Koroma v S (CR APP 3 of 2010) [2012] SLCA 21 (17 December 2012)

J ' ' ••• • 1 8 5 . 1 x CRAPP 3/2010 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIER R A LEONE BETW EEN: SHEKU T E JA N KOROMA - APPELLANT / AND THE STATE - RESPONDENT CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR JU S T IC E N C BRQWNE-MARKE, JU S T IC E OF APPEAL THE HONOURABLE MR JU S T IC E E E ROBERTS, JU S T IC E OF APPEAL THE HONOURABLE MR JU S T IC E S A ADEMOSU, JU S T IC E OF APPEAL(deceased) COUNSEL: C.F. EDWARDS E S Q (with him, H M SEVAO .ESQ ) for the Appellant C T M ANTSEBO E S Q for the Respondent JUDGM ENT D ELIVERED T H E ^ A Y OF DECEMBER,2012, INTRODUCTION 1 . This is an appeal brought by the Appellant, Mr Sheku Tejan Koroma, against his conviction by S E Y ,J on 1 1 March,2010 on a 3 Count Indictment charging the offences of Abuse of O ff ice contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act,2008; Abuse of O ffice contrary to Section 43 of the same Act. and Wilfully Failing to Comply with the laws, procedures and guidelines relating to the procurement of property, tendering of contracts and management of funds, Contrary to Section 48(2)(b) of the same Act. The appeal against conviction, purports to be on a question, or rather, questions of law, only; but Grounds 4& 5 seem to us to be more of questions of fact than questions of law. On conviction S E Y ,J sentenced the Appellant to fines of Le50million in respect of each Count, totalling Lel50million, with the alternative of a term of imprisonment of 5 years in respect of each Count, the terms of imprisonment to run concurrently. On the same day, S E Y ,J Ordered that pursuant to Section 233 of the Criminal Procedure Act(1965, payment of the total fines would be I 18b deferred for a fortnight with effect from that date, i.e. 1 1 March,2030. The Appellant also appeals against this sentence. GROUNDS OF APPEAL 2. The Notice of Appeal is dated 25 March,2010 and was filed in this Court's Registry, the same day. The grounds are as follows: (1) The Learned Trial Judge erred in Law in holding that the charges as laid in counts 1-3 inclusive were in conformity with the respective sections namely: Sections 42(1) 43 A 48(2) of the Anti­ Corruption Act,2008, and therefore fulfilled the legal requirements. (2) The Learned T rjH Judge erred in Law ‘when she1 (these two words are missing in the Notice) overruled the d efen ce submission that Count I I is bad in law by the omission of the mens rea requirement in the word "knowingly" as enshrined in the statute. (3) The Learned Trail Judge erred in Law (as she) did not consider the mens rea requirements in all three counts against the Appellant, thereby reaching the wrong judgment against the Appellant. (4) The Learned Trial Judge erred in Law in ignoring the evidence given by defence witnesses, particularly the evidence of DW2 Edmond Koroma, which said testimony was highly material to the success of the defence. (5) The Learned Tr'al Judge in evaluating the evidence allowed herself to be carried away by exhibit(s) M and N to the extent that she lost sight of the distinction between a Notif fcation of Award Letter and an award letter which form the basis of the Action, thereby reaching the wrong conclusion (judgment). These words are also added though not numbered (6 ): In coming to the conclusion that the prosecution case has been proved as required by law, on the basis of prosecuting counsel's submission implying that the Learned Judge shut her eyes to the defence of the accused contained in exhibit “C" and also contained in the testimony DW1 and DW2 upon which the defence relied, These grounds are certainly not good examples of clarity. They exhibit obfuscation and confusion of thought. Further, in case Mr Edwards has forgotten, there is action voii^ji ij Tnvvlved: there is a cause or matter. An action, pertains to civil proceedings. *7b. No grounds of appeal against sentence have been provided by the Appellant. The effect of this is that if the appeal is dismissed, the sentence will remain unchanged. I suspect that Counsel may have been in a desperate hurry when he settled the grounds of appeal - thus the many errors in grammar and syntax and the several ellipses. The Appellant asks that his conviction and sentence be set aside and an acquittal be substituted in their place; and, for such