SLL Audio News

Was Francis M. Minah Guilty of Treason? Part 1

Play Episode Pause Episode

Mute/Unmute Episode Rewind 10 Seconds 1x Fast Forward 30 seconds

00:00 / 10:41

RSS Feed

Share

Link

Embed

First published on July 30, 2001 – Sierra Leone Live

By John L. Musa (Rest In Peace.

In this four-part article, John L. Musa shows whether or not Francis M. Minah was guilty of treason for the May 23, 1989 coup.

Part 1- Prelude To Treason Trial.

CONTEH VERSUS MINAH – THE POWER STRUGGLE?

THE MOMOH-MINAH or CONTEH-MINAH STRUGGLE FOR POWER?

Various questions have been hitherto raised regarding Dr. Abdulai Osman Conteh’s motive in assuming the role of the Prosecutor in the Treason Trial of Minah and others. Let me join in the supposition that one may draw an inference from the totality of circumstances to say that the arrest, trial and execution of Francis Mischeck Minah was groundless. Great light may be thrown on the argument under review by first adducing the respective backgrounds of the actors. It is now legend that Minah and Conteh were among the pre-eminent courtiers in Stevens’ hegemony. What is uncertain is whether or not their competing interests turned into a querulous rivalry in the Momoh administration where Minah held two plum portfolios and Conteh had none. At trial, rumor was rife in Freetown that Minah, who supported the infringement of the line of succession in the Constitution, to deny S.I. Koroma the Presidency in favor of Momoh, was no longer in the good graces of President Momoh. Nay, there is no credible evidence to support this speculation. More than this, had Minah been at odds with President Momoh, the President could easily have dismissed him.  The conjecture of a Minah-Conteh turf fight for the soul of the APC, is a more cogent speculation than a Momoh-Minah quarrel. And if one trusts the Minah-Conteh argument, it would seem likely that the ascendancy of Minah in the Momoh administration.  The seeming contest for power blew into a flame, the dying embers of a growing animosity in the Momoh administration between the pair of courtiers.

Let us further nurture the speculation of the Minah-Conteh struggle for power which I trust has formed the basis of the allegation in many minds. There is good cause to settle on this speculation that Conteh who was once touted as a top contender among Stevens’ presumed heirs, found himself on the fringes of power at the close of Stevens’ reign. It would seem plausible that Conteh dreamed of his hand on the tiller in the ship of State especially when the notion of S.I. Koroma’s poor health fanned the rumor that Stevens would prefer someone else. Master of power politics and connoisseur of Machiavellian measures, Stevens resolved the power struggle among his competing acolytes for his legacy, by nominating then Force Commander Brigadier General Joseph Saidu Momoh to succeed him. When the roll was called in Parliament to amend the 1978 one-party Constitution to virtually prevent S. I. Koroma from succeeding Stevens, Dr. Conteh voted against the Bill.

THE CONTEH APOSTASY

How did Conteh become a perfidious politician and a Small-boy in the patronage of Stevens, apart from his student years when he spoke truth to men of power politics? Dr. Conteh, heretofore a Legal Practician and University Lecturer was not quite known beyond the frontiers of the groves of academe, until Stevens orchestrated an “unopposed” candidacy for him in Kambia District.  During his student years at Cambridge, he was an outspoken critic of Stevens’ axiomatic misrule in Sierra Leone. In taming the out-spoken educated class against his administration, Stevens used the carrot and stick stratagem. To ensnare Conteh, Stevens dangled the carrot before him, and Conteh threw caution to the winds and climbed aboard the supreme berth of the APC. Following his APC style of success’ at the polls, he was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs and began his meteoric rise in the APC firmament. He became its North Star and eclipsed other competing rising stars, but Mr. Minah held his own in various cabinet portfolios. Becoming an apostate like Minah, Stevens’ court employed two men of equal political taste for clientelism where they were buffeted with senior cabinet positions.

