Lawyer Ady Macauley, representing Samura Kamara in the Chancery Building matter, has in his closing address told the court that his client did not present any documents to cabinet for the approval of Fair Field Construction Company to undertake the contract.
It was the then Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mohamed Gibril Sesay who acted as substantive minister that presented such document for the construction of the work.
Samura Kamara was alleged to have deceived his principal, the government of Sierra Leone by presenting documents to cabinet for the renovation of the Chancery Building by Fair Field construction.
Lawyer Macaulay furthered that a witness from the Prosecution affirmed to the court that his client did not produce document for work at the Chancery Building, adding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levied against his client.
Macauley also told the court that Kamara as fourth accused did not author the said document, but the document was authored by the Cabinet Secretariat in consultation with the Foreign Ministry for the renovation of the work.
He said the second count of the two indictments levied against his client which is misappropriation of public funds amounting to $2,560,000 meant for the reconstruction of the Chancery Building, was not about misappropriation of fund but the value of the money during the awarding of the contract.
He further argued that there was no evidence to show that government lost money in awarding the contract.
According to him, if the contractor failed to do what he was supposed to do during the implementation of the contract there is provision for litigation for that.
Responding to an argument by the state Prosecutor, C.T. Mantsebo, who said Samura ought to have testified in his defence,
Macauley told the court that his client decided not to testify in the witness box because the evidence provided by the prosecution was so weak that there was no need to do so, but to simply rely on his earlier statement he made to ACC during investigation.
He added that the prosecution has the onus to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
The presiding Judge, Justice Adrian Fisher also discountenance that notion by the prosecution, adding that if the accused decided not to testify in court is his right but all what the Prosecution needs is to argue and convince the court the reason why the accused should testify before the court.
On the second accused, Ambassador Adikali Foday Suma, who signed the contract as the then Sierra Leone Permanent Representative to UN, under instruction from his superiors from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the prosecution said that is not a defence, adding that if someone takes wrongful instructions from his superior it is a crime.
Matesbo said because the second accused was relying on the instruction from his superiors despite there could be a breach of rules he wilfully committed a crime.
Justice Fisher said on this issue that the defence are arguing that the second accused did not do it with his independent will to sign documents for the renovation of the building but was instructed to do so by his superior and so the Prosecution should establish that part.
In response to the presiding Judge’s motion, ACC’s Matesbo argued that the accused knew the law, but breached it wilfully, adding that the prosecution pointed that aspect out during cross examination of the second accused and he admitted that he knew it was wrong, but went ahead since it was an instruction from his superior.
Lawyer Africanus Sorie Sesay in his address on behalf of the second accused said his client only acted as an agent of the state and that signing of the said contract did not amount to a criminal conduct.
He went on to say that a memo was attached to the contract which his client signed instructing him to do so and that the said memo contained approval from the cabinet, law officer’s department and procurement.
He specifically pointed out that cabinet advised for the approval and to proceed with the contract, which he said led the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to instruct his client to sign it.
On the allegation of conspiracy against his client, Lawyer Sesay said that the other party to the conspiracy, Jules Sanders Davies who his client had allegedly conspired with to misappropriate public funds, did not surrender himself to the court and that Davies had the evidence to show that the second accused did not commit that offence. He called on the court to acquit and discharge his client.
Emmanuel Teddy Koroma, representing the fifth accused, Kandeh Foday Basil Kamara as the then financial attaché to the UN mission, who was charged with conspiracy to misappropriate public funds and failure to comply with applicable procedure to manage funds, said his client was posted to the mission way beyond the awarding of the contract.
However, Koroma said during his client’s time at the mission, he signed about eight vouchers which he said was in execution of his duty by ensuring that the contractor acknowledge receipt of the entire fund that were spent on the intended purpose.
He added that there is nothing to show that his client conspired with first accused or with any other person.
He also urged the court to acquit and discharge his client.
Lawyer Pa. Momoh Fofana, representing the first accused, told the court that there was no need for him to make oral closing address as the written version was sufficient.
In his remark, Justice Fisher called on all parties to be patient as the case is coming to an end.
While giving reason for the delay of the case, he highlighted the complexity of the case and that he would announce the time of the conclusion of the case.
Comment(s)
Disclaimer: Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of Sierraloaded or any employee thereof.