further or other Orders to be made by the Court in furthering justice. What this last bit means, is not quite obvious. This is a criminal appeal, and you can only get what you ask for. The Appellant did indicate that these grounds would be amended or added to, but until the appeal hearing was completed, no additions, nor amendments, had been made to them, THE IN D ICTM EN T A . I shall now set out the Indictment in extenso: Count 1 Statement of Offence: Abuse of Office contrary to Section 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act,2008 Particulars of Offence: SHEKU T E JA N KOROMA on a date unknown between March,2009 and May,2009 at Freetown in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, being the Minister of Health and Sanitation, and being a Public O fficer, abused his office as Ministeryfrespect of the award of a contract for the supply of medical consumables and reagents to the Ministry, by improperly awarding the said contract to the Cardinal Investment Limited, instead of to the Health Care Pharmacy, as the lowest and most responsive bidder based on the recommendations of the Technical Evaluation Committee of the Ministry. Count 2 Statement of Offence: Abuse of Position contrary to Section 43 of the Anti-Corruption Act,2008 Particulars of Offence: SHEKU T EJA N KOROMA on a date unknown between March ,2009 and May,2009 at Freetown in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, being the Minister of Health and Sanitation, and being a Public Of f icer, aoused his position as a Minister, in respect of the award \ U of a contract for the supply of medical consumables and reagents to the Ministry, by contravening the provisions of the Public Procurement Act,2004, through the improper award of the said contract to the Cardinal Investment Limited, instead of. to the Health Care Pharmacy, as the lowest and most responsive bidder based on the recommendations of the Technical Evaluation Committee of the Ministry. Count 3 Statement of Offence: Wilfully failing to comply with the laws, procedures and guidelines relating to the procurement of property, tendering of contracts and management of funds, contrary to Section 48(2)(b) of the Anti-Corruption Act,2008. Particulars of Offence: SHEKU T EJA N KOROMA on a date unknown between March,2009 and May,2009 at Freetown in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, being the Minister of Health and Sanitation, and being a public officer, wilfully failed to comply with the provisions of the Procurement Act,2004 and the Regulations set out there-under relating to the procurement of property, tendering of contracts and management of funds, in respect of the award of a contract for the supply of medical consumables and repgents to the Ministry of Health and Sanitation, through the improper award of the said contract to the Cardinal Investment Limited, instead of to the Health Care Pharmacy, as the lowest and most responsive bidder based on the recommendations of the technical and evaluation committee of the Ministry. The case for the prosecution at the trial was that the Appellant was Minister of Health, a part of the Government of S ie r r a Leoner and was therefore a Public O fficer within the terms of the Anti-Corruption Act.2008 - ACA.2008. In December,200^, the Ministry invited bids for the supply of drugs and medical consumables. Health Care Pharmacy of 4 Wilberforce Street, (hereafter HCP) submitted a Tender on 6 ^ October,2008.The Bid docunents were tendered collectively by PW1, as * exhibit A, pages 83-86 of the Record. The Bids were apparently opened on the same 6 0ctober,2008, according to the Ministry's Bid Opening documents, tendered collect'vely as exhibit B, by PW1 also - pages 87-90 CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION . v s n of the Record. Exhibit B item 3 on page 87 shows that in respect of Lot . 