Kai-Kai & 13 Others v. The State (SC CRIM APP 1 of 1988) 1989 SLSC 7

Kai-Kai & 13 Others v. The State (SC CRIM APP 1 of 1988) 1989 SLSC 7

1. Introduction

Case Name:
Kai-Kai & 13 Others v. The State (SC CRIM APP 1 of 1988) 1989 SLSC 7

Court:
Supreme Court of Sierra Leone

Judges:

• Kutubu CJ
• Beccles Davies JSC
• Warne JSC
• Taju-Deen JA
• Timbo JA

Date of Judgment:
29 September 1989

Appellants:
Gabriel Mohamed Tennyson Kai-Kai and 13 others

Respondent:
The State (Regina)

2. Factual Background

The case involved the appellants, Gabriel Mohamed Tennyson Kai-Kai and 13 others, who were charged with treason, misprision of treason, and murder. The charges stemmed from a plot to overthrow the government of Sierra Leone. The indictment alleged that between June 1986 and March 1987, the appellants prepared to overthrow the government by unlawful means. The prosecution’s case was based on the assertion that the appellants conspired to assassinate the President, disband Parliament, and establish a National Reformation Council.

The charges included 26 overt acts, detailing various actions such as planning the assassination of the President, collecting funds to support the coup, procuring arms and ammunition, and inciting others to join the conspiracy. The trial in the High Court of Sierra Leone resulted in guilty verdicts for all the appellants, with death sentences imposed on the 16 accused of treason and lesser sentences for the two charged with misprision of treason.

3. Legal Issues

The appellants raised several legal issues on appeal to the Supreme Court:

1. Overt Acts in Treason Charges:

   • The appellants argued that the inclusion of overt acts in the indictment was impermissible under the Treason and State Offences Act 1963. They contended that the act did not require or allow for overt acts to be laid out in the indictment, making the charges legally flawed.

2. Duplicity of Charges:

   • The appellants contended that the count of treason was duplicitous because it included multiple distinct offenses within a single count. They argued that this violated legal principles and should result in the charges being dismissed.

3. Admissibility of Hearsay and Accomplice Evidence:

   • The appellants challenged the trial court’s admission of hearsay and uncorroborated accomplice evidence, asserting that it was improperly admitted and led to unsafe convictions.

4. Misprision of Treason:

   • The appellants also questioned whether the offense of misprision of treason still existed under Sierra Leone law after the repeal of the Treason Act 1351 by the Treason and State Offences Act 1963.

4. The Court’s Analysis

Overt Acts in Treason Charges:
The court held that the inclusion of overt acts in the indictment was proper. It noted that an “overt act” is an act that is open to the world and can be perceived by anyone. The court explained that the overt acts laid in the indictment were not separate charges but further particulars of the offense of treason. The indictment, as laid under the Treason and State Offences Act 1963, was correct and in conformity with the Criminal Procedure Act 1965.

“It is permissible to lay any number of overt acts in the same count of an indictment without making the count duplicitous. Where there are several overt acts laid in a count of an indictment and a judgment is given on a general verdict of guilty on that count, such judgment will be sustained, provided that the count contains allegations of overt acts that are sufficiently laid.”

Duplicity of Charges:
The court rejected the appellants’ argument that the count of treason was duplicitous. The court examined the count and found that it charged only one offense—treason—despite listing multiple overt acts. The court clarified that the inclusion of overt acts did not make the count duplicitous as they were not separate offenses but rather particulars of the single offense of treason.

“An examination of Count 1 of the indictment clearly shows that the only offense charged in the statement of offense was treason, not treason and conspiracy or conspiracies.”

Admissibility of Hearsay and Accomplice Evidence:
The court addressed the appellants’ concerns about the admission of hearsay and uncorroborated accomplice evidence. The court acknowledged that hearsay evidence was admitted but found that its admission did not render the verdict unsafe. The court emphasized that even without the hearsay evidence, there was sufficient other evidence to support the convictions. Regarding accomplice evidence, the court reiterated the legal principle that uncorroborated accomplice evidence is admissible but warned that it should be treated with caution.

“The uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is admissible in law; but where an accomplice gives evidence for the prosecution, it is the duty of the judge to warn the jury that although they may convict on his evidence, it is dangerous to do so unless it is corroborated.”

Misprision of Treason:
The court upheld the validity of the offense of misprision of treason in Sierra Leone. It noted that despite the repeal of the Treason Act 1351, misprision of treason remained an offense under common law and was applicable in Sierra Leone. The court emphasized the grave nature of the crime, which endangers the very existence of the state.

