The Duty of the Sierra Leone Police in Detecting and Preventing Crime

The Sierra Leone Police is an important institution that has been in existence since the country was declared a British Crown Colony and up until when the whole territory was amalgamated to constitute the Republic of Sierra Leone. When the Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No. 6 of 1991, was inaugurated, there was already an existing functional police force which the said Constitution further established in section 155 thereby guaranteeing its continuation. The Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No. 6 of 1991 ensured the preservation and continuation of state institutions that were already in existence before it came into force; and among those important state institutions that the Constitution preserved and allowed to continue to function is the Sierra Leone Police Force under section 188 of the same Constitution.

The primary and fundamental reason for which the Sierra Leone Police Force was established is to detect, investigate, prevent any crime and prosecute criminals. Therefore in discharging their duties, they are responsible to preserve law and order and also to protect life and property. These duties mentioned above may sound as an oversimplification of the all-important functions of the Police, but these duties must be ingrained in their minds and be discharged with diligence. The Police are given enormous powers by law to suppress riots and exercise boundless force in maintaining law and order where there is a breakdown of public order.

Duties of the Sierra Leone Police

The Police are vested with an array of duties and among those duties include:

The Duty to Detect Crime: From a sociological standpoint, crime is part of every society and will continue to exist as the society grows and become complex. People will always commit crimes to satisfy their needs or perpetrate harm to others. The existence of crime in society makes it unsafe for the people; and it is against this backdrop that every state in the world has a formidable institution to detect criminal activities and facilitate their prosecution and eventual conviction and punishment. The detection of crimes by the police is geared towards discovering persons who have committed crimes or are about to commit a crime. When the police are alerted that a crime has been committed either through a tipoff or some community intelligence, they are instantly put into action to visit the crime scene and identify the persons likely to have committed the said crime. The next thing is to arrest persons who are likely to have participated either remotely or entirely in the commission of the crime. The power of arrest that is exercised by the police and vested on them emanates from various laws in Sierra Leone and among those laws is section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1965 which describes the manner in which an arrest can be done by the police. Further to this; subsection (2) of section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1965 empowers the police to use sufficient force to restrain a person who is suspected to have committed a crime while arresting him. As provided under section 15 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1965, subsection 5 paragraph (a) of section 23 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No. 6 of 1991, and subsection (2) paragraph (a) of section 17 of the same Constitution, the person being arrested must be told in a language he understands either in writing or by word of mouth the reason why he has been arrested, so it would not come as a surprise to him. While it is allowed by law for the police to use sufficient force during an arrest, they must note that exerting sufficient force as provided by the law to arrest a suspect does not mean he should be killed; except in a situation where the person to be arrested is charged with treason or the person has committed murder and in turn resists arrest. If such a person is killed while being arrested by the police for having committed a felonious offence and he resists arrest, his death shall not be deemed to be unlawful killing.

Though the right to life is a right guaranteed and protected by the Constitution of Sierra Leone under section 16 subsection (1), subsection (2) of section 16 lists the circumstances upon which that right to life can be violated by lawful means. When a police officer is effecting an arrest, and he is alone in the crime scene and wishes to arrest a suspect but does not have the necessary resources needed to arrest, and the suspect is gigantic in size, the police officer shall solicit the assistance of members of the public to support him in arresting the suspect and be brought to a police station. (see subsection (4) of section 4 of the CPA 1965). It is a lawful duty imposed by the Constitution under section 13, paragraph (J) on every citizen of Sierra Leone to assist the police in the maintenance of law and order and that includes helping a police to arrest a criminal. The police must as well be aware that killing a person while he is being arrested can attract a criminal action against them especially if the offence committed by the suspect is not felonious and the person is willing to submit to the authority of the police.