8, HCP's Bid was the least in terms of cost. On 15 october,2008, PW1 wrote a minute to the Appellant - exhibit D, page 92 of the Record - in which he informed the Appellant that the bids would be evaluated by the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC), and that thereafter a Report will be submitted to the Procurement Committee (PC) to review. The TEC did the revfew as evidenced by the minutes of its deliberations dated 31 December,2008, tendered as exhibit E - pages 93-101 of the Record. At page 99, the TEC clearly recommended the acceptance of the bid submitted by HCP in respect of Lot 8. On 5 January,2009 PW1 wrote a minute to the Appellant, exhibit F - page 102 of the Record - forwarding there-under a copy of the TECs Report, and informing him that the PC would have to review the recommendation, and that the recommendation would require his consideration. What followed, according to PW1 whilst giving evidence at pages 13-14 of the Record, was this:" W hen I su b m itted th e T ech n ical Evalu atio n R ep o rt in a m inute to th e M in is te r he o u t- rig h tly o b je c te d to th e recom m endation o f H e a lth C are Pharm acy as w inner o f th e b id not-w ithstanding p ric e d iffe r e n tia l betw een th e two H e d id n o t do h is o b je ctio n in w ritin g. H e d id i t v e rb a lly an d k ep t on in sistin g th a t we should n o t s it a s a com m ittee to co n firm th e recom m endation. B y me I mean th e Procurem ent Com m ittee m em bership. H e sim p ly d em o n strated h is p re fe re n c e fo r c a rd in a l in vestm en t b u t he d id n o t g iv e us an y reasons’ . B u t we saw i t d iffic u lt to go b y th a t given th e d iffe r e n tia l in p ric e s and i t was c o n tra ry to p ro cu rem en t ru les. A f t e r h is o b jectio n s, a s a com m ittee, we w aited fo r h is ap p ro val and he w anted to ensure th a t we com plied w ith h is in s tru c tio n s th a t C ard in al In ve stm e n t sh ould be aw arded th e co n tra ct. W hen we fin a lly m et as a procurem ent com m ittee and due to th e p re ssu re we w ere g e ttin g from th e M in is te r th e com m ittee ag reed th a t C ard in al In v e s tm e n t b e aw ard ed th e c o n tra c t fo r L o t 8. A f t e r th e Com m ittee had ag re e d I p re se n te d a m inute to him d a te d 8 M arch,2 0 0 9 ....prod uced and te n d e re d ....a s e x h ib it Exhibit G is actually dated 9 March,2009. I t is at page 103 of the Record Part of this minute read s as follows. “.... The Com m ittee w as fa c e d w ith a d iffic u lt ta sk in taking a d ecision on L o t 8.......in re s p e c t o f w hich th e Tech nical Eva lu atio n n ad recom m ended A. . H o H e a lth C are Pharm acy who o ffe r e d th e b e s t e va lu a ted b id p ric e o f U 5 0 6 6 6 ,407.38, b u t w hich you saw d iffe r e n tly and on a num ber o f occasions you g ave ve rb a l in stru c tio n s th a t th a t decision should be re v e rs e d in fa vo u r o f M e s s rs C a rd in a l In v e stm e n t who o ffe re d a h ig h er b id p ric e o f U S 0 6 8 9 ,5 75.50 w ith em phasis th a t you would n o t s e ttle fo r an yth in g s h o rt o f th a t. In com pliance w ith yo u r in stru c tio n s as th e boss, th e Procu rem ent Com m ittee th e re fo re h ad to recom m end th a t L o t 8 be aw ard ed to C ard in al In v e s tm e n t..." (^ r In the interim, the National Public Procurement Agency - NPPA, had addressed a letter to PW2 on 16 March,2009 - exhibit P , pages 187 A 188 of the Record, requesting the Ministry to reverse the award of Lot 8 to Cardinal Investment Limited. On 30 April,2009 PW2 responded by letter, exhibit Q, page 189 of the Record. In this letter PW2 stated that the Ministry’s PC o f which he was head, had agreed to resubmit the bid made by Healthcare Pharmacy for Lot 8, for approval by the NPPA < ff. According to PW2, once his minute of 9 March,2009 was sent, the v contract was awarded to Cardinal Investment. The National Public Procurement Committee (NPPA) did not approve of this as evidenced in the letter dated 14 May,2009 addressed by the Agency, to PW2 - exhibit H - page 104 of the Record, and copied to the Appellant. According to PW2, the Minister was out of town at the time and on 18 May,2009 he minuted this letter to the acting Minister, as appears on page 107 of the Record. The Acting Minister minuted back on 19 May,2009: *Se e n and hope you w ill take th e n e c e s sa ry a ctio n n eed ed ." 