Emmanuel B.O. Coker v Attorney General & Minister of Justice (CC 18 of 2020) [2022] SLCA 8 (9 November 2022)

y-. COLAPP NO. 18/2020 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991 (ACT'NO. 6 OF 1991) PART IX COMMISSION Or INQUIRY, SECTIONS 147-149 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION INSTRUMENT NO. 64 OF 2018; THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY EXAMINATION, INQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION NOTICE

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BIOBELE GEORGEWILL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY REPORT OF MARCH 2020 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SIERRA LEONE’S WHITE PAPER DATED SEPTEMBER 2020 BETWEEN: EMMANUEL BERESFORD OSHOBA COKER ~ APPELLANT 4 THIRD STREET HILL STATION FREETOWN AND ‘THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL & - RESPONDENT MINISTER OF JUSTICE LAW OFFICERS DEPARTMENT 3*® FLOOR, GUMA BUILDING a LAMINA SANKOH STREET EE ro FREETOWN {> . fr) ston 1 CORAM ‘ BE csenaunnrnwome =» A oe HON. JUSTICE K. KAMANDA JA HON. JUSTICE T, BARNETT JA COUNSEL RSV.WRIGHT F809 \PeHELANE

— lou ~~ It is against the background of the aforesaid findings, recommendations and report that the + Appellant being dissatisfied has approached this Court on appeal by way of Notice of Appeal herein. ‘The grounds of appeal are well laid out in grounds A-H which I shall deal with in a chronological “A\panner as canvassed before the court. GROUND A ‘The gravamen of the Appellants arguments and submissions are that the Sole Commissioner acted ‘outside the jurisdiction conferred on him by the terms of reference as stated inter alia in compliance with the Constitutional obligation set out in Section 149(1) (a) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No. 6 of 1991 which state that the Commission of Inquiry shall “make a full, faithful and an impartial inquiry into any matter specified in the Commission of appointment”. Counsel for the Appellant R.S.V. Wright Esq. buttressed the said submission when he relied on the case of ATTORNEY GENERAL V. KAMARA SC MISC. APP NO. 4/92) SLSC1 where Hon. Justice S.M.F. Kutubu (then Chief Justice) opined that the Appellant ought to be confronted with ‘any allegations and or charges against her and should be given the opportunity to have a legal representation or put in her defence or tell the version of events. Counsel submitted that in the instant matter the Sole Commissioner failed to comply with the said requirements and also with Section 149(1) (a) of the Constitution and as such the entire proceedings is void. ‘Counsel also submitted that since the Appellant was not a person of interest as laid down in the aforesaid Constitutional Instrument establishing the Commission, all adverse findings against him ‘must be set aside and declared null and void. Conversely, Solicitor for the Respondent R.B. Kowa Esq. conceded that the Appellant did not fall within the scope of Section 4 a-c of the Constitutional Instrument No. 64 but however submitted that the Appellant falls within the Terms of Reference as stated in Section 4 (d) (iii) which provides; “The purpose for which this Commission is appointed are to: (@) ascertain as to whether the persons referred to in sub paragraph (a) ~ (e) iii, Collaborated with any person in respect of such corruption, dishonesty or abuse”. ‘Counsel submitted that the Commissioner acted within the scope of his mandate in view of the fact that he was required to examine, inquire and investigate the category of persons as provided for in Section 4 (a) ~ (c) and in (d) (ii) to ascertain whether they collaborated with any person”. tu any considered view, the provision of () (ii) gives the Sole Commission extensive power to <= _ investigate and inguin inte the conic af persons eyo thse mentioned in Section A(t) (C. Such power to investigate tive he eansidenet collabora steteies wide to include any person