THE MAN CALLED FRANCIS M. MINAH

Before delving into the role of the Attorney General in the Minah treason trial, first a word about Minah the politician. We can scarcely know a man such as Minah who unites much villainy with the appearance of the innocence of a serious crime of treason. Francis Minah, the pliant minion of Siaka Stevens was a man difficult to defend out of the realm of the rule of law, as some of the ablest of Sierra Leonean lawyers including the Berthen Macauleys, Charles Margai, Solomon Berewa have done, but lost his neck to the hangman in the small hours of October 7, 1989. Throughout his unhallowed political history, he was in public contempt in the nation and especially in his home district of Pujehun. The role of these lawyers must have been divided by mortal antipathies for Minah the prisoner and Minah the sepulchral politician. His reputation acquired the stamp of obloquy as he became more of the likeness of the Prince of Darkness under Siaka Stevens.  Separately and together, they injured the human spirit of Sierra Leoneans.  In Pujehun, Minah used his political power with iron pertinacity with the APC warrant, to purge political opposition.  He indulged in an atrocious freak of abuse of power and authority, whenever the whim possessed him because the APC rifles seconded him. There is ample evidence that Minah was responsible for the death of a Pujehun teacher Kemokai among his other detractors in the District. Minah’s memory still wears infamy from the banks of the Waanje River and beyond.  Accordingly, on his political balance sheet, Francis Minah the politician, was a tyrant and a vile wretch, bound in the fetters of the curse of the law and the just odium of his nemesis of Pujehun. On the other hand, he stood accused of a crime he appeared to be innocent of. During his trial Minah was a sad spectacle to see boarding the Black Maria to his temporary lodging at Pa Demba Road Prison amidst hisses.  The weekly West Africa reported that when Minah was lodged at the execrable Prison, his victims from Pujehun engaged in howls of rage and ventured in retribution. In short, Minah gave universal offense to his constituents and his rivals in the APC. But on to Francis Minah in the Dock and Conteh as his prosecutor.

THE APC BIGBOY- SMALL BOY CLIENT PATRONAGE

But what fueled the presumed feud between Minah and Conteh? In the aftermath of Conteh’s negative vote in the amendment of the Constitutional grant of succession, we may harbor the notion that Conteh knew he might not become a minister in the Momoh government for his temerity and political heresy. Conteh and Minah had profited immensely from the good graces of Stevens during his Big man-Small boy (brand of clientelism) years at State House. Stevens led a client-patron administration and “small boys” of Conteh and Minah’s ilk prospered in such a milieu. Mr. Minah an SLPP turncoat from Pujehun District, was the apple of Siaka Stevens’ eye when he left the SLPP and was rewarded with various cabinet portfolios for his apostasy. In the post-Stevens era, Minah prospered more than his competitors. On his political journey, begun in Stevens’ auspices, Minah reached the summit of his ambition when President Momoh appointed him to occupy the First Vice Presidency and the office of Attorney General & Minister of Justice concurrently. Accordingly, Conteh’s vote to amend the Constitution despoiled him of a Big-man who would clothe him with the indicia of power such as Stevens did for him.

THE CLASH OF THE SMALL BOYS

It was then quite settled that the emergence of the Momoh regime was a more
generous milieu for Mr. Minah. It was also the herald for Dr. Conteh to become a mere goose egg in the APC. The political legacy of Stevens, starting to unfurl in Momoh’s New Order administration, Conteh must have felt a twinge of nerves when he was not picked for Momoh’s cabinet. Thus, when Minah was ensconced in the Momoh government as the First Vice President, Attorney General & Minister of Justice, Conteh was edged into perdition. With such an auspicious background, let us anticipate the contention that the spectacle of Conteh as prosecutor with Minah in the Dock was a watershed for rivalry turned into driving an opponent away from the political scene. Whether or not Dr. Conteh harbored a motive to stop Mr. Minah’s stellar rise in the Momoh regime is conjecture we cannot verily prove.  But let us examine its well-springs.

Now, the kernel of the speculation that when Dr. Conteh donned the robe of the Prosecutor, he was poised to drive his political rival from the APC. The argument is tenuous, but so was the evidence against Minah for treason. Section 64 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone grants that, “All offences prosecuted in the name of the Republic of Sierra Leone shall be at the suit of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice or some other person authorised by him in accordance with any law governing the same,” and “The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice shall have audience in all Courts in Sierra Leone except local courts.” Thus Dr. Conteh’s warrant to prosecute Minah is clear from the Constitution. While the notion of Prosecutor Conteh is conceded, the political role of Dr. Conteh bearing the impress of the APC as Prosecutor caused an alarm in public discussions in Freetown. In the argument below I would join in the general alarm that Attorney General Conteh overreached when he donned the hat of public prosecutor to prefer charges against Mr. Minah, when A. K. A. Barber and other members of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions at the time could have done the job without the appearance of political bias.

