By Alieu Amara Suwu
Princess Wilson, Manager of Virtues Funeral Home, as a fourth prosecution witness, while testifying, revealed in court that the accused Abdul Kpaka cried bitterly at the funeral parlor over the loss of his girlfriend.
Wilson said this on Friday, 18th October 2024, before Justice Alhaji Momoh Jah Stevens, the presiding judge in the ongoing murder trial of Sia Fatu Kamara.
The witness, in her Examination-in-Chief led by State Counsel Yusuf Isaac Sesay, told the court that she is the manager of Virtues Funeral Home at Kingtom in Freetown.
She said as the manager, some of her duties are to help the nation by receiving dead bodies and examining them to know if they have jewelry like a handwatch, earrings, etc.
According to her, the deceased was unwrapped before being taken inside the embalming room for preservation, and she said photos of her remains were taken for feature purposes.
She explained that she recognized the accused Abdul Kpaka in respect of the matter and further recalled it on 13 August 2024.
She said on that day, at around 2:30 pm, she received a telephone call in respect of Sia’s body, and after which she later called her drivers (Prince and Ansu) for them to go and collect the body at Metchem at Goodrich.
She continued that after one hour, she called Ansu to know where they were and was told that they were on their way together with the family members of the deceased to the funeral home.
According to her, Ansu and others arrived at the funeral home at around 4 pm, followed by the other three vehicles, adding that upon their arrival at the funeral home, they took Sia’s body inside the chapel, welcomed the family members, and later unwrapped the body that was wrapped with a white blanket to know if she had jewelry such as a ring or a handwatch, but she did not find anything of such on her, and therefore she took photos of the deceased.
The witness further revealed in her evidence that the accused was bitterly crying, moving around the body. As curious she was, she went and asked him if the deceased was her sister, but was told by the accused that the deceased was her girlfriend. And thereafter, the body was embalmed on the same day before the family members left.
Following that, on the 15th of August 2024, she said the brother of the accused, Sylvester, called and informed her that they would need Sia’s body for an autopsy at the Connaught hospital. She continued that on the 16th of August, Sylvester came to the funeral home for the body to be conveyed to the Connaught hospital for a postmortem.
After an hour, the witness said Sylvester and others came back with the remains to Virtues Funeral Home, and she placed them inside the morgue.
She confirmed that the body was embalmed to preserve it, adding that on the 13th of August, when the remains of Sia were brought to Virtues, as the manager, she took snap shots with the office iPad, and that has since been in her custody.
The said iPad was tendered as exhibit E, and photos in it were shown to the judge. The said photos, according to the witness, were printed into pictures.
However, while the printed pictures were about to be tendered, the lead Defense Counsel, Emmanuel Teddy Koroma, objected to it, saying that, pursuant to the notice served on them, attached to the said notice is only one document, which was the statement of the witness.
He said apart from the statement, there were no other documents giving an indication on the face of the documents that state counsel intends to tender the said pictures.
He submitted that failure on the part of the state to do so is tantamount to ambushing them, which would occasion unfairness on the part of the accused.
As rightly stated by the state, he said the essence of the notice is to give them an opportunity to go through it, but further submitted that they were robbed of that opportunity by Virtues Funeral Home of tendering the said photos.
In conclusion, he urged the learned judge to discountenance the tendering of the said photos. He asserted that the essence of Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Act (as amended) is to ensure that no one is taken by surprise, which is just what the state counsel had done.
The state counsel, Yusuf Isaac Sesay, in his response said the Defense had circumvented the evidential rule when it comes to admissibility of evidence in court. He said the witness is the fit and proper person to tender the documents, and tendering the same has to come from the author, the custodian, and the recipients.
According to him, the manager is the author and has laid the foundation that she had been in custody of the said photos.
Section 188, he said, was misconstrued by the defense as it contained a summary of the evidence, adding that what they did was not to ambush the defense. He therefore pleaded with the judge to discountenance the defense’s objection as it has no legal basis.