Criminal cases against the police are abounding in other countries especially in the United States of America where the legal system is replete with reports of police brutality and profiling of suspects that always result in the death of harmless private persons, especially young men. Notable among those cases in the United States is the case of The State of Minnesota vs. Derek Chauvin 2021 A21-0201, otherwise known as the George Floyd murder case that occurred in May 2020, in Minneapolis. Many people are under the impression that the police can only arrest persons suspected to have committed a crime with an arrest warrant, and for this reason, even educated people have, on many occasions refused to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the police to be arrested. Section 13 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1965 provides the circumstances under which the police do not have to obtain any arrest warrant to arrest a person suspected of having committed a crime. And those circumstances include:

·       If a person is found loitering on the streets late at night: The police do not need an arrest warrant for such a person.

·        If a crime of violence or dishonesty is committed right in front of the police, there should not be any need for an arrest warrant for such a person.

·       If a private person sees a police officer walking along the street and reports to him that another person has committed an offence, the police found on the street should, upon sufficient conviction immediately arrest that person against whom the report is made and bring him to the police station without a warrant. On many occasions, people have sought the assistance of the police, and all the police will tell them is…go to the station and make a report. This attitude of the police must change.

Apart from the Criminal Procedure Act, of 1965, subsection (3) of section 16 of the Public Order Act of 1965 also empowers the police to arrest persons suspected of having committed an offence, or are about to commit an offence to be arrested without a warrant. While instituting an arrest; the police are guided by the Judges’ Rules and Administrative Directions to the Police of 1964, developed by the Queen’s Bench Division in the United Kingdom.

The Duty to Investigate Crimes: After an arrest follows the detention of an alleged offender, depending on the nature and severity of the offence committed by the person under such a suspicion. The power of detaining suspects is again another power of the police that is recognised by section 17 subsection (1) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, the Criminal Procedure Act, 1965 and the Public Order Act, 1965. A person is said to be lawfully arrested and detained by the police when upon reasonable grounds that he has committed an offence which the court or a judge has ordered for him to be arrested, detained, and brought before him. Even though it is the inherent powers of the police to arrest and detain persons for having committed an offence, their detention must not exceed that which is provided for by paragraphs (a, and b) of subsection (3) of section 17 of the Constitution. To explain this point further, the police are not allowed under section 17 of the Constitution to detain a suspect who is alleged to have committed simple larceny (for example) under the Larceny Act, 1916 for more than Seventy Two Hours, and more than Ten Days for a person having committed murder. Upon the arrest of such persons, the police must conduct an investigation to collect evidence to support the allegation of the crime that has been alleged by the complainant so that they can ascertain its veracity and eventually charge the matter to court. Section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1965 also emphasised this point that an arrested suspect must be brought before a court without delay. If there is not sufficient evidence to charge the suspect, he must be released unconditionally by the police. The police must note that an action shall be brought against them in court if a person is arrested and detained unlawfully. This is because, his rights against arbitrary arrest and detention are recognised, guaranteed, and protected by the Highest Law of Sierra Leone which is above any other law in force. It must be noted also that the arrest and detention of any person suspected of having committed an offence is inextricably linked with his right to freedom of movement which is a right that is as well recognised, guaranteed, and protected under section 18 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, Act No. 6 of 1991. Keeping someone under detention without lawful cause means that you have completely restrained him and limit his movement, and for such a discomfort and a violation of his fundamental human right, you must compensate him adequately. This was exactly the reason why Augustine Sorie-Sengbe Marrah Esq. a very famous Human Rights Lawyer in Sierra Leone brought an action to the Supreme Court against the Inspector-General of the Sierra Leone Police Force in a case entitled Augustine Sorie-Sengbe Marrah vs. The Inspector General of Police (SC APP 8 of 2018) [2022] SLSC 1 (21 April 2022).

The plaintiff Augustine Sorie-Sengbe Marrah Esq. while driving his car from his home and on his way to the Eastern part of Freetown to vote for his favourite candidate in the 2018 general elections of Sierra Leone, was arrested at Eastern Police by some police officers and detained at the Eastern Police station. The arrest was done on an instruction given by the Inspector-General of Police banning all unauthorised vehicular movement on elections day. The Plaintiff Mr Marrah Esq. was kept under detention at the Eastern Police Station for many hours and was eventually prevented from casting his vote for his preferred candidate. When he was released later on, on that day, he decided to bring an action to the Supreme Court against the Inspector-General of Police and the Court decided in his favour by ruling that his detention was unlawful and thus amounted to a violation of his fundamental human right of freedom of movement.

