By Umaru Fofana
In court yesterday he looked very harmless. Despite his age as epitomised by his white beard there seemed to be in him no numbness. His utterances showed he has a great sense of humour. Almost tempted to dismiss his reported attitude the previous as rumour. His mannerism was genteel. And his jokes were gentle. But his action the previous had been questionable.
It was passed 10:00 a.m. on the first working day of the week. For some reason – clandestine or otherwise – Magistrate Bankole Shyllon asked a defence counsel what he had had for breakfast that morning. “Omelette and bread and tea, my Lord” Leon Jenkins-Johnston replied unenthusiastically, as if something he was bemoaning. The magistrate tried to stay pokerfaced, but smiled cunningly. Then he joked about KOL RES, which he spoke about interestingly. Admittedly KOL RES is my favourite breakfast as well. Even if I do not have it these days in a groundswell.
No prize for guessing why lawyer Leon was not enthusiastically jovial. Magistrate Shyllon had only endeared himself to himself and to a complainant lawyer in a matter involving two journalists. The magistrate, by his own admission, had an old score to settle with members of the media. He therefore apparently used a private matter to determine an action in public and to grind his axe.
In what is akin to the AFRC overthrowing a democratically-elected government on Africa Day (25 May) in 1997, Magistrate Shyllon of the Freetown Magistrate Court No 3 chose to deny bail to two journalists on World Press Freedom Day – 3 May 2013. He sent them to the maximum security prison at Pademba Road.
While I do not wish to comment on the merit, or otherwise, of the matter since it is before a competent court of law, the attitude of the magistrate in this particular case, at the very least, leaves many questions around the competence of his court in the criminal libel charges against Ibrahim Samura and Kashope Holland-Cole of the Prime Time newspaper.
I have to admit from the beginning that the judge has a prerogative to grant or deny a bail to an accused person in accordance with Section 79 The Criminal Procedure Act of 1965. Either way it should be informed by a deep sense of reasonability, and devoid of injustice. But to do so on prejudice undermines justice in a country where the slowness of the wheels of such is sometimes corrosive to halting proportions.
The two journalists had been charged with criminal defamation against the person of a lawyer. The lawyer had apparently alleged in a text message that I have seen that he would jail them. He chose to sidestep the Independent Media Commission which does not have custodial sentence powers in favour of the courts. And it all seemed to have been well choreographed.
Ostensibly in tune with bad practices of old, the matter was assigned for a Friday. In such a case if the accused is not granted bail – guilty or not – they are sure to spend at least three nights at the Pademba Road prison. That Friday this time round fell on 3 May. As journalists all over the world were marking the day to draw attention to their plight, no better way was that illustrated than this way. For a bail-able offense Magistrate Shyllon decided to deny the two journalists from being sent to jail. Despite pleas by the defence counsel on many grounds including the significance of the day itself – World Press Freedom Day – Mr Shyllon pooh-poohed the grounds for the plea ridiculing 3 May.
And what he had said to some people in the comfort of his chambers he repeated in court. He brooded over the unfavourably media coverage he said he had received in years gone by without action taken against the “offending” journalist whom he said was later appointed cabinet minister.
This is akin to a magistrate who, who because his mobile phone had once been stolen, sends a man to prison however innocent simply because he is alleged to have stolen a Nokia 3310 which is perhaps the cheapest brand. Such a magistrate should have no business in court to preside over any matter. He is prejudiced and too emotional to carry out a job of justice. Justice should not be dispensed from the heart, which Magistrate Shyllon’s utterance and action imply he did in this matter even before proof that the journalists are guilty.
And look at the face of the complainant after the journalists had spent three nights in prison and reappeared before the magistrate on Monday. He glowed with smiles and laughter. He even giggled and guffawed at some point, looking and sounding extremely elated. It seemed to suggest that as far as he was concerned, whether or not he was guilty of what the journalists had published about him, he was satisfied that he had jailed them for three nights. He looked very proud of himself. In this case, with the help of the fact that Magistrate Shyllon could not – or would not – control his emotions and be phlegmatic. Stoicism is an essential tendency which law enforcers and interpreters must imbibe for the fair dispensation of justice, for all. Never mind who and who they are. Anything short of that puts justice on the throes of decadence. Should a lawyer’s call for justice be treated any differently to a non-lawyer’s?
And I challenge anyone to challenge me if I say that justice is sleepy in our system. I have been in court many times and seen icicles of tears on the faces of people who felt hard done by. They had received summons to appear in court. They went to the Law Courts Building with no idea which court their matters had been assigned. Such is the secrecy shrouding the way things happen there sometimes that a bench warrant was issued for the arrest of their arrest. Magistrates sign warrants for the arrest of people, under the guise they are a flight risk, with no clue who such a “flight risk” is. Try getting justice here you will die trying without making any headway. Today we are bemoaning the action of a magistrate against two journalists with complete disregard for their freedom and undue attention to a long-held grudge by the president of the court. Tomorrow it may boomerang. Even if the complainant decides to withdraw the matter from court now, the harm has been done to the journalists under circumstances that leave so much to be desired in our justice system.