Justice Momoh Jah Stevens, having listened to the arguments from both sides, overruled the Defense Counsel’s objections, relying on Section 23 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991, and ordered the prosecution to proceed with the tendering of the photos.
The said photos were tendered and marked as exhibit F 1-4 to form part of the prosecution case.
During cross-examination of the witness by lawyer Koroma, she confirmed that she has been working at Virtues the Manager, right from the day she was employed.
Lawyer questioned her as to whether she has a professional standard to work as a manager at a funeral home. The witness said she does not have any profession to work as a manager at Virtues.
When she was further questioned as to whether any document was shown to her from an emergency hospital, the witness replied in the negative.
Lawyer Teddy also asked the witness as to what exactly she does when a corps is brought. The witness said she normally cross-examines the body to check if there are any earrings, chains, or watches and thereafter takes photos and hands the remains to the embalming ward.
She disclosed that forms were provided for the family to fill out, but said this was neither stated in her testimony nor her statement to the police.
He put it to the witness that the form provides for details of the person who brought the corps, the address of the person, contact information of the person, and identifies whether the person set the person. The witness responded yes.
Lawyer Teddy also confronted the witness that, considering the period she has worked at the funeral home, she has seen a lot of corpses, and she yes.
When she was asked as to how she could tell that the person is dead, she said she cannot tell but said that when a person has passed off, the facial muscles would be relaxed.
She also revealed that when the remains of Sia were brought, a specific request was made by family members to view the corps, and it was at that time she unwrapped the corps.
Lawyer Teddy also asked the witness whether the accused was present when the request was made by the family to see the corps; the witness said yes.
When she was asked if her face was normal, she said yes, her face was normal, but she saw scars on her chest. She said she was not told that the deceased had been taken to the emergency hospital but was told that attempts were made to resuscitate her. The witness further admitted making statements to the police and wanted the court to see the said statement. It was therefore tendered and marked as exhibit G1-8 dated 18 September 2024.
Lawyer Koroma asked whether the witness would be surprised to know that, as at the time she made the statement, the accused was already before the court. The witness said she would be surprised.
When the witness was asked again if there was any date or time on those photos she took, she said no, there was no date or time.
The witness confirmed in further cross examination that exhibits F3 and 4, which form part of the photos, were different from the others. She also revealed that two of the photos were taken on the same date, while the other two were taken on the date of the burial.
Lawyer Teddy asked the witness that when the corps was brought on the 13th of August 2024, was it brought with three vehicles? She answered yes.
The witness further revealed that she took notice of the accused at the funeral parlor because he was crying bitterly, and it was because of that she went to console him.
The witness confirmed that the embalming of the body was done on the 13th of August 2024 before it was taken to Connaught Hospital on the 16th for a postmortem examination.
In conclusion of the cross-examination, the witness said the deceased was at their funeral home since the 13th of August to the 30th. She confirmed that if the body had been refrigerated, it would have prevented the organs from being damaged.
At this juncture, the prosecution requested an adjournment to bring their next witness.
One of the defense counsels, Julian Cole, renewed their application for bail, stating that the accused is not a flight risk and believes in his innocence and wants to prove the same and therefore would not interfere with the prosecution witnesses. The fundamental essence of bail, he said, is to ensure that the accused is brought before the court at anytime and has credible citizens who are ready and able to stand in his recognition, noting that putting him on bail does not mean he has been set free from the case.
He submitted that putting him on bail will be in furtherance of his constitutional right to liberty, and in the absence of such, a continuous refusal of bail will deprive him of his constitutional right.
Defense Counsel also brought it to the notice of the court that the telephone of the accused was removed from him by the police during the investigation, and they have learned that it has been used by them.
The prosecutor, in response, objected to the application for bail, referring to the court to paragraph 202 of Achbole 36 Edition. He said the offenses for which the accused was charged are serious, both in nature and in punishment. He also referred the court to the bail regulations of 2018. And assurances coming from the bar are not sufficient to grant bail.
Justice Momoh Jah Stevens refused bail and adjourned the matter to the 25th of October 2024.
