By Fatima Kpaka
In the ongoing court martial, both state prosecutors and defense counsels delivered their closing arguments yesterday, urging the board members to consider their respective positions as they prepare to render a verdict on the six accused military personnel. The trial, which commenced on Thursday, before Judge Advocate Mark Ngegba and six board members, involves Major Patrick Abu Ordende Sesay, also known as PAO, and five other members of the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF). They are charged with alleged subversion activities in June-July 2023.
The closing session was attended by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Osman Ibrahim Kanu, and 11 other state prosecutors. Lead state prosecutor, Joseph A.K. Sesay, emphasized the gravity of the accusations against the six accused, who have served the RSLAF for many years. He noted that the state had invested significantly in these individuals to protect the nation’s territorial integrity, only for them to engage in activities contrary to their duties.
Sesay highlighted that the six accused face eight charges, including mutiny, failure to suppress mutiny, and desertion. He urged the board members to deliver a guilty verdict if they find sufficient evidence against the accused. He outlined the elements of mutiny, describing it as an act to overthrow the legitimate government or to refuse lawful authority within the RSLAF. He further explained that failure to suppress mutiny involves not reporting or attempting to prevent it.
According to the prosecution, the accused discussed their plans in coded messages and formed a group called “Security Core Network,” which included only military personnel. Various WhatsApp voice messages allegedly from the accused were played in court, revealing plans to recruit more members and involve a female lieutenant for intelligence. Another message suggested the accused were planning to recruit more soldiers in different regions.
Witnesses who were part of the group but chose to expose the subversive mission also testified in court. The prosecution presented voice messages and other evidence to demonstrate the accused’s involvement in the plot.
Legal Aid Board defense lawyer, Ibrahim Bangura, representing Major Juana Kabba and Corporal Mohamed Koroma, reminded the board members that their role is to unravel the facts. He argued that the second accused had served the RSLAF for 17 years with an unblemished record and that the prosecution must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. He highlighted that the second accused sought asylum in Guinea due to threats to his life and that nothing indicated he intended to desert.
Bangura also argued that the WhatsApp messages did not explicitly discuss overthrowing the government and that the second accused only forwarded a document without knowing its content. He maintained that seeking asylum does not equate to abandoning the RSLAF.
Representing the fifth accused, Captain Zainab Amara Suwu, lawyer J Kobba, expressed appreciation for the attention given to the case by the Judge Advocate. He emphasized the need for a fair and just verdict based on the evidence presented.
“Mr. President and members of the board, there are so many issues during the trial, but at the end, it is your decision to acquit and discharge the accused persons. You recall that the court martial commenced on October 17, 2024, with four counts against my client ranging from mutiny, failure to suppress mutiny, and desertion. These are the offenses for which the fifth stands trial,” he said/
According to him, the accused was arraigned, the charges were read to her, and she pleaded not guilty. In proving their case against the accused, the prosecution called 16 witnesses and tendered 14 exhibits, while the accused led evidence in her defense but called no witnesses. He submitted that, at the inception of the trial, it was stated that the burden of proof lies entirely in the prosecution, and any doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. Although the offenses for which the accused was charged are serious, the prosecution has failed to prove their case against her.
He stated that in any criminal matter, both actus reus (the act) and mens rea (the intent) must be established, proving that she had the knowledge and intention to do what she did. The offenses for which the fifth was charged are not strict liability as they require knowledge. Addressing the elements, he stated that section 37 (1a and b) of the Armed Forces Act 1961 as amended must be established. To prove that such violence was done to overthrow the government of Sierra Leone, the prosecution must also establish that she conspired with others, as required by section 38 of the Armed Forces Act, adding that one cannot report something they do not know about.
The prosecution, he said, did a great job in proving that the accused was in active service when the incident occurred, which is not in contention. However, no evidence was adduced before the court to prove the connection between the fifth and the first accused, except that they were lovers.
In summary, he stated that the prosecution’s case against the fifth accused was that she was in a relationship with the first accused, who recruited her into the army and added her number to the Calamera WhatsApp group. It was proven during cross-examination that the AWOL message against his client was premature.
In conclusion, he stated that the prosecution failed to adduce evidence that the accused disobeyed orders, adding that the only evidence they have is that the accused was in a relationship with the first accused, Major Patrick Abu Ordende Sesay. There is no evidence that the fifth accused was recruited by the first accused, only that she was added to the Calamera WhatsApp group by the first accused. He submitted that there is no evidence that the accused had knowledge about the content or purpose of the Calamera WhatsApp group, and therefore the prosecution has woefully failed to prove their case against the accused. They failed to adduce evidence that the fifth had knowledge of mutiny and failed to suppress it, relying on circumstantial evidence.
