PHOTO: Late slain Police Officer Alexander Saye
By Garmah Never Lomo, garmahlomo@gmail.com
The release on bail of a state security officer by a Circuit Court Judge in Grand Gedeh County in murder case of a police officer has sparked a wave of controversy, but the court has been given reason for its action.
Among others, family member of the local police commander Alexander Say have now threatened to stage endless protest in demand of justice.
The 7th Judicial Circuit Court in Zwedru, Grand Gedeh County headed by its Presiding Judge Sikajipo A. Wollor on June 10,2021 shifted blame on the Liberian National Police for Wrongful Investigation in the murder case involving the Police regional commander region four Alexander B. Saye and released the defendant Sampson Pennue, National Security Agency of the County.
Bullet holes on the deceased body
The Defendant is a biological brother of the current Senator of Grand Gedeh Zoe E. Pennue.
On November 27, 2020, the regional Police commander Alexander B. Saye was allegedly shot and killed by Sampson Pennue at Bartehjam gold mining camp in Grand Gedeh County.
According to the court’s ruling into the motion filed by the defense headed by Rennie O. Moses and Moria’s T. Walter said when the case was called for hearing, the defendant/ movant made the following law citations Article 21(d)(I) and 21(h) of the 1986 constitution of Liberia and Chapter 13 section 13.1 respectively.
While, the respondent/ Republic of Liberia made the following law citations, Chapter 13 section 13.1 and Chapter 1 section 1.5 respectively.
The court said it reviewed the law citations carefully of the amendment motion to admit to bail and the resistance thereof, both parties seems to root their submission in 1LCLR title 2 Chapter 13 section 13.1 and Chapter 14 section 14.1 respectively.
And for the benefits of the ruling of said motion, the court verbation quote the above mentioned law citations so as to have a clearer understanding of the law and it’s fair appreciation.
Chapter 13.BAIL
- 13.1. Right to bail.
1.Capital offenses.
A person in custody for the commission of a capital offense shall, before conviction, be entitled as of right to be admitted to bail unless the proof is evident or the presumption great that he is guilty of the offense. On the hearing of an application for admission to bail made before indictment by a person in custody for the commission of a capital offense, the burden of showing that the proof is evident or the presumption great that he is guilty of the offense is on the Republic. After indictment for such an offense, the burden is on the defendant to shown that the proof is not evident or the presumption not great. After conviction for a capital offense, no person shall be continued at large on bail or be admitted to bail except in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3 of this section.
Title 26 Chapter 14.1 Murder
(a) A person is guilty of murder if he purposely or knowingly causes the death of another human being or (b) causes the death of another human being under circumstances manifesting extreme in difference to the value of human life.
A rebuttable presumption that such in difference exist arises if the defendant is engaged or is an accoplice or the commission of or an attempt to commit flight after committing or attempting to commit reason, offenses defined in section 11.2 or 11.3 of the title espionage sabotage, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, felonies restraint, arson, aggravated involuntary sodomy, escape piracy or other felony involving force or danger to human life.
The court in it ruling revealed that having carefully reviewed the laws citations the arguments presented by both parties, this court sees it fit to raise two determinative issues for consideration and these issues are:
Whether or not movant/ defendant who he allegedly been accused of a capital offense is entitled to bail?
Whether or not movant/ defendant showed that presumption is not great or proof is not evidence as to the circumstances outlined in the indictment?
To answer these questions raised, the court out of it mind deal with the issue raised orderly that is the first issue was answered and subsequently the second.
As to the first issue, the answer is YES a defendant who has allegedly been accused of a capital offense like murder is entitled to a bail as a matter of law.
The court says Article 21(o)(I) of the 1986 constitution of Liberia all accused persons shall be entitled to bail, however, a person accused of capital offense is entitled to bail prescribed in 1LCLR title 2 Chapter 13 section 13.1 the interpretation here provides that all crimes are bailable to include capital offenses but the point is on the hearing for an application or admission to bail after indictment, the burden showing that proof is not evidence or presumption is not great squarely rest on the accusers.
Narrating further, the court says that movant/ defendant showed that presumption is not great or proof is not evidence as to the circumstances outlined in the indictment.
To the second issue, the answer is YES movant/ defendant is showed that presumption is not great and proof is not evidence as to the circumstances outlined in the indictment.
Accordingly, movant/defendant was indicted for the crime of murder a capital offense and that the crime murder charged shall show that the defendant/ accused intentionally committed said crime coupled with malice.
Further, whenever it is alleged that murder has occurred fight constitute guilt. In light of the indictment filed before the court prosecution had failed to show intent and malice, the two intertwined elements.
The court will like to mention excerpts from courts five and seven(5&7) of the indictment in count five of the indictment, prosecution mentioned that there were four men that were in the possession of firearms to include the deceased but failed to show that the four firearms underwent ballistic tests.
Moreover, count seven of the indictment showed that the movant/ defendant was the person who the deceased asked for help when he was allegedly shot.
But the court wondered that if movant/ defendant was the one who actually shot the deceased, how then he as the same person that the deceased called SP I’m dying tie my arm. And that at no time in the indictment did the movant/defendant abscond as a mean of invading or escaping investigation which could have constituted flight.
In light of the above and the attending circumstances outlined in the indictment, the says that movant/ defendant showed that presumption is not great or proof is not evidence and that movant/ defendant post no fight risk for the fact that he is citizens of Liberia with story family tie especially in this jurisdiction, therefore the application for the admission to bail shall be granted.
And that movant shall provide the appropriate criminal bond in keeping with law and shall be released from further detention and shall attend all court hearing consistent with law.
Wherefore and view of the foregoing the respondent/ Republic of Liberia resistance to the motion for the admission to bail is hereby deny and movant/defendant motion for the admission to bail is hereby granted and so ordered.
The defense lawyers filed a six counts motion and key to the six counts motion are movant says that key elements to establish murder must be an intent to commit murder couped with malice, movant further says that the crime he was indicted for charging him with murder failed to point where did movant intentionally with malice shoot and kill the victim if only it was/ has been scientifically established and the police investigation failed to speak to how did they arrive at the conclusion that it was movant/defendant who discharged his firearm when they five men including the deceased that resulted into his death without conducting ballistic tests on the various weapon that were named in the indictment.
The defendant prayed court to grant their motion and all other relief that may deem it legal and equitable.
While state prosecutors filed also six counts resistance to the movant/ defendant motion says and avers further intraversing court two of movant’s motion that the burden of showing proof is not evidence or the presumption not great now shifts to Defendant to establish that the evidence gathered by the Liberia National Police is not convincing compelling and overwhelming to hold him for the commission of heinous and infamous crime of murder.
Hence his failure to so do his request for admission to bail should be denied, rejected and dismissed the prayed.
Meanwhile, the Court has therefore denied prosecution resistance and granted movant’s motion and released him on bail.