Cpt Prince Sesay, accused (hugging his aunt)
By Aminata Phidelia Allie
Many who had followed the trial of 14 soldiers which opened on Wednesday 2 April thought their trial proper would start yesterday - April 7. That was not to be as things are still bogged down at the pre-trial stage. The men were detained in August last year on allegations of treason.
Shortly before charges were expected to be read out and pleas taken, Judge Advocate, Otto During introduced members of the Court Martial Panel.
Defense counsels, led by Julius Cuffie, raised a preliminary objection to the choice of president of the panel, Col. Usman Turay, saying “he is not a fit and proper person to sit in the judgment of his peers”.
He argued that their objection was based on the principles of actual bias and the likelihood of bias, adding that the case of the accused persons would be prejudiced as the proposed president had had an issue with the fourteenth accused, Captain Prince Sesay - the most senior-ranking of all 14 men.
The issue, Lawyer Cuffie said, bordered on an earlier internal military matter which led to the setting-up of a tribunal. In that case, Capt. Sesay presented incriminating evidence exonerating himself and implicating Col Turay who was the then commanding officer.
“Since then, there has been a bad blood between the two and anytime they meet, the proposed president [Col Turay] would cast impassions on the accused person as a bad soldier. This had led to my client living in constant fear as a result of the fact that the then commanding officer is a superior”, the defense lawyer submitted.
He further told the court that Col. Turay was also recently expelled from a military war college in Nigeria for alleged misconduct. He said they, as defense lawyers, were of the conviction that the expulsion of the panel president from a military academy "strongly impinges upon his character, good conduct and probity, especially the fact that he is a superior officer of the RSLAF”.
Citing the Court Martial Procedure Act of 2003 which gives the president of the court “tremendous power and responsibility”, the defence attorney noted that the holder of such an office “must be of conspicuous probity and must have a keen sense of integrity and must be capable of dispensing equity and fairness without fear, favour, ill-will or malice. We therefore plead with the proposed president to respectfully recuse himself from the board because with him at the helm of affairs, the accused person will not get a fair trial”, Cuffie submitted.
There was a heated argument between the prosecution and defence as lead prosecutor, Gerald Joseph Soyei attempted to respond to the defence objection. To this the defence cited Rule 25/6 of the Court Martial Procedure Rules 2003, arguing that the prosecution did not have a right of reply when the issues pertained to an officer of the panel who should be the one to respond.
“As far as we are concerned, the law does not make room for a prosecutor to respond for the officer against whom the claim is made”.
But lawyer Soyei insisted that he had a right to reply because the Rules which the defence cited did not preclude the prosecution from replying but only stated that the officer who stood challenged “may" reply. That, he went on, was also discretional in that the said officer could decide to not reply and keep mute.
He added that they as the prosecution had a legal interest in the proceedings “to the extent of lawfully justifying its continuance. Our legal interest supersedes” hence should reply.
Though the proposed president was not asked whether or not he wished to reply, the judge advocate ruled that the prosecution had a right to reply as Col Turay had chosen not to reply.
In his reply to the defence's objection to the panel president on allegations of prejudice, malice and misconduct, the prosecutor noted that there were no documents before the court to prove the claims, adding that “those matters are not before the court”.
Judge Advocate During adjourned proceedings to tomorrow, Wednesday 9 April, for a ruling on whether or not the Court Martial panel president should stay on.
(C) Politico 08/04/14