“I therefore urge you to return a not guilty verdict against my clients, as circumstantial evidence is weak and ineffective in law and therefore should not be relied on,” he stated. He said it is unsafe to convict on circumstantial evidence and submitted that the prosecution’s suspicion and influence in the case should not be a substitute for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused was under physical and emotional duress, adding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the fifth accused.
Lawyer L. J. Kamara, counsel for the third accused, Major Foday Sumana Kamara, in his closing address, said he is before the court to defend a man who has served his country diligently. “I crave your indulgence to return a verdict that posterity will not judge you or hold you accountable and don’t listen to the hype on social media,” he said.
In his submission, he stated that the third accused admitted to being a member of the Calamera group but later deleted himself when he realized that the group’s purpose was not what it was intended for. The accused did not participate in the Calamera group by sending text messages or voice messages. This, he said, goes to the credibility of the accused. Regarding the “Security Network group,” the accused stated that he only came to know about the group during the investigation.
Lawyer Kamara further submitted that the rules of evidence applicable in civil courts are still applicable in the court martial trial. The case of the prosecution is rooted in the evidence of the first, second, and sixth accused persons. He referred the court to the supreme court authority of the state vs. Turay and others, noting that the ruling simply means that statements made by an accused person against a co-accused should not be countenanced and should be treated with a pinch of salt, especially when his client denied everything alleged by the first, second, and sixth accused persons. The allegations by the first, second, and sixth accused against the third were untrue.
Regarding the desertion charge against the accused, he said it amounted to double jeopardy, adding that the issue of desertion was dealt with by a competent tribunal, which levied punishment against the third by dismissing him from the force. Bringing him to court martial, he said, is double punishment. He submitted that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the accused committed the said offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. He said a cardinal principle of law is that where there is doubt, it should be resolved in favor of the accused.
“Please do unto others as you would want others to do unto you,” he concluded.
Lawyer Hassan Kamara, in his closing address on behalf of the fourth accused, Major Ibrahim Abu Bakarr Bangura, said his client is before the court on four counts of charges: mutiny, failure to suppress mutiny, and desertion. In his submission, he stated that the allegations against the fourth accused were that he was part of a certain WhatsApp group where subversive decisions were made to use force to overthrow the government of Sierra Leone and that he attended several meetings in Kenema and some parts of Freetown where these decisions were made. Regarding the Calamera group and the Security Network, he said there was no single evidence presented before the court by the prosecution that he participated in any of those groups or attended any meetings. It is for the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and so far, they have proved absolutely nothing.
He urged the president and members of the board to acquit and discharge the fourth accused on all counts, adding that the only offense he committed was absenting himself from work without leave and that he had been punished for it by being dismissed. He denied all the allegations, and his testimony was not controverted by any of the witnesses. “Mr. President and members of the board, I crave your indulgence to look at the evidence and make the right decision, and the right decision is to test the evidence and discharge the accused. I appeal to your good conscience to focus on the facts in making your decision,” he stated. In conclusion, he said justice should not only be seen to be done but must be done.
The first accused, Major Patrick Abu Ordende Sesay, alias PAO, who was unrepresented in court, in his closing address to the judge advocate and board members, said he worked diligently for President Bio and denied the statement presented in court purported to be his. He added that it was manipulated and switched by Colonel MB S. Kamara, the lead prosecutor in the ongoing court martial trial, and Captain Yainkain Kamara. He said his phone was taken from him in August 2023, and during that period, his voice was imitated and manipulated. The prosecution, he said, never brought evidence to show that the audio was his voice. APC, according to him, could mean anything, adding that all prosecution witnesses and investigators were acting on the instructions of the prosecution.
“All they did here was lie and present nothing to back their claims. All the prosecution witnesses were not credible; they all lied. I believe in justice and fairness. Prosecution is not persecution or a do-or-die thing. They have failed to prove a case against me. Can a civilian desert the army? Because I was discharged from the army in February 2024 and arrested in June 2024 as a civilian, so how can I desert? The second accused added me to the Calamera group on July 28, 2023, and I was arrested on July 29, 2023, but I blame the RSLAF for exposing my number to set me up,” he narrated in tears. In conclusion, he urged the president and members of the board to acquit and discharge him on the basis that the evidence against him was a smear fabrication to tarnish his character by Colonel MBS Kamara and others.
At this juncture, the learned Judge Advocate Mark Ngegba informed the court that he would send a 24-hour notice regarding his summing-up address.