By: Hafsatu Z Bangura
Maseray Bangura and Ishmael Bayoh made another appearance before Justice Adrian Fisher to answer to 5 counts charge indictment.
According to the charge sheet, the accused persons are standing trial before the court on five counts charges of applying for the registration of an uncontracted customary marriage contrary to section 19 (a) of the Registration of Customary Marriage and Divorce Act, 2009, Act no.1 of 2009.
Knowingly make a false entry in the register, contrary to section 19 (b) of the Registration of Customary Marriage and Divorce Act, 2009, Act no.1 of 2009.
Knowingly makes false statements contrary to section 5 (a) of the Perjury Act, 1911 and on count 5 procuring the commission of an offence, contrary to section 7 (1) of the Perjury Act, 1911.
The particulars of offence on count 1 state that the accused persons on the 1st August 2017 at Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone registered a customary marriage, knowing that the said marriage was not lawfully contracted.
On count 2 the accused persons on the 1st August 2017 at Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, knowingly makes a false of a customary marriage register.
Fourth Prosecution Witness Joseph Abu Bakar Sannoh attached to the scientific support department at the Criminal Investigation Department CID headquarters in Freetown said he is a forensic examiner and identified the accused persons and the complainant in the matter. The witness said on a certain date he received a task from police constable Abdul Kanu which includes a marriage certificate and copies of Sierra Leone International Passport bearing the name of Mr Sesay and a diary containing some writing.
The task he said was to compare the signature of the married certificate obtained from the Freetown city council and the signature which was contained on the International passport bearing his name together with the diary alleged to be the signature of Mr Momodu Sesay to see whether the signature on those documents is similar together with the passport and the diary.
The witness said the general rule on their methodology was to look into the evidence of Mr Sesay to see whether there is a consistency to see of the signatory of Mr Momodu Sesay and at the end of their findings signed as the lead analyst together with three of his colleagues.
The report was produced and tendered in court as exhibit K1-2 after the investigation similar identifying features do exist on exhibits A and B when compared to C was highly probable that these signatures were executed by different people when compared with the national passport book and some of the handwriting on the personal diary that is universal writing.
Cross-examination by defence counsel C. Campbell inquired of the witness as to who gave him the passport which he used to carry out his investigation and conclusion on the matter.
He said going through the conclusion of your findings who gave you the passport, the witness said DPC 8878 Abu Kanu gave him documents and also inquired of him of the whereabouts of the documents when DPC 8878 and passports of the complainant, the witness replied that it’s not included in their job to do inquiries.
The witness said Exhibit C the passport and B the diary had similarities in the writing.
Furthermore, defence counsel questioned him that ay the time the witness was conducting his examinations whether the complainant who is now deceased was present.
The witness replied that the deceased was not there C. Campbell furthermore inquired of him about the handwriting of the deceased and the accuracy of determining the deceased handwriting in school, he challenged him that he cannot know whether the deceased Mr Momodu Sesay wrote that when he was in primary school.
PW4 said he can tell because the handwriting grew at a particular time especially at 3 to 5 years because primary children have five lines to write on a book between the ages of 8 and ten and that children improve on their handwriting at this junction the defence seeks a short adjournment date for his senior to cross-examine the witness for the second accused person.
Justice Fisher adjourned the matter to the 30th of September 2022 for further hearing.