The Court of appeal has continued hearing appeals filed by persons of interest against the government white paper based on the recommendations of the commissions of inquiry (COI).

The persons of interest appeared before a three member of panel of judges composed of Justice Ansumana Ivan Sesay, Hon. Alhaji Momoh Jah, and Hon. Adrian Fisher (J).

The Appellants Sanah Marrah, Richard Konteh and Samuel OJ Coker were persons of interest at the commissions of inquiry, set up by his Excellency President Julius Maada Bio, upon his assumption to office in 2018 to investigate allegations of widespread corruption and abuse of office by former government officials under the reign of former President Ernest Bai Koroma.

JS Wright who represented one the appellant said his client`s case is different from other cases; he said his client went to the commission and made a statement and presented himself before the court.

Related News

He and further stated that his client was not one of those who refused to make a statement and was told to go home and would be summoned when needed and they never did whiles adding that if his client were summoned, he would have presented answers to the commission.

Counsel for the appellant Sannah Marah, relied on the affidavit dated 16th November 2021 in support of his motion sworn to Sannoh Marrah on the 16th November 2021 together with all the exhibits attached to it is made pursuant to rule No. 27.

Counsel continued that some of the evidences against his appellant Sannah Marrah proved that he was not the permanent secretary at the time when loans were disbursed by the Sierra Leone Commercial Bank (SLCB) and all this was not in the purview of the commissioner.

RB Kowa another counsel said that they did not file an affidavit in opposition; because they do not have fact to file an affidavit in opposition.

He said he is however objecting on the point of law, that he convened on the said affidavit filed by the appellant.

SB Tejan Sie counsel for the appellant Samuel OJ Coker also filed a motion on the 2nd November 2021 and served the state counsel on the 3rd November 2021 and also filed an application for new evidences.

According to A-Z News, JS Wright said the applicant relies on the said affidavit on the entirety specifically referring to paragraph 4, 11 inclusive and also relied on the two exhibits SP1 and SP2 which constitutes the new evidences.

In addition, JS Wright said the exhibits also refer to SB TS3 BETWEEN November 2007 and April 2018, where the commission made adverse findings on my client from 2014-2016.

He continued that most of the activities and findings of the commission that were done against his appellant were activities done before he worked at the ministry of sports; he said he was posted after the previous permanent secretary was posted somewhere else.

He furthered that SB TS3, the findings and recommendations cover between November 2007-2016 as his client was not there in 2016 but 2017.

TJ Freeman said that they do not want to waste the courts time, pending the discretion of the bench for the adducing of fresh evidence.

A Macauley is the counsel for appellant Dr. Richard Konteh he said he had not filed his synopsis because the records were incomplete.

His reason had been that he has written a letter to the court registrar because there was an issue with the transcript of the proceedings that have to deal with the assets declaration.

The court orders the registrar to make available copies of the asset declaration.

A Macauley further said on the 26th October a letter addressed to the registrar and copied Justice Ivan’s registrar for complete records of transcript of the asset hearings of Dr. Richard Konteh.

He said November and December 2019 records were excluded and that one of the specific ones they are seeking to be made available contains the testimony of Dr. Richard Konteh at the Commission of Inquiry (COI)

The matter has been adjourned to the 12th January next year with the registrar and master to make available the said copies.

The matter has been adjourned for ruling a time the court decides.