“In any civilized society, where the rule of law exists, misprision of treason is a grave crime. It is a grave crime in Sierra Leone. It is a crime which endangers the very existence of the State.”

5. Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions. The court found that the indictment was properly laid, the charges were not duplicitous, and the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain the convictions. The court also confirmed the continued applicability of misprision of treason under Sierra Leone law.

Key Quotes from the Judgment:

• “It is permissible to lay any number of overt acts in the same count of an indictment without making the count duplicitous.”

 

• “An examination of Count 1 of the indictment clearly shows that the only offense charged in the statement of offense was treason, not treason and conspiracy or conspiracies.”

 

• “The uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice is admissible in law; but where an accomplice gives evidence for the prosecution, it is the duty of the judge to warn the jury that although they may convict on his evidence, it is dangerous to do so unless it is corroborated.”

 

• “In any civilized society, where the rule of law exists, misprision of treason is a grave crime.”

 

Keywords

• Treason
• Misprision of treason
• Overt acts
• Duplicity in charges
• Hearsay evidence
• Accomplice evidence
• Supreme Court of Sierra Leone
• Conspiracy to overthrow the government

Sample Questions on the Case

1. What legal principle allows for the inclusion of overt acts in a treason indictment in Sierra Leone?

   • The legal principle is that overt acts are considered further particulars of the offense of treason and do not constitute separate charges, allowing their inclusion in the indictment without rendering the count duplicitous.

2. How did the court address the issue of duplicity in the treason charge against the appellants?

   • The court found that the inclusion of multiple overt acts in the treason charge did not make the count duplicitous, as these acts were not separate offenses but particulars of the single offense of treason.

3. Why did the court uphold the admissibility of uncorroborated accomplice evidence in this case?

   • The court upheld the admissibility of uncorroborated accomplice evidence, emphasizing that while such evidence is admissible, the judge must warn the jury of the dangers of convicting based solely on this type of evidence.

4. What does the case signify about the status of misprision of treason under Sierra Leone law?

   • The case confirms that misprision of treason remains a valid offense under Sierra Leone law, reflecting the continuing applicability of certain common law principles despite the repeal of historical statutes.

     1. What is the legal definition of an overt act, and why was its inclusion in the treason indictment upheld by the court?

        • An overt act is an open act that can be perceived by anyone and serves as evidence of the accused’s criminal intent. The court upheld its inclusion because overt acts are not distinct charges but further particulars of the treason offense, which is permissible under Sierra Leone law.

     2. What are the procedural safeguards related to the admission of uncorroborated accomplice evidence in criminal trials?

        • The court emphasized that uncorroborated accomplice evidence is admissible, but the judge must issue a caution to the jury, warning them that it is dangerous to convict based solely on this type of evidence unless it is corroborated by independent facts.

     3. Why did the court find that the treason charge in this case was not duplicitous?

        • The court concluded that the treason charge was not duplicitous because it involved a single offense—preparation to overthrow the government—despite the inclusion of multiple overt acts, which served as particulars rather than separate offenses.

     4. How does the decision in this case affect the application of common law offenses like misprision of treason in Sierra Leone?

        • The decision affirms that misprision of treason remains a valid offense under Sierra Leone law, reflecting the continued applicability of common law principles and reinforcing the importance of reporting knowledge of treasonable acts to the authorities.

      

Application of Principles

The principles established in this case are critical for understanding the legal framework surrounding treason and related offenses in Sierra Leone. Legal practitioners can use this case to argue for the validity of indictments that include overt acts and to navigate the complexities of handling accomplice and hearsay evidence in criminal trials. The case also provides a precedent for upholding the offense of misprision of treason, even after the repeal of older treason statutes, reflecting the ongoing relevance of common law offenses that safeguard the stability of the state.

The court’s analysis of overt acts and duplicity provides crucial guidance for prosecutors, helping them structure treason charges in a way that complies with procedural requirements. Additionally, the court’s handling of accomplice evidence offers valuable lessons on ensuring that such testimony is presented with adequate warnings, thus preserving the fairness of the trial.

This case also provides important precedents for legal practitioners handling treason cases or complex conspiracies to overthrow governments. It reaffirms the role of overt acts in indictments, clarifying that they can be included without rendering the charge duplicitous. Furthermore, the court’s ruling on accomplice and hearsay evidence highlights the importance of judicial caution and proper direction to juries, ensuring that convictions are based on credible, corroborated evidence.

The principles outlined in this case are also relevant in the broader context of national security and the prosecution of crimes that threaten the stability of the state. Lawyers involved in cases of treason, conspiracy, or similar high-stakes offenses can rely on this ruling to ensure that indictments are structured correctly and that evidence is presented in a manner consistent with due process.