JUSTICE QUESTIONS KEMOH SESAY'S INVOLVEMENT WHILE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 FREETOWN 000103 SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR AF/W (JHUNTER/ESPRUILL) EMBASSY LOME (SWALKE) PLEASE PASS TO INL CN TEAM (TSCARANTINO) DOJ FOR DEA/OS/OSE (MCMANAMON/LENARTOWICZ) E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/17/2019 TAGS: PGOV SNAR KJUS SL SUBJECT: JUSTICE QUESTIONS KEMOH SESAY'S INVOLVEMENT WHILE END OF TRIAL LOOMS REF: A. 08 FREETOWN 389 ¶B. FREETOWN 78 Classified By: Ambassador June Carter Perry for reasons 1.4 (b/d) ¶1. (C) Summary: Two of the accused in the ongoing cocaine trial had their charges dismissed on March 16, an additional sign that the case is quickly being brought to a close. Civil Aviation employees Badara Allieu Tarawalley and Ebenezer Adetunji Macauley were released based on the lack of evidence linking them to conspiracy and accessory charges. The justice presiding over the case has intensified the schedule, requesting that the defense team rests its case on or around March 21. He also made some provocative comments about the alleged involvement of former Minister of Transport Ibrahim Kemoh Sesay (reftel A),suggesting that he should have been charged in the case. This kind of public commentary on Kemoh Sesay by a respected judge could push the government to seek a "solution" to the problem posed by the former Minister, who was likely protected by officials as highly-placed as the President himself. End Summary. ¶2. (U) Justice Nicholas Browne-Marke, stated on March 16 that he questioned the Department of Public Prosecution's (DPP) decision to neither charge nor call Kemoh Sesay as a witness. The 13th accused, Civil Aviation Authority employee Tarawalley, stated in his submission that Kemoh Sesay had given the go-ahead to issue a landing permit for the plane. Browne-Marke thus stated that Kemoh Sesay should have either been called as a witness to refute this testimony, or been charged himself. Tarawalley's testimony also revealed that he protected the former Minister in previous statements, and Browne-Marke noted that suborning an individual to commit perjury is a crime. ¶3. (U) Tarawalley and Macauley were acquitted on all charges on March 16, and Browne-Marke determined that the remaining accused will face their respective charges. Browne-Marke also ruled that Count V, Conspiracy to Import Prohibited Drugs Without Lawful Authority Contrary to Law, is appropriate and that the defendants have a case to answer for. Various defense team members had previously argued that the DPP had failed to prove conspiracy, and that it should be dismissed 
because many of the defendants had not known one another prior to their arrests, and thus could not be involved in a "conspiracy." Browne-Marke will not rule on guilt or innocence related to the charge until the defense case is closed, but ruled against the defense argument that there were no grounds for the conspiracy charge. ¶4. (C) Significantly, Browne-Marke urged the defense team to close their case by March 21. He implied that he believes they are deliberately delaying the case for their own purposes, when he is aware that the evidence has been sufficiently presented already. Court will now sit every day until the defense closes. How long Browne-Marke will take to render a judgment is unclear, but his decisions thus far have been rendered expeditiously. Based on his recent judgment related to Tarawalley and Macauley's acquittal, he seems to already be laying the groundwork for the final decisions. Though he ruled that conspiracy is an appropriate charge, he also stated in court on March 14 that the DPP had by and large failed to prove that case. He also dropped Count I, Accesory Before the Fact to the Importation of Cocaine, for Hassan Karim Mansaray, Patrick Moriba Johnson, and Mohamed Musa Kamara on March 16, but said that Ahmed Sesay must face the charge. His statements about the charge and Sesay largely implied that he believes the evidence demonstrates that Sesay is guilty. There is a strong appearance that Browne-Marke has already reviewed the case before him, and made his decisions. If so, he may be prepared to submit his judgment on or shortly after the closure of the defense case. ¶5. (C) Comment: Browne-Marke seems poised to end this case as quickly as possible, necessitating further bilateral discussions between post and State House to ensure that the promise to honor the expulsion requests is kept (reftel B). Emboffs held informal discussions with a highly-placed State House official on March 16, and expect further information on March 18. Browne-Marke's comments about Kemoh Sesay are in many ways surprising; he halted and struck from the record a statement made earlier in the trial by Alimamy Kabia, implicating Kemoh Sesay in the conspiracy. Though it is unlikely that Kemoh Sesay will be charged for this crime in a Sierra Leonean court in the future, Browne-Marke's statement puts the government and those who may be protecting Kemoh FREETOWN 00000103 002 OF 002 Sesay on notice that evidence suggesting his complicity is now a matter of public record. This could increase the Government of Sierra Leone's amenability to expelling Kemoh Sesay, should he be indicted in a U.S. court. Post will continue to keep Department and DEA officials apprised of progress in the case, and the need for action, when warranted. End Comment. PERRY