0 . The NPPA remitted the matter to its Independent Procurement Review Panel - IPRP - for determination. This was as a result of a letter of complaint dated 7 May,2009 -see pages 110 & 190 of the Record - sent to it by Health Care Pharmacy. The IPRP's Ruling dated 22 May,2009 on the complaint, was tendered as exhibit J - pages 108 - 113 of the Record. I t was forwarded to the Appellant by PW2 under cover of his minute dated 26 May,2009 - exhibit K page 114 of the Record. The IPRP had ruled that in accordance with the provisions of the Public Procurement Act,2004 and the Regulations made thereunder in 2006, the contract for lot 8, should be awarded to Health Care Pharmacy, and it was to be done within 14 days of 22 May,2009. In exhibit K, PW2 sought the Appellant's approval to implement the decision of the IPRP. The Appellant evidently, did not give l « U the required approval. His thoughts could be deduced and his actions could be determined from the contents of his letter dated 27 May,2009 addressed to The M anager, Cardinal Investment Limited, exhibit M pages 117-118 of the Record. There, he said, inter alia," I r e f e r to yo u r B id fo r th e supply o f L a b o ra to ry R eag en ts (L o t 8 ) and to in form you th a t th e M in is try o f H e a lth and S a n ita tio n , a ctin g fo r and on b e h a lf o f th e G overnm ent o f S ie r r a Leone, h as approved th e aw ard o f th e c o n tra c t to y o u r com pany.....You a re re q u e ste d to co n ta ct th e o ffic e o f th e M in is te r o f H e a lth and S a n ita tio n a t yo u r e a rlie s t convenience to sign th e re q u isite c o n tra c t docum ents,..." The date of the letter, and its contents are of immense signif icance, given the arguments advanced by Appellant's Counsel during the course of the appeal. Less than a month later, the Appellant executed the contract on 23 June,2009 - exhibit N pages 120­ 150 of the Record. ^ As to why the contract was signed by the Appellant, PW3 Mohamed Kallon, Acting Procurement Manager in the Ministry said at page 19 of the Record,"... The aw ard le t t e r was signed b y th e M in is te r and th e c o n tra c t was also signed b y th e M in is te r. U sually, i t is n o t th e M in is te r who signs th e aw ard le tte rs . F o r L o t 8 i t was th e M in is te r who sig n ed th e le t t e r and th e co n tra c t. I have g o t a copy o f th e c o n tra c t..." At pages 30 and 31 of the Record, the Appellant, whilst giving evidence in his own behalf, agreed that he signed exhibit M. In answer to Q30 in his reco rd ed interview, exhibit 0, at page 167 of the Record, the Appellant identified the signature on exhibit M, as his. In answer to Q56 at page 180 when asked whether the contract for Lot 8 had been awarded, he said: "Y e s, i t has been ve rb a lly aw ard ed to C a rd in a l In ve stm e n t Lim ite d ." Also, on pages 31 A 32 of the Record, the Appellant admitted that he awarded the contract to Cardinal Investment Limited, though he did not explicitly admit, signing the contract exhibit N which bears his signature. Signif icantly, at the end of his testimony, 5 E Y ,J at page 34 of the Record, put these three questions to him, and he gave the answers following each question: * W h at is th e d a te on e x h ib it M , 27th M ay,2009; W h at is th e d a te on e x h ib it N ; 23 Ju n e ,2009; A p a rt from th ese two docum ents w ere th e re an y o th e r le tte r s o f aw ard to C a rd in a l In v e s tm e n t? N o ." \flL-Ihese were the facts which the prosecution alleged, and were successful in proving, that the Appellant had abused his position and his office, and . \<{Z~ had wilfully failed to comply with the laws and regulations applicable to the award. The Learned Trial Judge accepted, and relied on these pieces of evidence in her judgment. In his closina address, Mr Edwards, Counsel for the Appeflant submitted that there nPwritten evidence to support PW2's allegation of pressure. The LearnlfcfTrial Judge rejected this submission, and we think she was right in doing so. She heard PW2 give evidence, and also heard the Appellant testify in his own defence. She was in a position to deciae whether PW2's allegation was true or otherwise. However, Mr Edwards conceded that the Appellant signed exhibits M AN though he argued, that mens rea could not be implied on the part of the Appellant by this official act. GROUND 1 ify . We shall now proceed to deal with the grounds of appeal seriatim: In Ground 1, the Appellant submits th a t:" The Le arn ed T ria l Ju d g e e rre d in Law in holding th a t th e ch arg es a s la id in counts 1-3 in clu sive w ere in co n fo rm ity w ith th e re s p e c tiv e se ctio n s nam ely: S e c tio n s 4 2 (1 ) 43 & 4 8 (2 ) o f th e A n ti-C o rru p tio n A