Our country is falling back into the ugly situation we were during the Siaka Stevens era. When would the APC pratrice decent politics? If Ernest Koroma does not want his business to go poblic, he should not have ran for the presidency. Once you become president of a country, you no longer have privacy. The press wrote a lot about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, the police did not go and harass any press house or the editor, but ofcourse these are proffessional police, not that half baked Brima Acha Kamara who is more of a politician than a professional police. That country has gone through 11 years of brutal war, some people have not even recover yet from the truma and our president is trying to creat another war. Why every day your party supporters are recking havoc on other people? We never heard of this type of thing during the SLPP tenue that is because the leadership was serious. The misicians can sing whatever they want to sing and nothing happen, the press can write whatever they want and there was no police harassment. Ernest Koroma is aware of all the bad things that are happening in that country, not only aware, he gave his blessings to all the things that are happening.If anything bad happened to Sylvia, it will not born a good child in that country.

Sylvia who?

That's right: another soupist (SLPP) 'journalist' trashing the personal life of soupist (APC) President, Dr. Koroma. Of course, there is nothing criminally wrong with the President having a concubine; morally questionable, perhaps, but not illegal.

Is the alleged womanizing of the President "newsworthy"? Hardly. There is the case of John Edwards in the United States of America, and that case should be carefully distinguished from Bill Clinton's case, which involves LYING about his alleged sexual liason with one Monica Lewinsky. It was not the alleged act that led to Clinton's impeachment, but his feebing about it.

Context makes all the difference. Slyvia, a physician trained with Sierra Leone tax dollars, dumped her professional calling to become a 'journalist.' Like most journalists from Sierra Leone, she did not receive any formal training in journalism. That can be cured with APPROPRIATE professional training on the job.

Ms. Blyden was associated with the soupist coupists AFRC, which overthrew the democratically elected soupist SLPP, led by Tejan Kabba. She was a member of the infamous NINJA 'JOURNALISTS.' POLITICAL 'JOURNALISTS.'

After the AFRC was reduced to rubble by ECOMOG, she hustled her way into the SLPP camp, under the protection of the soupists Berewa and Kabba.

During the equivocal 'power sharing' misadventure between the soupist SLPP and the soupist RUF, it is widely believed that she was in the tent of the RUF.

After the RUF was decimated, she quietly hustled her way into the soupist SLPP camp, again under the protection of Berewa and Kabba.

Accordingly, it would be a stretch to call her an "independent journalist," if a "journalist" she is. In our view, she is a politician hiding behind "journalism." Her newspaper, The Awareness Times, may be seen as the organ of an illegal opposition, backing this or that soupist party or her own political ambitions, however murky they might be.

Under Sierra Leone law, the act of portraying a member of the executive branch, herein the President, in a manner construable by the Attorney General as "libelous" is a crime. Ms. Blyden would find it extremely difficult to prove that the President has zillions of concumbines, for reasons too obvious to state.

If the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the President has no such concubines, she will be be convicted under the applicable law.

Accordingly, this issue has nothing to do with the bourgeois norm of "freedom of the press." Rather, it is a bone dry question of law.

Worse, Ms. Blyden supported the applicable law against other journalists during Kabba's presidency. We suppose that what is good for the goose is equally good for the gander.

Although we do not support the soupist APC and its leader and head of the Government of Sierra Leone, we do think that he has rights under the applicable law. They should be zealously protected by the Attorney General.

Ms. Blyden should be charged and tried, and if she is convicted---and that is where our money is---, upon the exhaustion of appeals due her, she should be sent to THE BIG HOUSE AT PADEMBA ROAD, where criminals belong.

Richerson88 / jallohlaw, Clinton was never impeached. Talking rubbish as usual.

Now it is time to take you down: historical and constitutional obscurantist and ignoramus, thereby preventing you from maliciously spreading your virus of ignorance to readers pinning for accurate historically reconstructed realities.

The Yankees have a bon mot: you're entitled to your (herein "rubbish") opinion, but not to your facts."

I'll give you exactly one hour to retract the content of your loosey goosey post; to assert inequivocally and categorically in your retraction that your assertion that Clinton was never impeached is FALSE.

