Concord Times (Freetown)
Tanu Jalloh
17 October 2006
An oral motion for judgment of acquittal in the concluding case of three Revolutionary United Front (RUF) indictees, pursuant to Rule 98 of the Rules of Procedure, Monday kicked off at the Trial Chamber 1 of the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
The three, Issa Sesay, Morris Kallon and Augustine Gbao were respectively indicted for allegedly bearing the greatest responsibility for crimes committed in the country's ten-year rebel war.
Flanked on the bench by Justice Benjamin Mutanga Itoe and Justice Pierre Boutet, Presiding Judge, Bankole Thompson established before the court that defense counsel are limited each to two hours submissions. The prosecution was given three hours.
Lead counsel for Issa Sesay, first accused, Wayne Jordash submitted that in relation to TF1061's evidence, prosecution concede there is no sufficient evidence for conviction of sexual violence in Tomandu.
"In relation to Paragraph 21 of the skeleton motion of the prosecution, the latter concede there is no evidence of physical violence in Malema and Mamaka; in Paragraph 23 which talks about Freetown we concede there are some evidence of physical violence in Wellington but Count 12 Paragraph 25 of the said skeleton motion indicates they've not adduced evidence in Bonthe, Moyamba, Pujehun, Bo and Tonkolili," he submitted.
Defense Counsel argued that Count 8 Paragraph 45-49 indicates the prosecution have essentially based their motion on the ruling of the chamber with regards Article 2 (I) of the statute: "The skeleton document of the prosecution indicates they've shifted their submission from Paragraph 16 to Count 8 because it falls within the Rules of Procedure".
Charles Taku, Counsel for the second accused, Morris Kallon, submitted "the prosecution departed impermissibly from the indictment and adduced evidence that falls outside the time frame adopted in the indictment." He continued: "the abductions of peacekeepers were not systematic and widespread and that such abductions according to the indictment were not targeted at civilians or people of civilian status. In essence UNAMSIL were mandated under Charter 7 to use force or arms in specific circumstances. And they did invoke Charter 7".
Meanwhile, the bench expressed concerns over references made by Mr. Taku but, however, agreed they would look at the authority referred to in his submission.
Counsel for the third accused, Augustine Gbao, Professor Andrei O'Shea made a few general comments in his preamble and opined that "Counts 10, 3 and 14 that deal with mutilation, extermination, and pillage respectively should not stand against his client according to Rule 98."
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2006 Concord Times. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
