By Amin Kef Sesay
It is apparent that there is a game of the cat and mouse going on between the Anti-Corruption Commission and former President Ernest Bai Koroma over the issue of him presenting himself to the Commission for interview.
On two occasions now, ACC has failed to get a face to face interview with the former President due to extraneous circumstances that leave the ACC befuddled and frustrated.
The reason why the ACC has failed to bring the former President to the table mainly has to do with the perceptions of many supporters of the All People Congress and even dispassionate political watchers who see it as a vendetta against the former President.
In Makeni, we saw how a huge sympathetic human shield was formed to prevent the ACC from entering the former President’s residence to interview him.
In Freetown last week, we saw a battery of APC lawyers presenting themselves to the ACC but without the Person of Interest whom the ACC is interested in interviewing.
These two standoffs have caused people to ask if the ACC does not have a subtler, more dignified way of interviewing the former President instead of what many, particularly APC members and supporters see as subjecting him to public humiliation.
The former President is on record as having said that he gave teeth and latitude to ACC to investigate corruption and is not averse to being subject to scrutiny by the ACC.
However, the President protested double jeopardy; that he had been investigated by the Commission of Inquiry which made adverse findings against him to which he said he is going to stoutly defend himself against in the Appeals Court.
Secondly, there are many who have said that the President whilst in office has immunity from prosecution and as such, the executive orders that he gave for which the ACC wants to question him is not strictly speaking legal.
At the same time though, there are other legally minded people who maintain that no one is above the law; as long as you serve as a public servant you are liable to be held accountable for your stewardship. They gave the instance of Jacob Zuma of South Africa and several other African Heads of State that have been subjected to corruption investigations.
Many people have said that the Commission is abiding by the legal provision that no man is guilty of an allegation until found guilty by a competent court of law.
Therefore, they stated that the ACC should not hound the former President as if he is convict on the run.
Rather, they maintain that the ACC should accord the former President all the dignity and respect that he deserves as an elderly statesman in going about getting him for an interview.
In this regard, many have suggested that the ACC can draw up a list of all the allegations of corruption that it has against the former President plus the evidence(s) to the effect attached to a document sent to the former President through his lawyer(s) requesting him to reply in person or in writing.
From that point, the ACC can then decide what next to do without what many call an unnecessary publicity of the interview.
Meanwhile, as the standoff between the former President and ACC continues, a bitter war of words has ensued between the Commissioner of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) Francis Ben Kaifala and US-trained, US-based over-66-years-old Attorney Sorie Tarawally over the intention of the ACC to issue a warrant of arrest for the former President.
According to Sorie Tarawally, issuing a warrant for the arrest of former President Koroma would be a reckless act and likely to provoke internal unrest. Responsible Governments, he said, do not do things that will create unrest or disturb the public peace.
Mr. ACC Commissioner, he said, you do not have to talk to the former President before you do whatever you want to do. Apply some of what you learnt in the law; an accused or a suspect has the right to not incriminate him/herself by his/her statement, he continued.
ACC Kaifala said: “Tell Sorie that with all due respect he does not understand what the RULE AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION IS. He may be mistaking presumption of innocence for that rule. That is sad for a lawyer. I will clarify for him below”:
Firstly, it is not a RIGHT contrary to what he posits. It is a RULE of evidence that applies only to WITNESSES who are not in fact themselves standing trial and NOT ACCUSED PERSONS…
Secondly, it is ONLY available in COURT and not outside of it. Anyone who wishes to rely on that rule does so in court. The ACC is not a Court…
