Appeals against inquiry findings by judges inquiring into Sierra Leone’s rampant corruption

28 September 2023 · Carmel Rickard

Two recent judgments from Sierra Leone, delivered on the same day, though they produced different outcomes, remind readers of the role played by judges in that country who headed inquiries into allegations of corruption. The current appeals were brought by top officials who complained about the findings made against them by the judges who headed two inquiries. One inquiry dated from 2018 under Justice Bankole Thompson, and the other, set up in the same year, was presided over by Justice Biobele Georgewill from Nigeria as the chair and sole commissioner. Both had to examine the assets of top state officials from Sierra Leone between 2007 and 2018 to see whether these assets were acquired lawfully and whether the officials had a standard of living that was ‘commensurate to their official emoluments’. This was part of a major effort at the time to deal with corruption in Sierra Leone, a country that has consistently been listed as one of the most corrupt in the world.

Read appeal judgment against findings of Thompson inquiry

Read appeal judgment against findings of Georgewill inquiry

Abdul Koroma was Sierra Leone’s deputy minister of mines during the period that the Georgewill inquiry investigated. Georgewill, a respected Nigerian jurist, was given the task of investigating the assets of top state officials in Sierra Leone between 2007 and 2018 to see whether they were acquired lawfully. He also had to conduct a lifestyle audit to see whether the officials were living above their declared means.

Three judges of Sierra Leone’s court of appeal have been considering a challenge to some of the outcomes of the Georgewill inquiry, related to Koroma, who complained about the inquiry’s ‘adverse findings’ against himself.

In addition to the ‘adverse findings’, the inquiry had held that Koroma’s property in the Northern Province of Sierra Leone, valued at Le 6.4 billion, was not commensurate with his legitimate means of income and ordered the property forfeit to the government.

Infractions

Koroma began by challenging the very basis in law of the inquiry, but the appeal judges made short work of that, finding they were properly established. The judges did find, however, that the inquiry was not entitled to ‘find [him] guilty’ of the offence of ‘failing to declare his assets’ since this was not a criminal court trial. They thus set aside the ‘conviction’ declared by the inquiry.

But Koroma was less successful on his other claims. He argued that he didn’t personally commit the ‘infractions’ referred to by the commissioners and so shouldn’t be held liable for what happened at the ministry of mines. The appeal judges, however, said that he had been a minister at the time of some of the ‘infractions’ and as head of the ministry he couldn’t escape liability ‘when he had all the authority to stop those infractions’.

The judges said they had studied the inquiry record and found that proper procedures weren’t followed by Koroma and other officials during the period under investigation by the inquiry, and that this led to misappropriation of public funds, corruption, abuse of office and lack of accountability.

‘Massive’ house

As to the forfeiture of his house, when serious allegations of unexplained wealth were made, as in this case, the person against whom such allegations were made bore the evidential burden to show that the wealth was acquired lawfully.

But Koroma’s housing allowances, salary and other benefits at the time weren’t commensurate ‘to the massive structure’ of the home he built and he hadn’t been able to satisfy the evidential burden.

Thus, the most significant aspects of the appeal were dismissed, and along with it, Koroma’s bid to keep his house.

Mistakes

The second appeal, brought by Francis Kai-Kai, concerned the corruption inquiry by Sierra Leone jurist, Bankole Thompson. It, too, was tasked with investigating top state officials and their assets and actions while in office between 2007 and 2018.

Kai-Kai, who is the current minister of planning and economic development, claimed that the negative findings made against him shouldn’t stand because he wasn’t given a fair hearing and the findings were based on several mistakes about the office held by him during the period under investigation.

The appeal judges said that while it was true that Kai-Kai wasn’t listed as a ‘person of interest’, the powers given to the commissioners heading these corruption inquiries allowed them to investigate anyone who might have been involved in related corruption, dishonesty or abuse.

Lower cadre

But what about the specific findings made against Kai-Kai? They dealt with the purchase of fertiliser by the ministry of agriculture and food security. However, Kai-Kai was a procurement officer, and not in control of the fertiliser scheme. In fact, he was ‘at the lower cadre of the management team’, the judges said. He didn’t have the final say and his decision wasn’t binding.

There was undisputed evidence that at the start of the fertiliser scheme, later shown to be corruptly mismanaged, Kai-Kai hadn’t yet even started working at the ministry. He only joined, as a procurement officer, when the implementation of the project was at a far advanced stage. How then, asked the appeal judges, could he be held responsible when he wasn’t the head of the project nor the ‘sole authorising person’?

If he were to be held accountable, it would have had to be shown that he took an active part in a scheme where fraudulent activities led to the misappropriation of funds, or the government suffered financial loss. But, said the court, that kind of evidence hadn’t been produced.

Whittled down

Kai-Kai was ‘merely part of a team’. He had to do as his superiors instructed, and he couldn’t be held responsible for the acts of his superiors. ‘There is also no evidence … that he benefited personally’ from the fertiliser scheme, the court added.

In commissions of inquiry, the burden of proof ‘squarely rests on the state’, said the judges. And this legal obligation couldn’t be ‘whittled down in the absence of compelling evidence’ as in the case of Kai-Kai.

The appeal judges therefore set aside the adverse findings, report and recommendations against him by the inquiry.

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.