Here is Part 2 of the Series
Here is Part 3 of the Series

Some facts about Francis M. Mina from Wikipedia

SLL Audio News

Was Francis M. Minah Guilty of Treason? Part 2

Play Episode Pause Episode

Mute/Unmute Episode Rewind 10 Seconds 1x Fast Forward 30 seconds

00:00 / 9:04

RSS Feed

Share

Link

Embed

Was Francis M. Minah Guilty of Treason? Part 2
First published July 30, 2001 – Sierra Leone Live

By John L. Musa (Rest In Peace)

In this four-part article, John L. Musa shows whether or not Francis M. Minah was guilty of treason for the May 23, 1989 coup.

Part 2 – The Charges Against Francis Minah – Reasonable Or Political?

 THE CHARGES AND CONSEQUENCES
The syntax in the description of the particulars of the charges against Minah cast a pall on his innocence because they were not in consonance with the Criminal Procedure Act of 1965.  They were vague, over-broad and should have been rejected for failure to adhere to the Criminal Procedure Act.  All the courts of the Superior Court of Judicature in Sierra Leone agreed with the Prosecutors that Minah was guilty as charged.  But was he?  Many criminal suspects are wrongly charged and invariably found guilty because their lawyers were incompetent. Or the jury returned the wrong verdict because they did not understand the facts they were called to resolve.  Or the trial judge adjudicating in the tension of politics and the rule of law, erred at the detriment of the accused. Or the crime charged is political to the extend that the jury or the judge can only reach a guilty verdict to please their patrons in power. It is my contention that Minah was wrongly charged and the Trial Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court erred or deliberately conjoined in the alleged conspiracy to juridically murder an innocent man. Courts invariably err and judges act politically especially in treason trials where the evidence is often times picayune. Four men freed by the Court of Appeal in the Minah treason trials proves the point that a jury in a lower court may convict you, but upon a closer examination of the evidence, a high court could free you.

Let us look more closely to the Particulars of Francis Mischeck Minah’s alleged crimes in view of the general rules of criminal procedure. In the First Schedule at Section 50, Rule # 8 of the Criminal Procedure Act of Sierra Leone, the following is the requirement in describing a crime in an indictment. Rule 8 demands that the prosecutor describe the particulars of the crime charged as follows: “Subject to any other provisions of this rule, it shall be sufficient to describe any place, thing, matter, act or omission whatsoever to which it is necessary in ordinary language in such a manner as to indicate with REASONABLE CLEARNESS the place, time, thing, act or omission referred to.” (Upper case emphasis supplied).

Along the same lines, Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in the United States demands that prosecutors describe the nature and contents of an indictment or information as follows: “The indictment or information shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.”

Let us hasten to the most curious part under our consideration – the vague and over-broad charges preferred against Mr. Minah. I must say in passing that in inveighing against the professional conduct of Dr. Conteh, a man otherwise distinguished at learning in Cambridge University and as a Practitioner of law, I do not mean to disparage all his professional mien in the manner which is the sport of his gadflies who attack him with emulous violence.  I mean to make the point which I trust POLITICIAN CONTEH well knew but PROSECUTOR CONTEH ignored. The prudence of a good lawyer was on display in his opening argument, yet, there was folly and pusillanimity of the politician bristling at a seeming opponent in the Dock in Court Room No. 1. Trial lawyers are invariably well-advised, in preparing charges against criminal suspects, to spend more time assessing the merits of the suspects’ involvement in criminal conduct against the standard of proof and the well-springs of the elements of the crime to be charged.  Careless preferment of charges is often fraught with intolerable consequences.  And in Treason cases, the alarm of political bias becomes one of those consequences, hence Minah’s supporters’ accusations of political vendetta.  In pursuit of the rule of law and democratic principles and practice, it is impossible to suppress a feeling of sympathy for even a peccant politician like the fallen Minah.  The tenor of the indictments against Minah described below are truly not reasonable as required by Rule 8 of the Criminal Procedure Act of Sierra Leone or Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in the United States.