Never mind your vapid opinion of the contents of my posts; inability to understand is sometimes sublimated by "branding" perfectly transparent literary content as "rubbish," or, as we 'yanks' "pud*t" (phonetic transcription of American oral articulation of "put it") "trash."

Good luck on your mission impossible!

I generously gave you exactly one hour to RETRACT your false statement that "...Clinton was never impeached."

YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO.

This is not a case of "seditious libel," where you boneheadedly, idiotically, inanely and childishly assume that 'retraction' would let the big men and women at State House cut the steely chains of justice now painfull pinching your neck.

Here, you sentence is not time at Pademaba Road, but the exposure of your historical ignorance, demonstration of your Atlantic Ocean-wide, nauseating and toxic stupidity and gutter pride.

CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED.

1.0 On Saturday, 19 December, 1998, the House of Representatives of the United States Congress impeached William Jefferson Clinton.

1.1 The House of Representatives impeached Clinton under four articles.

1.2 The House of Representatives forwarded the articles of IMPEACHMENT to the United States Senate.

Opinions are profane; facts, sacred, as you well know, albeit belatedly.

The lies you published in your discredited soupist rag, Alaki Times, about the President of Sierra Leone will land you at Pademba Road for a long time, if the President is THE MAN he claims to be.

And, there is no doubt that the President is THE MAN, and your President, and who trounced your sponsors, the corrupt soupist duo: Kabba/Berewa, two crappy, two by four politicians and hustlers.

The artile: What If Sylvia Blyden Has Proofs...

Since this issue came to light about the Sierra Leone president having a so-called first lady, every Sierra Leonean around the world was shocked. Especialy and significantly for a man who's the author of attitudinal change. For him to bring a change to Sierra Leone, he should be the change himself. We can only effect changes in the enviroment in which we live, if we are changed persons, rather than that it will be a worthless and an empty slogan. The Sierra Leone police is virtually un professional in cahracter and in actions. I was surprised as to how a plane landed at the Lingi Airpor with thousands kilogramms of coccaine without the prior knowledge of the inspector general of police-Brima Archa Kamara.

Again, the issue is not the "reaction" of anybody to an alleged fact, or other irrelevant matters.

The issue is the rule of law, period.

We do not support either the soupist APC or the soupist SLPP. But, the soupist APC was democratically elected, and the "will of the people," which includes the law, should be respected, even if one disagrees, according to the dogmas of democratic theory. It is called "tolerance."

Hence, the question of the alleged violation of a criminalized libel provision of the Criminal Code of Sierra Leone by Blyden et al. has nothing to do with any socio-economic issues, political issues or cultural issues.

In fact, the juridical pursuit of Ms. Blyden is a practical and unequivocal demonstration of the canons of democracy in Sierra Leone: the rigid application of the rule of law in a democratic polity.

We urge the Attorney General to indict Ms. Blyden and her co-conspirator under the duly proclaimed applicable law. No one is above the law, according to one of the dogmas of bourgeois theory and, more poignantly, no one should be allowed to use a mere newspaper to intentionally violate the laws that protect the very existence of newspapers.

To reiterate, Blyden's publication has nothing to do with democracy. There is no connection between the theory of democracy and anyone's libido.

And, finally, the 'personal' motivating ground of the publication is equally irrelevant. The only relevant motive here is the motive to fib. The Government's burden in its bid to put Blyden away is simple: it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Blyden lied and that the lie was intended to rain disrepute on the President.

Easy case, in our view.

This time around, the people of Sierra Leone want justice, and justice they will have. Upon the dispensation of justice in the case of Blyden, riff raff 'journalism' will take a holiday in soupist Sierra Leone.

If journalists refuse to follow the law, why should the police or, for that matter, the ordinary person?

Let the trial begin, and let justice "ring."

In the Court Room,they,"demand that Slylvia Blyden go to jail and also ask that they hand her over to them so she can be amputated".What a life that we live in? So, hand choppers are now going to court Rooms to demand.To you the hand choppers,do you really believe that by chopping the hands of Slylvia Blyden,the problems of Sierra Leone will be solved?

