davies, summarizes all payments received by the contractor from the Government of Sierra Leone in respect of the Construction of the Chancery Building. The fourth letter, dated 30th July 2019, and signed by Engineer Paul S Bockarie on the subject of “Site Monitoring of additional work had “unambiguously” approved two additional floors for the building. Additionally, the fifth letter dated 1st August 2019 from the Director-General of Foreign Affairs, also conveyed approval for the additional two floors.

Apparently and in lieu of the startling evidence presented in all five correspondences, Pa Momoh Fofanah submitted that the court should admit in evidence, the letters on the grounds that they are materially germane to the case. According to the Defence, the documents showed that contrary to allegations of misappropriation, the said funds had been received by the contractor; and that the documents are also quite significant to the Prosecution, as they make it easier to pinpoint their case and areas they should be looking at instead of going on a “wild geese chase.”

Lawyer Pa Momoh Fofanah cited several provisions in the British Common Law, using the principles of “relevancy and admissibility”, which draws strength from Section 190 of the 1965 Criminal Procedures Act.

The ACC prosecutor, Calvin Matebo, objected to the Defence’s submission on procedural grounds. Lawyer Matebo argued that the said documents have the potential to hinder or interfere with their case. He however failed to convince the court with any legal arguments rather than what the defence referred to as “untenable conjectures with no sound legal reasoning.”

Justice Fisher therefore overruled Matebo’s objection on the grounds that the documents in question, which had originated from the First Accused and which have been used in the investigation, must equally serve as evidence in the matter.

It is now clear that the said documents would serve as an addendum to the many evidences already in court. The matter was adjourned to Friday March 11 2022.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *