Defense Counsel Applies for High Court Interpretation of Magistrate’s Ruling
After Magistrate Sahr Kekura presiding over the Pademba Road Court No. 1 ruled against defense counsel on a jurisdictional objection raised in the matter between the State versus Alhaji Kemoh Sesay, former Minister of Works under the Koroma regime.
Lead defense counsel, lawyer Charles Francis Margai has applied that a case be stated at the High Court for its opinion on the ruling.
Magistrate Kekura, on his ruling said that Section 39 of the of the Criminal Procedure Act No.32 of 1965 as amended, states that preliminary investigations can be conducted anywhere. He therefore overruled defense counsel’s objection.
The accused, Alhaji Kemoh Sesay is before the Court on two counts of cyber stalking and cyber bullying contrary to Section 44(1) (a) of the Cyber Security and Crime Act of 2021.
According to the police, the accused sometimes between March and April 2022 in Port Loko District did willfully communicates indirectly via public gathering to wit the President of Sierra Leone, Rtd. Brigadier Julius Maada Bio knowing that the said communication is likely to cause apprehension or fear of violence to him.
Police also alleged that the accused, at the same place and time, did use the said communication detrimentally to affects the said person.
The ruling came after lead defense counsel, lawyer Margai, in the last court sitting, argued that the Freetown Magistrate Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter, adding that the framers of the law (Section 5(1) of the Court Act No. 31 of 1965), rightfully divided Sierra Leone into judicial Districts with each district having a Magistrate empowered by the law, and that since the alleged offence was committed in Port Loko it should be heard where it was committed, but not Freetown.
Lead Prosecutor, lawyer Ahmed James Maxwell Bockarie, responded that the section of law quoted by lawyer Margai deals squarely with Magistrates, but not Magistrate Courts. He urged Magistrate Kekura to discountenance lawyer Margai’s objection.
Lawyer Margai has further requested for a stay of proceedings, pending High Court opinion on Magistrate Kekura’s ruling. He canvassed his application on Section 51(1) of the Court Act No. 31 of 1965.
In his reply, State Prosecutor, lawyer Yusuf Isaac Sesay, noted that the application made by lawyer Margai is subjected to Magistrate Kekura’s ruling as to whether he will give the green light for an High Court opinion on his ruling.
He said the section quoted by lawyer Margai does not in any way suggest that it is mandatory for Lawyer Margai to state a case.
Lawyer Sesay added that lawyer Margai cannot move further to apply for a stay of proceedings. “Section 51(1) never indicated that. This is a novelty,” he maintained. Lawyer Sesay urged that the accused be re-arraigned and take a plea.
Lawyer Margai also responded that State Counsel is yet to understand that the modal very “may” may mean mandatory in some instances.
The matter was adjourned to May 18, 2022 for ruling on whether a case will be stated at the High Court for its opinion on the ruling.
By Alimatu Jalloh