“I have a constitutional duty to ensure a fair trial” –  Justice Fischer

Justice Adrian Fischer has stated in court yesterday that he has a constitutional duty to ensure that Dr Samura Kamara and his co-accused have a fair trial.

Responding to the prosecution’s reluctance to accept crucial evidence in the trial involving the leading All Peoples Congress (APC) presidential candidate Dr Samura Kamara, the judge reminded prosecutor Masebo that, “ in as much as I have the duty to be fair to the prosecution, I also have the constitutional duty to ensure that the accused get a fair trial.” He went on to state, “ In determining whether I can give him a fair trial, I need to examine the prosecutorial tactics being used and determine that even though they might be legitimate, they do not impact upon fair trial” 

Yesterday’s proceeding was dominated by [legal] arguments relating to whether a particular set of evidence should be tendered by the defence in the trial involving Dr Samura Kamara and five other accused persons.

The trial started with Pa Momoh Fofana, the defence Lawyer for 1st accuse Saidu Nallo, who attempted to tender various letters believes are material evidence in his client’s defence.

The evidence includes letters between the head of the chancery and the ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation and the contractor. The letters represent a summary payments received by the contractor from the government of Sierra Leone.

According to the defence, the evidence will help their case and even assist the prosecution to conclude their own case.

This, he said is because the letters clearly show where funds went and which he believes would save the prosecution from going on a “wild geese chase.”

The emphasis is that contrary to allegations that funds were misappropriated, Lawyer Fofana submitted that the evidence will prove that the funds were directed to what they were meant for. 

The ACC prosecutor, Calvin Masebo objected to the defence’s submission arguing that the said documents have the potential to hinder or interfere with their case. The Anti Corruption Corruption prosecutor however failed to convince the judge who painstakingly tried to guide the prosecution on the need to allow the evidence to be tendered. 

The judge then ruled in favour of accepting the letters as part of the evidence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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