SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE
CORAM
HON. MR. JUSTICE S. BECCLES-DAVIES AG. CJ PRESIDING
HON. MR. JUSTICE A.V.A AWUNOR-RENNER JSC
HON. MR. JUSTICE S.C.E WARNE JSC
HON. MR. JUSTICE E.C THOMPSON-DAVIES JSC
HON. MR. JUSTICE G. GELANGA-KING JSC
BETWEEN
THE STATE - APPLICANT
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.C GBOW, JUDGE - RESPONDENT
Ex-PARTE -
JULIUS SPENCER - APPLICANT
DONALD JOHN
ALFRED CONTEH
MOHAMED BANGURA
ALUSINE BASIRU
SC.MISC.APP. NO.6/93A & B
JUDGMENT DATED: 22ND DAY OF JUNE 1994
FACTS
The applicants were charged with several offences under the Public Order Act 1965 which includes Seditious publication, Publishing Defamatory Libel, Publishing False reports likely to injure the reputation of the government of Sierra Leone, Knowingly publishing a false defamatory Libel, Publishing a false report likely to disturb the public peace.
Mr. Betts one of the representatives of the applicants made an application to make certain submissions pursuant to section 28(3) of the 1991 Constitution inviting the court to refer certain questions raised to the Supreme Court for determination. The learned trial judge declined this invitation on the basis that firstly, the request ought to have been made pursuant to section 28(1) of the 1991 Constitution; secondly, section 127 was more germane to the issues raised; further, the availability of other remedies under section 28 (2) (b); in addition, the application was not properly before him and; finally, even if there were any infringements of the accused’s rights, they did not occur in the proceedings before the court. Thus, an application was made to the Supreme Court for the orders of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari.
QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION
1. Whether the application inviting the Court to refer certain issues to the Supreme Court for determination ought to have been made under section 28(1) instead of section 23(1) of the 1991 Constitution;
2. Whether section 127 of the 1991 Constitution was more germane to the issues raised;
3. Whether the availability of other remedies under section 28 (2) (b) are sufficient to refuse an application for reference to the Supreme Court;
4. Whether the infringements of the accused’s fundamental rights ought to have occurred in the proceedings before it can be properly raised;
FINDINGS
The Court in determining the aforementioned issues, found that the request for reference to the Supreme Court under section 28(3) of the 1991 Constitution was proper as it is the section that provides for matters to be raised in the proceedings in any other Court for referral to the Supreme Court whereas section 28(1) of the 1991 Constitution provides for direct application to the Supreme Court for redress.
The court also found section 127 covers any inconsistency or contravention of the 1991 Constitution and it relates especially to the question whether section 28(1) and (3) of the Public Order Act, 1965 infringe section 23 (1), (4) and (5) (b) of the 1991 Constitution.
As well, the Court found that issues such as denial of fair hearing, presumption of guilt and lack of sufficient time to the accused to prepare their case are all matters that fall under section 16 -27 of the 1991 Constitution and they usually occur before trial. As such, they can be raised in the proceedings to which they relate.
ORDERS
In light of the above-mentioned findings, the decision of the learned trial judge was quashed and that the questions falling within section 16-27 of the 1991 Constitution be referred to the Supreme Court for determination. The Court also prohibited the High Court from further hearing and determination of the matter pending the hearing and determination of the questions referred to it. Further, the Court ordered the accused to file their case pursuant to rule 99(3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
WRITTEN BY: Khadija Kowa
EDITED BY: C.M Jonah