. —|(oS- - A SUWU KENDOH ESQ ~ RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT DELIVERED THIS 2X? DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 Kamanda JA; . ‘The President of Sierra Leone by Constitutional Instrument No. 64 of 2018 pursuant to Section 147 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, Act No. 6 of 1991 set up the Justice Biobele Georgewill Commission of Inquiry with the said Judge as Chairman and Sole Commissioner. ‘The terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry known as COI were laid down in Section 4 of the aforementioned Constitutional Instrument thus: AA, To examine the assets and other related matters in respect of; i. Persons who were President, Vice President , Ministers of State ,Deputy Ministers ; and ii Heads and chairmen of Boards of Parastatals, Departments and Agencies within the period from November 2007 to April 2018 b. To inquire into and investigate whether assets were acquired lawfully or unlawfully ¢. To inquire into; i Persons who were President, Vice President ,Ministers, Ministers of State, Deputy Ministers; and ii Heads and chairmen of Boards of Parastatals, Departments and Agencies within the period from November 2007 to April 2018 d. To ascertain as to whether the Persons referred to in paragraphs a —c i Maintained a standard of life that which was commensurate to their official emoluments ii Owned or were in control of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to their official ‘emoluments or there are evidence of corruption, dishonesty or abuse of office for private benefit by them iii. Collaborated with any person in respect of such corruption, dishonesty or abuse of office iv. Acted willfully or complacently in such a matter so as to cause financial loss or damage to the Government, Local Authority or Parastatal, including a Public Corporation vv. Acquired directly or indirectly financial or material gains fraudulently improperly or willfully to the detriment of the Government, Local Authority or Parastatal. Including a Public Corporation, statutory Commission, Body or university of Sierra Leone vi. To inquire into and investigate any persons or matter as may from time to time be referred to the Commission by His Excellency, the President The Sole Commissioner Hon. Justice Biobele Georgewill, during the course of the investigation found the Appellant wanton and therefore made adverse findings, recommendations and report ‘inst the Appellant herein found at Page 2 ofthe records, Paragraph 9.5 No. 3 to wit he total rent of US550,000,00 pad for four years on “Emmansoks louse” was in excess by USD.

& $150,000.00 over the budgetary approval of USD 100,000.00 per annus on rental of offi space for the Petroleum Directorate ana in gross abuse of wllice, notwithstanding the ill eonceived diselosure ofthe inerest wrely ced os a sbtertuge™

A — leb— Itmust be stated that Jurisdiction isthe backbone or spinal cord in every legal proceedings. In AG FEDERATION V AG ABIA STATE AND 35 ORS 2001) 7 SC (PTI) 100, per Karibi Whyte (GSC) as he then was defined Jurisdition to mean, the authority the Court has to decide matters before itor to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision’. Where a tribunal lacks facisdiction the entire proceedings becomes « sullity however fair and transparent

* the proceedings were conducted.

It is uncontested that the Appellant was Secretary to the former President HE. Dr. Ernest Bai Koroma. His constitutional functions as such are well spelt out in Section 67 (1) (a) (B) and (C) of the Constitution of Siera Leone 1991 Act No. 6 of 1991 to include:

(@) Acting asthe Principal adviser tothe President on Public Service matters

() The administration and management of the office ofthe President of which he shall also

be vote controller

(6) The performance ofall other functions assigned to im from time to time by the President.” {In my considered view, these functions are very clear and unambiguous to the extent that they need no further elucidation in that they fll within the office of the Presidency. However, though the Appellant fills outside the specific definition of persons of interest, he cannot go beyond the definition of collaborators where there is glaring evidence asin the instant case of a transaction involving the Presidency or the State, where there may be evidence of corruption or abuse of ofice which led to the State being a victim of fraud. There is compelling evidence thatthe Appellant being Secretary tothe President and as vote controler was involved in a transaction where his house was leased to the Petroleum Directorate in which his boss the President was the defacto head, ata very higher rate above the normal ceiling provided for by the said Directorate and that monies in the form of rent were paid to him for four years. Where there is such glaring and tuncontroverted evidence, how could the Appellant argue tht the Commissioner was wrong 10 investigate him as a collaborator. Such arguments and submissions based on jurisdiction in my view are misplaced as the scope ofthe Commissioners functions fell squarely within the ambit of Section 4d i the terms of reference stipulated by Constitutional Instrument No. 64 GROUND B {As regards ground B the gravamen of the Appellant's argument was that he was not presumed innocent which is a fundamental principle of human rights as enshrined in Section 23 (8) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No, 6a 1991 which provides “Every person who is charged! with 2 criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded uilty; provided that nothing contained in or done under the auhority of any Law shall be held to be inconsistent with of in contravention of this sub scction to the extent that the Lavy in question imposes on any person changed ts aforesaid the burden of proving a particular fet

= Counsel for the Appellant RSV. Wright Esq also relied ow Article 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of human Rights, alopted December 10, 1448 by the General Assembly of the United Nations which stces: “lveryone ehuryed with-a criminal oftace haw the ight tw be presi incerta proved pully jv a publi lat whic has fad al the putes necessity fo

The pages read for this report end here. The judgment continues in the PDF.