“Francis Mischeck Minah on a date UNKNOWN between July 1, 1986 and March 23, 1987 in Freetown, incited Jamil Sahid Mohamed and Gabriel Tennyson Kaikai and others UNKNOWN to overthrow the Government of Sierra Leone by unlawful means” (my emphasis).

“On a date UNKNOWN between July 1, 1986 and March 23, 1987, Francis Mischeck Minah incited Harouna Vandy-Jimmy to solicit and collect contributions in furtherance of the plot to overthrow the Government of Sierra Leone by unlawful means” (emphasis supplied).

If the date on which Minah allegedly incited his co-conspirators is UNKNOWN, how could the prosecutors ascertain when the crime was committed.  The  criminal suspect could have  a waterproof alibi as Minah may have had. As in  most treason trials, the big fish in the dragnet is brought to court kicking  and screaming his innocence.  It is clear from the requirement of the rules of criminal procedure that Prosecutor Conteh charged Minah on slenderest circumstantial evidence. The burden of proof lay with Prosecutor Conteh to show beyond the reasonable doubt that Prisoner Minah was guilty.  As Fleming James has shown in his classic work on the hoax and lore of the “shifting of burden of proof,” between the Parties at Bar, Prosecutor Conteh possessed the burden and he failed to show that Mr. Minah was guilty. Serious doubt attached to the Attorney General’s evidence. The lack of evidence and verisimilitude treason were on the side of the prisoner. The prosecution and execution Mr. Minah will remain an enigma until, a posthumous exoneration is exacted from Government. In personally leading the charge against Mr. Minah, Politician Conteh clashed with Prosecutor Conteh.  Politician Conteh is wise but Prosecutor Conteh was imprudent at the Treason trial. It seemed that Prosecutor Conteh snatched the reed of retribution out of the hands of Minah’s political enemies, and repeatedly smote Minah with their relish. Prosecutor Conteh opened the trial by pressing the issue of a traitor (perhaps treachery to the APC). He compared Mr. Minah to Lucifer, the Angel who rebelled against God and was jettisoned to Hell.  To Prosecutor Conteh, Prisoner Minah had committed “Lucifer’s Sin”.  The clever Political Conteh knew or should have had reason to know that there was no PROBABLE CAUSE to charge Mr. Minah with treason because there was no credible evidence at his trial.  He also should have known or have reason to know that his allegations were party-spirited. Yet, he betook himself to demagoguery and harangued Prisoner Minah.  Playing to the APC gallery, he accused Mr. Minah of letting Kaikai take his “political chestnuts out of the fire.”  The brilliance of metaphor was evident in the Opening Argument and so was the personal and political bias.

Prosecutor Conteh looked the caricature of Judge Jeffreys, when he described Minah’s alleged plot to overthrow Government. Judge Jeffreys was the notorious judge who in 1685 presided over the treason trials on the Western Circuit in England.  He was sent to Monmouth after the Battle of Sedgemoor to try and punish treason suspects.  It is there that he acquired the sobriquet, “hanging judge” for his indifference to criminal procedure and conducted swift trials and mete capital punishment for those he condemned.  In many instances as in Minah’s case, the treason suspects were innocent. Just as Judge Jeffreys vociferated his accusations against innocent men and women, so Prosecutor Conteh harangued Minah for merely being a former associate of the key suspects without other proof connecting him to treason.   The question before us then is: Having wrongly charged Minah, did Prosecutor Conteh prove  his case for treason?  Let us look at the best attempt at direct examination by Prosecutor Conteh.

Here is Part 1 of the series
Here is Part 2 of the series

Some facts about Francis M. Mina from Wikipedia

SLL Audio News

Was Francis M. Minah Guilty of Treason? Part 3

Play Episode Pause Episode

Mute/Unmute Episode Rewind 10 Seconds 1x Fast Forward 30 seconds

00:00 / 11:34

RSS Feed

Share

Link

Embed

First published July 30, 2001 – Sierra Leone Live

By John L. Musa (R.I.P!).

