Paul Kamara V The State (32 of 2005) [2005] SLCA 3 (29 November 2005)

eos ; 2b . Cr. App.32/2004 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE BETWEEN: PAULKAMARA = - APPELLANT AND THE STATE = RESPONDENT ‘CORAM: Hon. Justice Sir John Muria JA (Presiding) Hon. Justice A.N.B. Stronge JA Hon. Justice J. Kamanda JA HEARING: — 23" and 29" November 2005

Judgment

29” November 2005 (Reasons Reserved) Advocates: JB. Jenkins-Johnston Esq. for Appellant ©.V. Robbin-Mason Esq. and A.S. Sesay Esq. for Respondent

Reasons for Judgment

Delivered this 4* day of Lume 2005 ><Mk MURIA JA (Now JSC): On 29" November, 2005 this Court allowed the appellant's appeal and quashed his sentence. We said that we would give our reasons for our decision. This we now do so. This case extends beyond the interest of the appellant and the respondent. It concerns the principle of freedom of the press which is one of the freedoms enshrined under the

i 2t : Constitution of Sierra Leone. This appeal, however, is determined on the facts of the present case and law applicable to those facts. Brief Backaround The brief background to this case is that appellant, Paul Kamara, is the Editor of the newspaper FOR DI PEOPLE. On 3 October 2003, respectively, the Newspaper published the following statements about His Excellency the President of Sierra Leone. “KABBA IS A TRUE CONVICT ‘Therefore, President Kabba is a convict who has refused with impunity to appeal his conviction........." “BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONALITY AND A CONVICT . PRESIDENT KABBA As far as FDP is concerned Kabbah should not be a President In the first place. The man never appealed the Beoku-Betts Commission of Inquiry and the simple definition of the term ‘CONVICT ‘is an individual that has been found guilty of a crime or an offence........." Following he publication of those statements in the FOR DI PEOPLE Newspaper, the appellant was charged with Seditious Libel for which he was tried, convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment by the High Court of Sierra Leone The High Court decision | set out the two counts of Seditious | ibel, contrary to Section 33(1)(c) of the Public Order Act No.46 of 1965 as amended in order to appreciate the nature of the offences with which the appellant was charged.

“COUNT 1 STATEMENT OF OFFENCE: SEDITIOUS LIBEL CONTRARYTO __ SECTION 33(1)(c) of the Public Order Act No.46 of 1965 as amended. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE: PAUL KAMARA on the 3° day of October 2003 at Freetown in the Western Area of Sierra Leone seditiously published a certain seditious libel conceming His Excellency the President of Sierra Leone Alhaji Dr. ‘Ahmad Tejan Kabba containing inter alia the following seditious matters in the 3 of October 2003 Edition of "FOR DI PEOPLE" Newspaper in an article captioned:- KABBA IS A TRUE CONVICT!" to wit *........ Therefore, President Kabbah is a convict who has refused with impunity, to appeal his ; conviction..." “COUNT II STATEMENT OF OFFENCE: SEDITIOUS LIBEL CONTRARY TO SECTION 33(1)(¢) of the Public Order Act No.46 of 1965 as amended PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE: PAUL KAMARA on the 7" day of October 2003 at Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone seditiously published a certain seditious libel concerning His Excellency the President of thr Republic of Sierra Leone Alhaji Dr. Ahmad Tejan Kabba Containing inter alia the following seditious matters in the 7” of October 2003 Edition of FOR DI PEOPLE”

. Newspaper in an article captioned BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONALITY AND A CONVICT PRESIDENT” KABBA to wits “As far as FDP Is concerned Kabbah should not be should not be a president in the first place. The man never appealed the Beoku-Betts Commission of Inquiry and the simple definition of the term “CONVICT”, is an individual that has been found guilty of a crime or an offence ......" As I have said earlier, following a trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced to two (2) years imprisonment. It will be observed that before finding the appellant guilty and sentencing him, the leamed trial Judge, in his Judgment, set out what Counsel for appellant called = the “lofty goals” to be taken into consideration. His Lordship set these out at Pages 139 to 140 as follows:- “Having carefully considered the submissions made by Defence Counsel and Prosecuting Counsel in their final address except Counsel for the 2° accused who is absent from the jurisdiction and | should now consider whether Prosecution have prove (sic) their case against each accused person beyond reasonable doubt - to my satisfaction in my capacity as Judge and Jury. Like in all criminal proceedings the prosecution in the present proceedings has the burden to prove the charges as laid in the indictment. The accused persons are under no obligation to put a defence. There are four counts in this indictment. Counts 1 & 2 charge the 1* accused with publishing a seditious libel concerning His Excellency the

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