c t,2008, and th e re fo re fu lfille d th e leg a l re q u ire m e n ts." SEC TIO N S 42(1), 43 A 43(2)(B) OF THE ACA.2008 KJLW e have set out Counts 1-3 above. We shall now set out the relevant 'Sections. They read as follows:" S e c tio n 4 2 :(1 ) A P u b lic O ffic e r who uses h is o ffic e to im p ro p erly c o n fe r an advantage on h im s e lf o r an y o th e r person com m its an o ffe n c e ; (2 ) A Person g u ilty o f an o ffe n c e under su b sectio n (1 ) s h a ll on convictio n be lia b le to a fin e o f n o t le s s than Le30m iHion o r to im prisonm ent fo r a term o f n o t le s s than 3 y e a rs o r to both such fin e an d im prisonm ent. S e c tio n 43: A P u b lic O ffic e r who know ingly ab u ses h is p o sitio n in th e p erfo rm an ce a ffa ilu r e to p erfo rm an a c t. in co n trave n tio n o f an y taw, in th e d isch arg e o f h is fu n ctio n s o r d u tie s com m its an o ffe n c e and s h a ll on con victio n b e lia b le to a fin e n o t le ss than Le30mHHon o r to im prisonm ent fo r a term n o t le s s than 3 y e a rs o r to both such fin e an d im prisonm ent. S e c tio n 4 8 (2 )(b ): A Person whose fu n ctio n s concern th e ad m in istratio n , custodym an agem ent■ re c e ip t o r use o f an y p a r t o f th e p u b lic revenue o r p u b lic p ro p e rty com m its an o ffe n c e i f he - (a )....(b ) w ilfu lly o r n eg lig en tly fa ils to com ply w ith any law . . I A S o r ap p licab le p ro ce d u res and g u id elin es re la tin g to th e procurem ent, a llo catio n , s a le o r d isp o sal o f p ro p e rty , ten d erin g o f c o n tra cts, m anagem ent o f fu n d s o r in cu rrin g o f expenditures. ^ Regrettably, in his synopsis filed on behalf of the Appellant, Mr Edwards has not addressed this Ground o f Appeal. In fact, what he describes in that synopsis as " th e issu es in th is ap p e al' do not in any way correspond with the grounds of appeal. However, we shall deal with this ground for what it is worth. The law applicable to Count 1 was dealt with by the Learned Trial Judge at pages 66-67 of the Record She spelt out the requirements for a conviction quite adequately. GROUND 2 As regards Count 2, she also did the same, and went on to say that even though jiA the word '"know ing!/ had been omitted from the particulars of offence, mens rea was still required for a conviction. She was quite right ^ in saying that its absence did not render the Indictment bad in Law. She referred to the unreported English case of HALL(1983). W e will content ourselves by relying on the provisions in Rule 3 of the Criminal Procedure Rules in the First Schedule to the Criminal Procedure Act,1965 - CPA,1965. " I t s h a ll be s u ffic ie n t i f on ly th e w ords o f th e se ctio n o f th e enactm en t c re a tin g th e o ffe n c e a re s e t o u t in th e p a rtic u la rs o f th e o ffe n c e ." This is the minimum duty of the prosecutor. I f all of the words in the section creating the offence are used, so much the better. But where, as in this case, the Learned Trial Judge has made it clear, that mens rea was requisite to ground a conviction, we do not think she was wrong to have overruled Mr Edwards' submission. Wha+ she meant was that she would not convict the Appellant unless she was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the requisite mens rea. As regards Count 3, she adequately and competently set out the elements of that offence as well at pages 67-69 of the Record. This Ground of Appeal has no substance, and therefore fails. 16. We think the Learned Trial Judge rightly found as she stated at page 75 of the Record, that PW l's withdrawal of his Firm’s bid by letter dated 10 August,20Q9, exhibit C - page 91 of the Record, came three months after exhibit M, and two months after exhibit N; and that Mr Edwards' submission that the contract came after it had been cleared by the Ministry o f Finance, was untenable. PW l's fetter had no effect on the award of the contract to Cardinal Investment Limited. 