In this four-part article, John L. Musa shows whether or not Francis M.  Minah was guilty of treason for the May 23, 1989 coup

Part 3. Conteh Cross Examines Minah & Kaikai’s Coup Speech

THE EVIDENCE OF TREASON AGAINST Minah BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT?

On Direct and Cross-Examination of the Treason suspects, Prosecutor Conteh was clumsy.  After reviewing most of the evidence against Minah, it is superfluous to argue a point so clear that he was innocent. The best argument against Minah proceeds from a tenuous allegation that he and others engaged in “preparing and conspiring to overthrow the government by force.” This syntax being unclear, Berthen Macauley Sr. asked for an amendment that the suspects engaged “in a conspiracy to commit treason”. Was the indictment in fidelity to the rules of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1965?  Not one word. He attempted to link Minah to Kaikai in a treason confederacy because they owned a petrol station together. But it did not go well because Defence counsel Solomon Berewa disposed of the issue by later advising the jury to ignore the inference of complicity in the crime.  He cautioned the jurors that one could be joined in trade and yet not be partners in crime.

Then Prosecutor Conteh attempted to link Minah with Jamil in a wild goose chase as we see in the weak interrogation below:

PROSECUTOR CONTEH: Do you know a man called Jamil?

MINAH: Yes my Lord.

PROSECUTOR CONTEH: How do you know him?

MINAH: He was a businessman who had business concern in the country.

PROSECUTOR CONTEH: Who owns NDMC?

MINAH: Government had the majority share.

PROSECUTOR CONTEH: Do you have any relationship with Jamil Sahid Mohammed in your capacity as 1st Vice President?

MINAH: Yes my Lord. On some occasions, I chaired Cabinet Sub-Committee matters in which he was involved and on other occasions I was a member of committees set up to look into [the] relationship between himself and the Government. (In a reproachful tone, Prosecutor Conteh continued to seek information to tied Minah to Treason).

PROSECUTOR CONTEH: Do you have interest in … his business?

MINAH: No my Lord I have no shares in his business.

PROSECUTOR CONTEH: After the inauguration of President Momoh’s did you go to Jamil’s house?

MINAH: Yes my Lord. There were certain matters still pending to be discussed with the Presidential Campaign and Inauguration.

PROSECUTOR CONTEH: Do you ever go there alone?

MINAH: No my Lord.

In examining other witnesses, Prosecutor Conteh attempted to place Minah at
Jamil’s house on two occasions by the false testimony of Alimamy Conteh. (Minah’ security detail). But the Immigration officers testified that Jamil was out of the country at the time.  On the other alleged occasion when Minah was at Jamil’s house, Minah was in fact having dinner hosted by the Japanese Counsul in Sierra Leone, Mr. Kishore Shankeredee at the Bintumani Hotel.

This line of disconcerted questioning continued for a while.  What was the point?  Where was the connection of treason by Minah knowing Jamil either personally or otherwise?

Now we must turn to the evidence which Berthen Macauley, Jr. and other defence counsel used in their attempt to exonerate Mr. Minah but failed.   Berthen Macauley, Sr. used the same in the Appeal court but was equally unsuccessful to the detriment of Minah’s neck.

EXHIBIT ZZZZQ: Exculpable Evidence of Minah in Treason?
Exhibit ZZZZQ was the taped speech of Kaikai to the Nation. It was the linchpin for convicting Kaikai. Who was GABRIEL MOHAMED TENNYSON KAIKAI?
Gabriel Mohamed Tennyson Kaikai was hanged on October 7, 1989, for spearheading the coup de´tat which was foiled on March 23, 1987.  He designed and master-minded the enterprise to ambush on the weed-choked area of Spur Road and assassinate President Momoh. Prior to his arrest, Kaikai was assistant superintendent at the New England Field Station having been demoted from his rank of superintendent.  Kaikai was the chief security officer and gatekeeper when Siaka P. Stevens occupied State House.  It was he who decided who should see the dictator-king of Sierra Leone.  He was described as a man with a chip on his shoulder with peacock arrogance brazened by power.  Kaikai’s stellar position darkened a little when he returned from his studies in Britain. When President Momoh assumed office in 1985, he acquired power in a new position as Chief of the Anti-smuggling Squad.  It is reported that he acquired fame and fortune and his superiors despised his haughtiness.  He was demoted to assistant superintendent of Police and transferred to the New England Police District. Piqued by his demotion, his lot became compounded when his wife, the late Amy Kallon lost her bid for Parliament.  News accounts at the time report that Kaikai, having suffered these setbacks decided that he would not brook any more humiliation.  The indictments against him indicated that he incited his brothers and many others to overthrow president Momoh by ambushing him at Hill Cot Road and killing him. The coup was foiled.  He and 17 others were arrested, tried and with five others he was executed.  During his trial, he implicated Jamil Sahid Mohammed and Siaka P. Stevens.  If the coup were successful, Kaikai would have delivered the following speech to the nation:

