Sunday
April 20, 2014
- If there's too much smoke, too much hype from
any of the hirelings of the rat at State House,
then there's more than meets the eyes. And we
would dare to suggest that the custodial
sentences handed out quite recently is
selective punishment, not justice  A page on the website of Sierra Leone's Anti Corruption Commission headed by one of the hirelings of the rat nestled at State House has a Press Release proclaiming - "High Court hands down custodial sentences on NRA/ECO bank officials for corruption offences." And the press release goes on to state that it was a landmark decision in the case of the State vs Solomon Hindolo Katta and others in that apart from the fines those found guilty in the court presided over by one Justice Paul had to pay, it would seem that for the first time somebody is being sent to jail apart from a fine. What we are really puzzled about in this matter is why this should be seen as a landmark judgement in a country where the rat proclaims zero tolerance for corruption and we are quite sure that those involved in this case are not the only ones to have been convicted of corruption. This brings to the fore just why others who could have been caught with paws deep in the national purse were not given custodial sentences as witnessed in the cases the Anti Corruption Commission has so proudly displayed on its web pages. Now here's the juicy if not weird aspect of it all - the charges. The Press Release on the Anti Corruption Commission website states - "All five were convicted for offences including Conspiracy to Commit a Corruption Offence, Misappropriation of Public Revenue, Possession of Unexplained Wealth and Failure to Fully Declare Assets to the Commission, all contrary to the Anti Corruption Act 2008." Imagine this, if you will. The provisions of the stated Act had been there since 2008 and yet when one reads the various government-oiled "news outlets" one may be forgiven for thinking that it is only now that the Anti Corruption Commission boss Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara has taken time off to carefully peruse the document in full and becoming aware of the provisions therein. We have in the past brought the various offences under the Act to the attention of our readers so that they too can see that if the Anti Corruption boss and his paymaster at State House were really interested in clamping down on corruption, then many wrong doers and would be followers and beneficiaries would have been quaking in their boots/half-backs. How can Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara in all honesty gloat over the custodial sentences handed out and worst of all break into a smile as he reads on his website that among the wrongs committed by the accused was - Failure to Fully Declare Assets to the Commission? We would want to remind him about the notice he issued some time back in which he published the names of people who had failed to declare their assets as demanded by the law on corruption. How many of these people have complied? And even more interesting - how many state functionaries both within and outside Sierra Leone have declared their assets as demanded by the law? How many ministers and their deputies have complied? How many heads of government institutions and para-statals have declared their assets as demanded by the law? How many functionaries in our various missions abroad have declared their assets? And most of all when will he make public the declaration of the rat when he first took on the mantle of state governorship? If the five accused have been nabbed on one of these, then we might just need a whole new city/island of jail birds. Then there's the issue of unexplained wealth - Commissioner Joseph Fitzpatrick Kamara cannot tell us that he is not seeing all the time and every day persons displaying wealth that cannot be explained. The large number of sophisticated and expensive vehicles, the large areas of deforestation going on as construction of numerous buildings on the hillsides continue unabated could not have escaped his eyes. Let us remind the government and the Anti Corruption boss about Part IV of the 2008 Act under offences which states -
Corrupt
Acquisition of wealth 26. (1) A public officer commits an offence of corrupt acquisition of wealth if it is found, that he is in control or possession of any resources or property or in receipt of the benefit of any advantage which he may reasonably be suspected of having acquired or received corruptly or in circumstances which amount to an offence under this Act. (2) Where during a trial of an offence under subsection (1), the Court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that any person is holding pecuniary resources or property in trust or otherwise on behalf of the accused person or acquired such resources or property as a gift from the accused, such resources or property shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been in the control of the accused. (3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall be liable on conviction be liable to a fine not less than thirty million leones or to imprisonment for a term not less than 3 years or to both such fine and imprisonment. (4) In addition to any punishment prescribed by subsection (3), the Court shall, for an offence under subsection (1), order that twice the amount or value of the resources or property acquired or the advantage received by the person convicted be paid by him into the Consolidated Fund. (5) Where, after making the orders prescribed in subsection (4), there is still some amount outstanding, the Court shall make a further order that any person holding any moneys on behalf of such person or gratuities, awards, pensions or similar entitlements due to such person, shall pay such moneys or entitlements to the Accountant General. (6) Where, after applying subsections (4) and (5) there is still some outstanding amount to be paid by the person convicted, that amount shall be regarded as a debt due to the Government and the Commissioner may at any time bring a civil action in the Court or Magistrates’ Court, as the case may be, to recover the amount concerned. Possession of unexplained wealth. 27. (1) Any person who, being or having been a public officer (a) maintains a standard of living above that which is commensurate with his present or past official emoluments; or (b) is in control of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his present or past official emoluments, unless he gives a satisfactory explanation to the court as to how he was able to maintain such a standard of living or how such pecuniary resources or property came under his control, commits an offence. (2) Where the court is satisfied in proceedings for an offence under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) that, having regard to the closeness of his relationship to the accused and to other circumstances, there is reason to believe that any person was holding pecuniary resources or property in trust for or otherwise on behalf of the accused or acquired such resources or property as a gift from the accused, such resources or property shall, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be presumed to have been in the control of the accused. (3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) shall on conviction be liable to a fine not less than thirty million leones or to imprisonment for a term not less than 3 years or to both such fine and imprisonment. (4) In addition to any penalty imposed under subsection (3), the court may order a person convicted of an offence under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) to pay into the Consolidated Fund - (a) a sum not exceeding the amount of the pecuniary resources; or (b) a sum not exceeding the value of the property, the acquisition by him of which was not explained to the satisfaction of the Court. (5) An order under subsection (4) may be enforced in the same manner as a judgment of the High Court in its civil jurisdiction. (6) In this section, "official emoluments” includes a Act No. 5 of 2001 pension or gratuity payable under the National Social Security and Insurance Trust Act, 2001. How about the number of private residences and other buildings attributed to the handiwork of his master at State House? Dare he ask the rat about his unexplained wealth? And last but not the least - What about all those cases the conclusion of which he stated he would be appealing? What happened to those appeals? Were they submitted to the courts? Has he forgotten this - "The suspended Boss of the National Revenue Authority, Alieu Sesay, Samuel Cole, Franklyn Pratt, Gloria Gabisi and Fatmata Ojubarra Sesay were acquitted and discharged on all fifty seven counts of corruption offences. The Trial Judge held that the Prosecution had failed to establish that the 1st Accused, Alieu Sesay conspired with his Co- Accused. The Judge also believed that the Prosecution had failed to prove that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Accused acted in collusion with regards to the award of the various contracts." |
