S v Francis Gabbidon (SC CRIM APP 2 of 2008) [2009] SLSC 6 (27 February 2009)

; tte ” S.C. CRIM. APP. NO.2/2008 : IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE. (CRIMINAL JURISDICTION} Z BETWEEN: THE STATE - RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT AND FRANCIS A. GABBIDON - APPELLANT/ APPLICANT

Coram

HON. MRS. JUSTICE S. BASH-TAQI JSC HON. MR. JUSTICE G.B. SEMEGA-JANNEH JSC HON. MR. JUSTICE P.O. HAMILTON JSC COUNSEL: DR. BU-BUAKIE JABBI ESQ. AND LEON JENKINS-JOHNSTON ESQ. FOR THE APPELLANT/APPLICANT MR. ABDUL TEJAN-COLE ESQ. AND MS. GLENNA THOMPSON FOR THE RESPONDENT. RULING DELIVERED ON THE 27" DAY OF FEBRUARY 2009 SEMEGA-JANNEH JSC:

1. This Ruling embodies the decisions of the Court in relation to the objection taken in respect of Dr. Bu-Buakie Jabbi’s practising status and his representation for the Applicant and the main application for a stay of proceedings, a

ze =

2. On the 9* day of December 2008, Mr. Francis A Gabbidon, the . Applicant herein, filed a Notice of Motion dated the 4", December 2008 applying for the following reliefs or orders. (

(1) AN ORDER FOR INTERIM STAY OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS in the matter of The State vs. Francis A. Gabbidon at present taking lace in the High Court before the Honourable Mrs. Justice M. Sey J, pending the hearing and determination of the above application now pending before this honourable Supreme Court,

(2) AN ORDER FOR STAY OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS in the matter of The State vs. Francis A. Gabbidon at present taking place in the High Court before the Honourable Mrs. Justice M, Sey J, pending the hearing and determination of both the above appeal in S.C. Crim. App. No. 2/2008 now pending before the Supreme Court and that other appeal in S.C. Crim. App. No. 19/2008 at present pending before the Court of Appeal.

(3) ANY FURTHER OR OTHER ORDERS that this honourable Court jas may deem fit,

3. When the Notice of Motion came up for hearing on the 19" December 2008, Mr. Abdul Tejan-Cole, of counsel, Director of the Anti- Corruption Commission, objected to the application in that the application was prepared and signed by Dr. Bu-Buakei Jabbi as solicitor; and that, unless Dr. Bu-Buakei Jabbi can prove to this Court ‘g that he is entitled to practice and has the requisite practicing certificate from the General Legal Council in accordance with section 19 of the

t .

Legal Practitioners Act, 2000, with particular reference to subsections - 1 and 5, he cannot act as a Legal Practitioner.

4. The Court was of the view that as Mr. Abdul Tejan-Cole was making st the allegations, he should provide the Court with the appropriate evidence in support of his oral assertions in court. Mr. Abdul Tejan- Cole therefore applied to the Court for an adjournment for the purpose of acquiring and adducing before the Court the relevant evidence. The Court declined the application because the Court was of the view that ‘Mr. Abdul Cole had ample time to have acquired the evidence and give adequate notice to both Dr. Bu-Buakei Jabbi and the Court of his intention to raise the objection. The Court therefore proceeded with the hearing of the application filed by Dr. Bu-Buakei Jabbi and at the same time leaving it open for Mr. Abdul Tejan-Cole to raise again the objection at a future date. Dr. Bu-Buakei Jabbi was allowed to move the Notice of Motion and he proceeded to do so. After Dr. Bu-Buakei Jabbi rested his arguments, Mr. Abdul Tejan-Cole applied for an ‘adjournment to allow time in order for him to prepare a written reply. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to the 19 January 2009 for further hearing.

5. On the 19" January 2009, Ms. Glenna Thompson, now appearing for the Respondent, renewed or raised the preliminary objection that counsel for the Applicant (Dr. Bu-Buakei Jabbi) is unqualified (to practice) and this objection she embodied in her argument titled:

ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF MOTION DATED 4” DECEMBER 2008 FOR STAY OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS, which was filed in the morning of

4AB - the 19" January 2009 and supported by an affidavit sworn to by Mr. . Abdul Omoranike Babatunde Tejan-Cole, of counsel, dated the 15" January 2009 and filed in the morning of the 19 January 2009, Before she could argue her objection, Mr. Leon Jenkins-Johnson, of 7 counsel, objected to the preliminary objection on the ground that rule 55(1), (2) and (3) of the Supreme Court Rules required notice to be given. Ms. Glenna Thompson retorted that the section speaks of civil matters and Leon Jenkins-Johnson countered that what mattered was the principle of giving notice.

6. The Court was of the view that the status of counsel raised by the objection (I rather use the word “objection” rather than “Preliminary Objection” in the circumstances to differentiate it from the meaning of the technical term: Preliminary Objection) was not inherent to the _ issues of the application (which is not the hearing of the appeal in any case and to which section 55 refers and relates to) but relates to the Legal Practitioner’s Act, 2000, and concerns the payment and nonpayment of practicing fees to the General Legal Council with the attendant consequences. The Court was of the further view that what mattered was bringing the issue to the attention of the Court with the supporting evidence in a timeous manner; and adequate notice given to the Court, the parties and their counsel. In the result, the Court adjoumed the hearing to the 26" January 2009 to afford counsel for the Respondent time to react to the objection raised by Ms. Glenna Thompson. a

7. On the 19" January 2009, Dr. Bu-Buakei Jabbi swore to an affidavit filed on the 20 January 2009, in which he exhibited two practicing

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