KAIKAI’S COUP SPEECH  “Mr. Gabriel Mohamed Kaikai of the Sierra Leone Police Force speaking to you today Monday, March 23rd, 1989.

“Owing to the serious economic problems affecting this country over the years coupled with the nonchalant handling of such problems and other important matters politically affecting the country and its people over those years by the unpatriotic and nepotic APC regimes under the leadership of former president Siaka Stevens and the current president Major-General J. S. Momoh who have been protected in office by selfish senior army and police officers much to the woeful economic and political detriment of the young nation, other ranks of both the army and the police in solidarity to have mercy on trade unionists, workers, petty traders, teachers, students, school children and the unemployed have taken this honourable singular decision to bring down the said unpatriotic APC government of Major-General J. S. Momoh.  The country is henceforth governed by decrees under the council known as National Reformation Council.

“My dear people you can safely call this coup as your coup “the peoples’ coup” but it is not intended to protect the members of the forces only, in fact, the arrest of all senior officers by the men and my election by them as your new leader, to indicate to you the manifestation of confidence and cooperation we have had imposed on us all for your belief that it is your government without fearing the soldiers.  This is not, however, a criteria for nonchalant attitudes to bring back to mind those ugly days of your past regimes, but I tell you in strict terms that we mean business with no jokes at all.

“May I hasten to inform you all my dear people that your deposed president Major-Gen J. S. Momoh who a little over a year ago was imposed on this nation by Siaka Stevens in the most unceremonious and undemocratic manner has been killed along with some senior officers in both forces.
“Parliament has been dissolved; the national constitution suspended; the ruling APC party, the sole political party in Sierra Leone, is disbanded along with its constitution with immediate effect.  All government ministers, parliamentarians, senior army and police officers commanding regions, districts and units throughout the country are requested in their own best interest to report to the nearest police stations to surrender themselves.   All chief inspectors and inspectors of police attached to such stations must take police administration until further notice.  Senior army and police officers in the Western area who are still at large are asked to safely conduct themselves to their respective officers mess at Wilberforce and Kingtom Barracks.

“My dear people this is no time for jubilation as I require you all to sit back and seriously think of solutions to retrieve the economy and build up your young nation. The soldiers are not at war with each other or with the police, and in my capacity, as your leader now, I take this opportunity to warn all members of the SSD unit in the country and those soldiers resisting and fighting for the cause of the deposed government and some remaining senior officers still hiding to lay down their arms and surrender themselves peacefully for the good cause of this our country and people.  We do not want to hurt or kill our comrades in solidarity.

“With immediate effect our borders with neighboring sister countries, Guinea and Liberia are closed along with sea and airports with no flights to land or take off from the latter,. Helicopters taking off from hotels or from private homes will be shot down on sight.  At this juncture, I am taking this opportunity to address representative heads of foreign governments in Sierra Leone that the current situation is an internal affair of my country and all rights of this young nation under all international charters must be fully observed by all countries hence no outside interference, please. A dusk to dawn curfew is imposed and all are warned to keep off the streets and cooperate with the army and the police who are your solidarity partners in their mop up operations to bring the situation under control. “Ladies and gentlemen be your own watchdogs in these times to inform us of the whereabouts of government ministers and top party stalwarts and officials including Siaka Stevens, national chairman of the defunct APC party, who have gone into hiding; the best you can do is to surrender yourselves to the men and don’t stand up to them. “Members of my ruling council will be named shortly and a police statement outlining the fullest participation of all and sundry to rebuild our nation in every sphere will be read shortly. “I thank you all.”

