State v Komeh & Anor (MISC APP 46 of 2010) [2010] SLHC 10 (19 July 2010)

THE STATE v FRANCIS MOHAMED FOFANAH KOMEH AND JOHN MANS [2010] SLHC 10 High Court of Sierra Leone, Freetown 19 July 2010

Judges: Ruling of the High Court (the judge's name is not legible on the source copy). Counsel: R S Fynn for the State; R B Kowa for the 1st accused; A S Sesay (with J S Fornah-Sesay) for the 2nd accused.

Facts

Francis Mohamed Fofanah Komeh, an employee of the Accountant-General's Department, and John Mans, manager of the Sierra Leone Commercial Bank Makeni branch, were charged under ss 36(1) and 42(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act 2008. Payment vouchers of Le14m and Le30m meant for the Ministry of Agriculture's Food Security project were diverted to an SLCB Makeni account, from which Le43,855,000 was withdrawn; the money was later repaid through a friend of the first accused.

ISSUE Had the prosecution, after 11 witnesses, made out a case sufficient to call on the accused to answer the charges of misappropriation of public funds and abuse of office?

Held

Both no-case submissions were overruled and the accused were called upon to open their defence. There was evidence on which a properly directed tribunal could convict on each count.

REASONING The court restated the test for a submission of no case to answer in R v Galbraith and Daley v R, as applied in Sierra Leone, and asked whether there was evidence on which a tribunal properly directed could convict. Documentary and oral evidence traced the vouchers, the diversion to the Makeni account and the withdrawal by the first accused, and the bank manager's part in allowing it. The fact that the money was later refunded did not affect whether it had been misappropriated, since misappropriation under the Anti-Corruption Act 2008 is a wider concept than appropriation under the English Theft Act. Questions of credibility and weight were for the end of the trial.

Why It Matters in Sierra Leone

A Sierra Leone High Court application of the Galbraith no-case test to Anti-Corruption Act 2008 prosecutions, confirming that refunding diverted public money is no answer to a misappropriation charge.