By Jane B. Mansaray.
Lawyer Africanus Sorie Sesay, a defense counsel in the alleged corruption matter between the state and the accused person, Hon. Alimamy Kamara, a former Minister of Youth Affairs in the past All Peoples Congress (APC) Administration, has on Monday 28th March 2022, at the Anti- Corruption Commission (ACC) Court in Freetown made an oral no-case argument and submission to the trial Judge, Justice Hannah Bonnie on behalf of the accused.
According to the Defense Counsel Africanus Sorie Sesay, there has been no-case established by the prosecution on all five counts indictment which state that the accused person failed to declare his assets, income and liability between 2007 and 2018 to the ACC when he (accused) served in the positions as Member of Parliament, Minister of Youth Affairs and Ambassador to Iran.
“The ACC before coming to court failed to observe its own Act when they initiated this matter before the court without the requisite functional jurisdiction to allow court to decide on the matter,” Defense Counsel Africanus Sorie Sesay stated.
This, Africanus Sorie Sesay said, is in breach of due process as stated in Act No. 12 of the ACC 2008, as amended.
The Commission precedent so imposed by parliament and by ACC before bringing the matter has not been met, as required under Section 119 sub-section 6 and 7 of ACC Act No.12 of 2008 as amended.
This provision of the law, Lawyer Sesay said clearly states an obligation and a duty placed by parliament on the ACC, to exhaust all possible means before taking the matter to court.
Arguing further, Sesay told the court that the Act is very clear and unambiguous and the provision under which the accused person is charged as a public officer warrants the ACC to source News Paper publication, broadcast records and gazette documents in such a situation before the court.
As to the matter before the court, counsel argued that the ACC failed to honour its own statute and legislation, and also has no discretion of waving its duty.
He went on that the prosecution has failed to give vital information within the ACC Act during the trial and investigation stage.
“Breach of Section 119 sub-section 6 and 7 by the ACC is very fundamental to the accused person, and slow to the court,” Africanus Sesay submitted.
The inconsistency by prosecution witnesses with regards to noncompliance shows how it is to be discredited because the action was disjunctive and not conjunctive.
He submitted that the main issue of disfunctional justice in the matter is Section 119 sub-section 6 and 7 which must first be satisfied by the ACC before taking a journey to the court.
” It is no mistake that Section 119 and 122 (a) of ACC Act fall within the same chapter and before coming to this court on the issue, those requirements ought to have been fulfilled for the court to have the jurisdiction to proceed with the matter,” Africanus Sorie Sesay argued.
As a public officer then, Counsel said the public must first be notified by way of gazette, broadcast within the accused person`s locality and News Paper publication.
In this direction, counsel submitted that the Commission failed to comply with statutory obligation.
He submitted that the matter before the court is not rife, and if not, the court does not have the jurisdiction to go on with the matter.
There is no discretion by the ACC to cherry pick as to what should be done and it is fundamental when those constitutional rights are affecting the dignity of due process.
Lawyer Africanus Sorie Sesay said there is no discretion given to the ACC because the accused person, Alimamy Kamara has the right to property, dignity and due process.
Counsel asked the trial Judge to look at the totality of the evidence, statement of the accused person, and those authorities cited to acquit and discharge the accused person because the matter has no life to stand on and at the same time has no foundation to show that the accused person cannot answer to a non-existing case and if attempted by the court, it will pitch on the rights of the accused person.
The matter has been adjourned to the 25th April 2022 for the prosecutor Joel Tejan Deen Tarawallie to reply.