I see why some people writer and they call us primitive,barbaric and a nation of violent people.Sometimes,when I read through the papers in my country and I see the mess-I stand to agree sometimes with the views of some of the posts.

Harming this Slylvia Blyden,will cost Sierra Leone another carnage,that you and I,will not stand to watch or see.The Press in Sierra Leone must stand as a united force. Wait and see the proof of Slylvia or when she is gilty.'A palmwine tapper who doesn't drink his wine,is a stupid fool on the palmtree'.

To you Slylvia,you can even write for this whole century,you'll not change the cause of action of this of our President. "O'Bai, please drop the case.We're your people and so she is.

My dear friend, I see that you are a man of peace; but, sometimes peace can only be had by a sturdy battle readiness.

The writer of the article on the fugitive, Slyvia Blyden, is somewhat confused. He concocted the scenario to which you reacted; it only goes to show the low level of journalism in Sierra Leone. In fact, the writer, Sulaiman Momodu, was either being ironical or malicious.

In my opening piece of on this l'affaire Sylvia, I carefully stated that Blyden is "reported" to have been connected with the RUF. For most Sierra Leoneans, there is no "reportedly" here; they would assert categorically that she was connected with the RUF.

Do you see my point?

The writer knows this, i.e. he shares the views of most Sierra Leoneans on Blyden's connections with the RUF. Hence his allusion to hand chopping in the context of a case of seditious libel against Blyden was either ironic or malicious, or probably both.

As a lover of peace, you know that absent "respect for the rule of law" there can be no peace in a community. Hence, peace and the rule of law are like hand and glove.

Blyden will be charged with an act of publicizing "seditious material" that she knew to be seditious, under the "seditious libel" provision of the Criminal Code. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that she will be convicted hands down.

As I stated earlier, Blyden supported hook, line and sinker the constitutional validity of the legal provision that has now made her a fugitive from justice. Under Kabba, when the provision was applied to other 'journalists', she supported the constitutionality of the provision, although an attorney she was not then an attorney she is not now.

Whether one agrees with the provision or nay, it is the law of the land. There are ways of challenging the constitutionality of a legal provision, but an alleged violation of the same won't pass muster.

Blyden's problem is this: even though she may want to morph this matter into a question of "freedom of the press" or "democracy," it is plainly neither. It is a simple case of subsumption, namely whether the content of the piece she published in her newspaper is seditious libel or not.

It is a plain vanilla legal question. It has nothing to do with politics.

Momodu states: "I would like to remind all that one of the tenets of democracy is to ensure that freedom of the press is guaranteed and respect for (sic) rule of law prevails...."

Please note that "respect for the rule of law" is the basis of any and all laws in a democratic polity, the laws regulating the scope and limits of the RIGHTS of the press, inclusive.

Blyden is alleged to have disrespected "the rule of law." It is therefore a wobbly defense to fall back on a defense founded on "freedom of the press" or, worse a vague concept of 'democracy.' The circularity is obvious.

Frankly, professional integrity mandates that the Attorney General try this case like yesterday. It is both an easy case and, above all a case against a very unpopular, some would say odious, character.

Professionally, the AG should grab this golden opportunity; he might, upon whisking the accused to Pademba Road, be in line for the next Supreme Court appointment, perhaps---pushing the enveloppe now---the next Chief Jusice of the Supreme Court.

LAW 101 IN THE MATTER OF BLYDEN ET AL.

The fugitive from justice, Blyden, has just 'retracted' her 'alleged' seditious story about the President of Sierra Leone.

Blyden is confused.

1.0 "Retraction" is not a defense in a seditious libel case.

1.1. "Retraction" does not "mitigate" anything in a seditious libel action.

2.0 In the context of a seditious libel action, as opposed to a civil libel action, "retraction," far from either serving as a defense or a mitigating factor IS ACTUALLY AN ADMISSION THAT THE 'RETRACTED' PUBLISHED MATERIAL IS IN FACT SEDITIOUS."

Pathetic: I wonder about the caliber of her attorneys.

HOW HARD THE PROUD FALL!

richerson/jallohlaw, President Clinton was NEVER impeached.