By Hafsatu Z Bangura
The Sierra Leone Supreme Court has on the 11th April, 2022 acquitted and discharged Emmanuel Ekundayo Constant Shears Moses on count charges.
The Appellant, Shears Moses was charged with the offence of Abuse of Office Contrary to section 42 (1) of the Anti-Corruption Act of 2008. The court has ordered that all fines paid by the said Appellant to satisfy the Sentence on his conviction of the offence aforesaid, at the high court shall be refunded to him forthwith.
Defense Counsel for the Appellant Charles Francis Margai upon order of the state to pay the incurred cost of the Appellant ordered a billion Leones fine to be paid by the state to his client of which the Supreme Court Judges had to do a stand down of about 30mins and upon arrival the application for cost was refused.
Hon. Justice Allan B. Halloway in his summoning up Address said the Appellant Emmanuel Ekundayo Shears Moses being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the decision /judgment of the Court of Appeal comprising of the Hon. Justice E. Taylor Kamara, Hon. Justice S.A Bah and the Hon. Justice F.B Alhadi delivered by the Hon. Justice E. Taylor Kamara on the 10th August 2020, hereby on the 3rd September 2020 appeal the said decision on several grounds.
Justice Halloway continued that on ground 1of which inter alia includes the grounds that the learned Justices misdirected themselves in law as to whether the offence charged is laid down by the Anti-Corruption Commission is not required to indicate that is the deed of the commission and misdirected themselves when they stated that there is a distinction between a bill of indictment and an indictment in Section 130 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1965 and therefore the various authorities on when a bill of indictment becomes an indictment do not apply and that the learned Justices stated that the offence charged is a specific one different from misconduct in public office and so ignore that the marginal notes in the Anti-Corruption Act No.12 of 2008 is a short form of misconduct in office which encapsulates Abuse of office.
He went on that it would be upon this view to best to first Address the question of law posed, that the Anti-Corruption Commissioner is not the proper person to sign an indictment which has been preferred, pursuant to Section 130 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1965, the application he said of the said subject to section 136 of the Criminal Procedure Act aforesaid, the same which provides that no indictment shall be signed or field in respect any Criminal offence unless there has been a committal of trial consequent upon a previous preliminary investigation except in case of indictments which by law may be preferred by the direction of or with the consent in writing of a judge.
He went on to say that the principal Contention of C.F Margai for counsel for the Appellant is that further to the preferment of the indictment charging the Appellant of an offence under the Anti-Corruption Act 2008 and pursuant to section 130 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1965, the said indictment should be signed by a law officer and submits that since the Anti-Corruption Commissioner is not a law officer the signing of the said indictment by him violates the said section which has not been repealed, nor is a law officer signing an indictment as stipulated in section 130 afore said, an Act which has been excluded by the Anti-Corruption Act 2008 cannot be disputed that the whole of section 89 of the Anti-Corruption Act afore said, which is relied upon by the Respondents as giving authority for the Anti-Corruption Commissioner to sign an indictment is completely silent on the signing of an indictment as he said it gives the Anti- Corruption Commissioner only to prefer an Indictment.
Hon. Justice Allan B Halloway furthermore went on that the advantage allegedly conferred on Alimatu Tity George and Jamilatu Alicia Sesay respectively for the Appellant alleged improper use of his office the same being the improper use of the Appellants office cannot in any way be a gift or loan or free or reward or discount of premium commission consisting of any valuable security or some other property interest or interest in property of any description or some other advantage other than lawful remuneration.
It cannot be disputed that in this case the particulars of offence in both counts does not give reasonable information as to his advantage which the Appellant conferred upon himself or some other person by the improper use of his office. This being the case the offence of the Abuse of Office contrary to section 42 (1) of the Anti-Corruption Act 2008 which the Appellant was charged with was not disclosed in the indictment surely, if the offence of Abuse of office afore said was not disclosed in the indictment then the said indictment would have failed to charge the Appellant with any offence whatsoever I hold the view that the only remedy which could have cured such a defect is by Amendment of the said indictment pursuant to section 148 (1) of the criminal procedure act of 1965.
Supreme Court Judges were Hon. Justice Allan B Halloway, Hon. Justice Alusine S. Sesay, Hon. Justice Mangay F. Deen Tarawally, Hon. Justice M. Sengu Koroma, and Hon. Justice Ivan A. Sesay.
However, the Appellant Shears-Moses was the former Head of Law Department at Fourah Bay College. He graduated from the University of London, and was called to the Bar in 1977. He returned home to serve the Sierra Leone Government, and was Magistrate for Bo and Pujehun Districts from 1979 – 1983. Then he entered private practice until now.