17. At page 75 also, the Learned Trial Judge expresses her disbelief of that part of the Appellant’s testimony where he had said that he would sign anything put before him by his Permanent Secretary. We think there were ample grounds for her disbelief, as she explained on page 76 of the Record. As she stated further down that same page, Appellant's witness, DW2, Edmund Koroma held conversations with Appellant during which he, DW2 tried to prevail upon Appellant to give up on his insistence that the # contract wds should be given to Cardinal Investment. D IST IN C T IO N W ITH O U T A D IFFERENCE 18. Mr Edwards, has in his synopsis, drawn a spurious distinction between the letter confirming the award, exhibit M, and the contract, exhibit N. Firstly, contrary to his argument on page 2 of his synopsis, it is untrue that the Appellant did not award the contract: exhibits M A N provide clear evidence, which was accepted by the Learned Trial Judge, that he did so. Secondly, it is untrue that the award was made after HCP had withdrawn its bid. The Pharmacy only withdrew its bid on 10 August,2009 - see exhibit C, page 91 of the Record. The learned Trial Judge was therefore right, in the words of Mr Edwards, to " la y prem ium ’' on exhibits MAN. 19. Moving on to Ground 2 of the Appellant's appeal, th a t" th e Le a rn e d T ria l Ju d g e e rre d in Law (w hen s h e ) o v e rru le d th e d efen ce subm ission t,hat Count 2 is b ad in Law b y th e om ission o f th e mens re a req u irem en t in th e w ord "know ingly1 1 as e n sh rin ed in th e s ta tu te !', we have stated our position and our view, that we do not think the omission fatal to a conviction. The omission would have been fatal had the Learned Trial Judge not reminded herself that she could not convict the Appellant unless there was proof that he had knowingly abused his position as she did at page 67 of the Record. The Mens rea of " know ingly' could be inferred from +he evidence led: That the TEC and the PC had recommended that the award should go to Health Care Pharmacy; but the Appellant, in defiance of all procedural guidelines laid dawn in the Public Procurement Act and the Regulations made thereunderlmcI the remonstrations of PW1, his Permanent Secretary, the MNP and the IPRP, had insisted, and had himself made the r I H S award to Cardinal Investment. The Learned Trial Judge had all of these matters in mind when she concluded that the Appellant was guilty of the offence charged in Count 2 of the Indictment. GROUND 3 20 In Ground 3, the Appellant contends th a t" The Le a rn e d T ria l Ju d g e e rre d in Law (a s ) sh e d id n o t co n sid e r th e mens re a req u irem en ts in a ll th re e coun ts ag ain st th e A p p e lla n t th e re b y reach in g th e wrong Ju d g m en t a g ain st th z A p p ellan t. "W e have gone through the Record, and, as we have said above, we believe that this accusation is also groundless. This Ground also fails for want of merit. GROUND 4 21. Ground 4 states th a t:" The L e a rn e d T ria l Ju d g e e rre d in Law in ignoring th e evid en ce g iven b y d e fe n ce w itn esses, p a rtic u la rly th e evid en ce o f b W 2 Edm ond Korom a w hich s a id testim ony was h ig h ly m a te ria l to th e su cce ss o f th e d e fe n c e " Mr Edwards has not substantiated this accusation. He deals with it in onfy 5 lines in his synopsis, 4 of which are a repeat of the ground itself. He refers us to pages 35-37 of the Record. He has not highlighted any particular portion or portions of this testimony which, he has implied, would have exonerated his client, if it or they had been considered by the Learned Trial Judge. W e do not know why Mr Edwards has chosen to rely on this witness' testimony as we do not believe it supports the Appellant's case. Part of what he said at pages 35A36 of the Record, is as follows:".../ c a lle d th e C EO o f th e N PPA to und erstan d th e issu e s o f lo t 8..he brought to m y o ffic e a copy o f th e Ruling b y th e IP R P a n e l in w hich one o f th e p a rtie s h ad com plained about th e p ro cu rin g p ro cess. W ith th a t inform ation and docum entation b e fo re me, I c a lle d th e M in is te r an d ad vised him th a t on th e b a s is o f th e Ruling i f th e company to w hich th e c o n tra c t h ad been aw ard ed p ro ceed ed to supply then G overnm ent can not p ay because i t is n o t le g a l.....T h e re a fte r I h e ld subsequent m eetings w ith th e accu sed to le t th e law p re v a il in th is m a tte r....." The Learned Trial Judge referred to this portion of his evidence in her judgment at page 76A78 of the Record. The witness was of course, here referring to the decision of the IPRP which we have dealt n I* lfe I I i with above, and the Appellant's insistence, that notwithstanding this Ruling, the award should be made to Cardinal Investment Limited. 