When Defense counsel Solomon Berewa heard the recording of the speech above, he asked whether Minah would have been crazy to serve as vice president under Kaikai if had the coup succeeded.  There was no motive to join Kaikai in a coup that surpassed Minah’s glory of being the first Vice President and occupying the office of the Attorney General.  On Appeal, Berthen Macauley who had himself been a treason suspect questioned the notion of Minah joining Kaikai in any conspiracy to overthrow the Government when it was clear from the coup speech above that Kaikai was acting alone in his quest for illegal power and authority.

SLL Audio News

Was Francis M. Minah Guilty of Treason? Part 4

Play Episode Pause Episode

Mute/Unmute Episode Rewind 10 Seconds 1x Fast Forward 30 seconds

00:00 / 9:18

RSS Feed

Share

Link

Embed

First published on July 30, 2001 – Sierra Leone Live

By John L. Musa (R.I.P.)

In this four-part article, John L. Musa shows whether or not Francis M. Minah was guilty of treason for the May 23, 1989 coup

Part 4- Verdict, Appeal, Sentences And My Commentary

THE TRIAL AND VERDICT IN THE HIGH COURT
After a protracted trial of five months in the High Court before Justice D.E. M. Williams, a 12-man jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. Gabriel Mohamed Tennyson Kaikai and 15 others were convicted of treason and two of the 18 suspects were convicted of misprision of treason. During the trial 46 witnesses gave evidence for the prosecution, 22 testified for the defence and 44 exhibits were tendered and admitted in evidence.

KEY EXHIBITS: Trial Exhibit ZZZZQ (G.M. T. Kaikai’s would-be coup speech, tendered into evidence by N. D. Tejan Cole, Director of Public Prosecutions and identified by Detective Superintendent Seth Amedofo, 26th Prosecution witness).

Trial Exhibit JJJ (A statements allegedly made by Jamil Sahid Mohamed and Francis Minah in the presence of the First Accused in Jamil’s home).

Said Jamil: “BO HOW WUNA GOVERNMENT?” And retorted Minah: “Nor provoke me, enti you know say mi nar, ceremonial vice president.” The trial judge advised the jury to consider the two utterances as to whether they are the same as the ones made under oath by the First Accused.

When the jury returned its verdict of guilty as charged, Justice Williams sentenced the accused as follows:

SENTENCED TO DEATH FOR TREASON
Gabriel Mohamed Tennyson Kaikai (1st accused)
Prince Deen Kaikai (2nd accused)
Joseph John Harding (3rd accused)
Daniel Sulaiman Kaikai (4th accused)
Francis Misheck Minah (5th accused)
David Abu Samu (6th accused)
Francis Massaquoi (7th accused)
Francis Augustine Ensah (8th accused)
Amara Allieu Tarawallie (9th accused)
Josephus Abiodun Williams (10th accused)
Patrick Benedick Kaikai (11th accused)
Hassan Morlai Conteh (12TH accused)
Conrad Inis (13TH accused)
Kazim Hussain Allie (14TH accused)
Raymond Dowrie (15TH accused)
Harouna Vandy-Jimmy (16th accused)

GUILTY OF MISPRISION OF TREASON
Benjamin Orissa Dumacca Taylor, sentenced to four years in jail (17th accused) Sheku Deen Kamara, sentenced to seven years in jail (18th accused)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
On September 22, 1988, the resolution of the Court of Appeal was unanimously by a three-panel Bench of Justices Thompson Davies, William A.O. John Johnson and M.S. Turay as President. The Appeal Court upheld the trial court’s verdict of guilty and conformed the capital punishment of death by hanging for 12 of the convicts. The Court freed Francis Augustine Ensah, Kazim Hussain Allie, Patrick Kaikai, and Raymond Dowie. The four men were convicted in the High Court and sentenced to death. The death sentences of Francis minah and others were affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The four-year and seven-year terms of Benjamin Taylor and Sheku Deen Kamara were sustained by the Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
Craving to stave off the death penalty, the prisoners asked the Supreme Court to be the last umpire in the great contention of treason. While their fate was under resolution by the Supreme Court, they waited in vain expectation of the disposition of their sentences on the bases of questions of law which formed their appeal (the trial judge’s “misdirected” jury instructions, duplicitous indictments and vague charges, etc.). Among the questions of law, the appellants asked the Supreme Court to resolve was that Trial Court’s jury instructions and Justice D.E.M. Williams’ summing up amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Deliberating on this great contention was Chief Justice S.M.F. Kutubu and Justices Taju Deen, A.A. Timbo, Sydney Warne and Beccles Davies. The Court affirmed the legal bases of the lower courts and sustained the death sentences of the 12 treason convicts and the two-term years’ convictions of those found guilty of misprision of treason.

