Mani Koroma v S (46 of 2020) [2021] SLCA 14 (26 April 2021)

Judgenest proved by the cou forhandig down Man xoromav The tome Genea + ‘Neutral Citation Number; {CO146/2020) _SLCOACOL0002__ (Civil Division) | Case No: 46/2020 INTHE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SIERRA LEONE ON APPEAL FROM THE COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY MARCH 2020 =~ THE HON JUSTICE SIR BIOBELE GEORGEWILI. | Law Court Buildi Saka Stevens Street Freecown tc: 26 April 2021 | Before: | ‘THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A I SESAY JA (PRESIDING) THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ALHAJI MOMOH-JAH STEVENS JA and ‘THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A FISHER le, Te UeicraRy, Between: donee MANIKOROMA Appellant pne Ze ry md | cand: | q ‘THE STATE Respondent ‘Ady Macat (B ‘of Counsel for the Appellant RB Kowa, TJ Freeman, P Williams State Counsel for the Respondent Hearing dates:20 January, 24 February, 1 March 2021 APPROVED JUDGEMENT ‘We direct that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic. Page ot 22

bel S0 Judgement approve by the court for handing down Mani Korma v The Attorney General

The Honourable Me Justice Alhaji Momoh jah Stevens JA: (Giving the Judgement of the Court) r

1. This is the judgement of the court, to which all members have contributed, on an | appeal that is concemed with matters that were the subject of the Commissions of | Inquiry, set up by His Excellency, The President, Red Brigadier Julius Mada Bio, ‘upon his assumption to office in 2018 and approved by Parliament in the form of ‘several constitutional instruments, 64, 65 and 67 of 2018. . | Background facts

2. The Commission of Inquiry, pursuant Constitutional Instrument No 64, reported its findings in March 2020, in a number of volumes. Following the submission of the | reporr, the Government published a white paper into the findings of the Biobele | ‘Commission of Inquiry in September 2020, where it accepted and rejected some of the findings. Following the publication of the white paper, the appellant being dissatisfied with the findings contained in the Commission of Inquiry report and the | ‘white paper has now appealed to this court against those findings. in so far as they | relate to him and upon the grounds set out below. ‘The Grounds of Appeal

3. The Appellant has appealed to this court against the decision of the Commission of Inquiry, upon the following grounds, which we summarise below: L That the sole commissioner erred in law and acted ultra vires his mandate when he exercised ‘jurisdiction over the appellant by proceeding to investigate and make adverse findings and recommendations against him when the appellant does not fll within the scope of the subject ‘matter mandate, nor was he made and/or invited as a person of interest to be investigated as provided for in the instrument

2. That the receipt of evidence by the sole commissioner during the investigation into the activities of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology and the making of adverse findings, and recommendations against the Appellant without giving him an opportunity to

Page 2 of 22

| Judgement approved by the court for band down ‘ani Koromay The Attorney-General

= de heard was a violation ofthe appllan’s rights toa fair eral es protected under section 230) ofthe Constitution, Act No 6 of 199 and tha «full ft and impartial inquiry had rot been conducted as required bythe provisions of ston 149 ()(a) of te Constitution. He stressed that the principle audi alteram partem was cardinal rl of natural justice which ¥ requires that every side to an action or dispute must be given an opportunity be heard |

4. That the adverse findings and recommendations relaving to the appellant are against the weigh ofthe evidence presented at the proceedings.

4. Having set out the grounds of appeal put forward by the appellant, we consider it | expedient at this point to also summarily set our the Respondent’ case in response to | the appeal | ‘The Respondent'scase |

5. The Respondent in reply, set out the following propositions:

|

1. That the respondent concedes that the appellant does not fall within the | scope of section 4 (2) of the constitutional instrument no 64 but contends that the appellant does fall within the terms of reference ofthe instrument by | virtue of section 4 (d)ii) ofthe said instrument |

2. That there is no breach of the provisions of section 23(2) of the 1991 Constitution. |

3. That there is no adverse finding against the appellant that provides him with a Jegal basis to appeal pursuant to section 149(4) of the 1991 Constitution. The appellant was not investigated and no adverse finding was made against him and he therefore does not fall within section 149(4). That further to the above, it was the president's order as stated in the white paper that called for the appellant to jointly and severally refund to the state and any remedy the appellant has against those orders cannot form part of the section 149(4) appellate provisions and consequently the remedy should be refused. Page 3 0f 22

| sudgement approved by the cour for handing down ‘Mani koroma vThe attorney General 4, That there was sufficient evidence before the sole commissioner that enabled him to ascertain thatthe appellant was a collaborator and consequently the ¥ findings of the sole commissioner were not against the weight of the evidence |

6. Having ot the gods of apel andthe spn thes we conse necessary to set out the legal basis upon which the partes appear before this court by ‘way of an appeal against the decision of the chairman and sole commissioner. “The Consticution of Sierra Leone, Act No 6 of 1991.

7. The Constitution makes provisions forthe legal basis upon which an appeal from the | findings of the commissions of inquiry can be legally pursued. One such provision is section 149, subsection 4) ofthe said Constitution, which provides:

(0) Where a Commission of Inquiry makes an adverse finding aginst any person, which may result in a penalty, forfeiture or loss of status, the report of the Commission of Inquiry shal, for the | purpose ofthis Constitution, be deemed to be a judgement of the High Court of Justice and accordingly am appeal shall eas of right rom the Commission tothe Court of Appl ‘8. Where such an appeals filed in the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal Rulles 1985, determine the manner in which such appeals are heard and determined. As this appeal is for all intents and purposes a civil appeal, the rules governing how civil appeals are heard becomes relevant. To that extent Part III of those rules become relevant. Rule 9 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1985, provides: | “9

(1) All appeals shall be by way of rehearing...”

9. The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to hear and determine appeals is set out in Section 129 (3) of the Constitution. It is noteworthy to mention that save for the - provisions of section 149(4) of the Constitution, there are no other legal provisions dealing with appeals {rom Commissions of Inquities. However, appeals from ‘Commissions of Inquities are deemed to be judgements of the High Court by virtue of the provisions of subsection 4 of Section 149 of the Constitution. We are therefore * Page 4 of 22

a

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