22.The other witness, DW3 Yaya Alvi Conteh, did not really say much. He merely said that he had never heard the Appellant say anything to PW2 about the contract, even though, according to him, he was in the off ice of the Appellant most times. As he could not possibly be in the office of the Appellant all the timer his presence there on some occasions does not necessarily detract from what PW2 had said about the Appellant's verbal instructions to him. In any event, PW2 wrote down his misgivings about the Appellant's conduct as has so amply been demonstrated above. In sum, the Learned Trial judge dealt adequately with the evidence led by and for the defence. GROUND 5 (4 maybe GROUND 6) 23. W e move on to Ground 5 which states:" The L e a rn e d T ria l Ju d g e in evaluatin g th e evid en ce allow ed h e rs e lf to be c a rrie d aw ay b y e x h ib its M and N to th e e x te n t th a t sh e lo s t s ig h t o f th e d is tin c tio n betw een n o tific a tio n o f aw a rd le t t e r and an aw ard le t t e r w hich form th e b asis o f th e actio n , th e re b y reach in g th e wrong conclusion (ju d g m en t) in coming to th e conclusion th a t th e p ro secu tio n case h as been p ro ve d a s re q u ire d b y 'aw, on th e b a sis o f p ro secu tin g counsel's subm ission im plying th a t th e Le a rn e d T ria l Ju d g e sh u t h e r e yes to th e d e fe n ce o f th e accused co n tain ed in e x h ib it C a n d also con tain ed in th e testim o n y o f 0 W1 and 0 W 2 upon w hich th e d e fen ce re lie d ." We find some parts of this ground disturbing: the turgidity of the language used by the Appellant, or perhaps suggested to him by his Solicitor and Counsel; the use of colloquial expressions such as 'a ju d g e being c a rrie d aw ay1 . 'sh u t h e r eyes'; and 'lo s ts ig h t'. W e do not think these are appropriate expressions to be used when referring to a Judge of the Superior Court of Judicature. We do not think this the appropriate language of a fawyer. Solicitors and Counsel should be very mindful of the expressions they use in papers filed in Court W e are also Judges, and we register our strong disapprobation of the use of such expressions. As it is, the ground is completely baseless. His arguments in support of this ground on pages 4 and 5 of his synopsis are worthless and without any merit whatsoever. They show that he did not study the evidence properly before putting pen to paper. ivt Moreover, as we have said above, he has tried to draw a distinction without a difference: between an award, a letter of award and the award of a contract. The evidence led is that the Appellant signed both exhibits M 4 N. He did so notwithstanding the Ruling of the IPRP, the letters addressed to him by the Head of the NPPA, the Memoranda addressed to him by PW2, and his own witness, Mr Koroma'^.kindly wieruaofcoB. And, y contrary to Mr Edwards' assessment of the evidence of PW2 and PW3 on page 5 of his synopsis, their individual testimonies were not weak. They spoke to the point: that the Appellant was obstinate and insistent that he would not abide by the decisions of the TEC. the PC, the NPPA and the IRPR. This was the same finding the Learned Trial Judge made. And we agree entirely with her in this respect. 24.Unlike Mr Edwards, we do not believe that throughout the trial, evidence was wrongly admitted; nor, that the Court below acted on wrong principles. W e therefore see no reason why the Appellant’s convictions should be quashed, Mr Edwards has unfortunately, not explained the ref erence he has made at the bottom of his page 5 to the cases he has cited. W e do not believe any or all of them support any of the points he has canvassed in this appeal. 25. We have gone through the synopsis submitted on behalf of the Respondent. W e think we have dealt adequately above with all the points of argument which have arisen in this appeal, and we do not find it necessary to comment on his arguments, 26.In the result, the Appellant's appeal against his conviction and sentence is dismissed. ■ (\lLu THE HONOURABLE MR JU S T IC E N C BROWNE. JU S T IC E OF APPEAL THE HONOURABLE JU S T IC E E E ROBERTS, JU S T IC E OF APPEALHONOURABLE JU S T IC E E E ROBERTS,