I have mentioned earlier that the investigation of crimes by the police is guided by the Judges’ Rules of 1964. These rules are rules of administrative procedure to be followed by the police while conducting an investigation to unravel mysteries behind the motive of the commission of a crime under investigation. If the police do not follow those rules of procedure during the course of an investigation, any statement obtained from a suspect shall not be used against him as evidence in a court proceeding. While questioning a suspect, the police must caution him so that whatever statement he makes shall be out of his free will. Rule II of the Judges’ Rule provides that the caution that is to be made by the police officer during the questioning shall be in this manner… ‘’You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so but what you say may be put into writing and given in evidence.’’

During an interrogation of a suspect, The Judges’ Rules provide that the statement obtained from him must be recorded in writing, signed by him and in front of the police officer and the time and date stated also. The suspect must be allowed to be comfortable during the interrogation and if possible provided with refreshment. If he chooses not to provide any statement or answer any question, his refusal must be respected and be allowed access to his lawyer. Access to a lawyer by a suspect or an accused is a constitutional right which guarantees that the accused can defend himself in person or elects to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. In the United States of America, a suspect’s right to remain silent and refusal to answer questions that will cause him to incriminate himself is made prominent in the case entitled Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

The Duty to Prosecute Suspects: After the investigation is completed and sufficient evidence has been gathered, the police can now charge the suspect to the appropriate court. The investigation by the police does not prove the guilt of the suspect but only ascertains that it is more likely than not that the suspect committed the offence. The Police’s duty to investigate crimes should be consistent with the investigative techniques required of a reasonable police force. When a report is made to a police station by a victim that a crime has been committed (for example) robbery or house breaking, and the robbers were not apprehended, it means that the police must conduct a search at different places on various intervals to arrest persons who could have possibly perpetrated the crime of house breaking or robbery. It also means that the police will have to rely on identification evidence if at all they have arrested persons they believe could have committed the crime that was reported. The victim of the robbery in such an instance will have to be called upon by the police to identify among a line of persons the one he believes could have committed the robbery at his home. If the robber is identified by the victim, the police shall conduct an investigation to ascertain the likelihood that the person identified actually was the one who committed the alleged crime of robbery. A suspect who is subject to an investigation of such nature is entitled to an alibi if indeed he can prove that he was not at the crime scene the day the offence under investigation was committed. The issue of alibi and the identification of an accused person among a pool of persons by the victim of an aggravated robbery that occurred in 1982 at Kortright, Fourah Bay College in Freetown was determined by the Sierra Leone Supreme Court in the case of The State vs. Thomas (CR. APP. 1/85) [1995] SLSC 1. The accused person in this case Mr Thomas had been convicted of robbery with aggravation by the High Court and his appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal. When the matter came up at the Supreme Court, Justice Sydney Warne JSC who was presiding found that the identification evidence against the accused was quite prejudicial and thus outweighed its probative value and also that the trial Judge failed to put the defence of alibi raised by the accused to the jury. It is upon this basis that the accused’s conviction was quashed by the Supreme Court.

The difficulty that is almost always faced by police prosecutors is the ability to prove the ingredients of the alleged crime for which the accused is charged to court. If it is a crime that is created by statute for example False Pretences under section 32 of the Larceny Act, 1916, the prosecutor must prove the elements of such an offence. The police prosecutor does so by establishing that the accused person intended to extort any valuable chattel or money from the victim for his advantage or benefit, and his intention must be consistent or supported by his action and whether the accused has a valid defence. The issue of adducing evidence and its admissibility is significant for the prosecution to succeed in his case against the accused for a resultant conviction.

Finally, if the voluntary caution statement obtained by the police was indeed tainted with duress and obscurity, the accused may elect not to rely on it during his trial and can raise standard defences just so he can cripple the case of the prosecution to achieve an acquittal.