COMMITTEE ON THE PREROGATIVE OF MERCY
While this Committee was deliberating on whether or not to hang the 12 treason convicts, the prisoners were examined by a medical doctor in preparation for their hanging. West Africa Magazine reported at the time that the cabinet was divided on who was to be hanged. In the end, Minah’s lot fell with five others to be executed. The sentences of DEATH BY HANGING In the early morning hours of October 7, 1989, the following prisoners were hanged by the neck:
Gabriel Mohamed Tennyson Kaikai,
Prince Deen Kaikai,
Sulaiman Kaikai,
Francis Mischek Minah,
Conrad Inis

The hangings started in the death chamber at Central Prison at Pa Demba Road at 12 Mid-night and ended at 6 a.m.

SENTENCES TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT
David Abu Samu (6th accused)
Francis Massaquoi (7th accused)
Amara Allieu Tarawallie (9th accused)
Josephus Abiodun Williams (10th accused)
Hassan Morlai Conteh (12TH accused)
Harouna Vandi-Jimmy (16th accused)

FREED FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE
Francis Augustine Ensah (8th accused)
Patrick Benedick Kaikai (11th accused)
Kazim Hussain Allie (14TH accused)
Raymond Dowrie (15TH accused)

FINAL DELIBERATIONS
When Justice D.E.M. Williams asked the accused if they had anything to say before he pronounced his sentence, each suspect beginning with G.M.T. Kaikai said something of his innocence. When it was Minah’s turn, he said what was already known in that personal Kangaroo court to send him to perdition. “I CANNOT HELP BUT CONVINCE MYSELF THAT THIS IS AN ORCHESTRATED ALLEGATION THAT HAS BEEN LEVIED AGAINST ME TO GET RID OF ME.”

By engaging in a seeming quest to settle scores for Minah’s iniquitous actions as a politician, supporters of Minah could feel the emotion of LEX TALIONIS, the principle of exacting an eye for an eye, and in this case for a false accusation. T.S. Eliot said it best: ” a situation, a chain of events… such that when the external facts, which must terminate in sensory experience are given, the emotion is immediately evoked.”

The development of arbitrary and capricious application of the Treason law of Sierra Leone is impressive. As the Minah treason trial shows, the catchpenny trick of bad prosecution in the treason trial under review is not reconcilable with the rule of law. From the Forna trumped up treason charges, the Minah Kangaroo Court, to the Drumhead of the NPRC, the Superior Court of Judicature of Sierra Leone has become a haunted house by ghosts of departures from the rule of law. And when treason allegations are preferred falsely, and when such political trials have upset our faith in democracy and equal protection for both ordinary criminal suspects and politicians covered with ignominy in our society, the foundations of the rule of law are shaken. What is more, the High Court of Sierra Leone becomes a forum for vendetta instead of judicial equity.

The Superior Court of Judicature of Sierra Leone should remain a forum that is a shield of protection for all classes of persons in all circumstances that assures the continuity of the rule of law. When it acts otherwise, the privileges and grants of constitutional liberty to Sierra Leoneans now and over the ages will become a munificent bequest in a pauper’s will. Such a legacy when ignored, rises in our national breasts as the spirit of the age and we make a model of it to make calumny and groundless accusations against compatriots! In that regard, we often hear that this compatriot committed treason or committed another felony without asking the Director of Public Prosecutions to prefer charges. Prattling without evidence is a mere sport! It should be avoided by well-meaning compatriots with the seriousness of purpose.

Best regards,
John Lansana Musa (R.I.P) Brother!

Thanks for following this presentation of ;
Was Francis M. Minah Guilty of Treason?