THE LATEST JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF 33 PORTLAND PLACE, LONDON W1 - SIERRA LEONE’S ONE-TIME OFFICES AND PROPERTY

On 20 March 2001, the Government of Sierra Leone submitted a ‘without notice’ application to the Chancery Division of the High Court in London and obtained an order to freeze the accounts of one Edward Davenport. The action is a prelude to a last minute public-spirited attempt by our government to reclaim the premises at 33 Portland Place, once the property and offices of the Sierra Leone High Commission in the UK.

For all intents and purposes, the premises had been ‘sold’ to Mr Davenport during the tenure of the then High Commissioner, Professor Cyril Foray. Not long after the news of this transaction became public, in which the investigative efforts of Focus on Sierra Leone played the major part, and it was realised that Sierra Leone may well have been done out of a valuable national asset, Foray was recalled home and subsequently ‘resigned’ from his post as High Commissioner. The Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL) then decided after much pressure to investigate the matter. Some enquiries were conducted and a decision was finally taken to pursue ways of challenging the transaction in the British courts because, it was alleged, some aspects of the arrangements appeared suspect.

In Freetown, key officials at the ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney General’s office seemed to suggest that they had never given Foray the order to go ahead and get rid of the property. Professor Foray claimed to the contrary, and argued that he had been given the impression by the relevant authorities that he had authorisation to implement the sale of the property.

One of the reasons that GoSL gave to the court for their delay in taking legal action, was that it had taken them time to investigate and form a view on the events leading up to the transactions, and to locate documentation and interview witnesses.

These issues are still to be contested and decided in future.

The present judgement (see here) is in relation to an application by the GoSL, heard in the High Court on 5 April, for the continuation of a previous interim order obtained against Mr Davenport on 20 March. On that occasion, Davenport’s accounts were frozen and the court also imposed, among others, an order on him to disclose to GoSL, all of his assets in or outside England and Wales including their whereabouts, except where it incriminated him. However, the present judgement implies that Davenport had failed to comply with the disclosure order and that he may well be “in contempt of the court”.

One reason for the new application was the fear that if the first orders were not extended and were to expire, then there was a risk of dissipation, i.e. that Mr Davenport might (re)move, transfer, etc., his assets/accounts and so frustrate the court process. For that reason, his own counter application made simultaneously with that of GoSL, for the several orders of the 20 March judgement to be set aside, was dismissed and the order freezing his account was extended, pending a full hearing of the case.

The matter is now sub judice and we are therefore no longer at liberty to discuss the substance of the issues involved. Focus on Sierra Leone, being as law abiding as can be expected, will resist the temptation to do otherwise and will hold fire for now until a final decision is made in this case. Even so, we feel that we can make the following comments without running the risk of falling contemptuous of the courts:

First, it is absolutely disgraceful that, for the lack of serious debate of this issue inside Sierra Leone, either at the behest of the Government or of Parliament, the citizens of Sierra Leone have had to wait for litigation in a foreign court to know the facts involved in this affair. Especially so, after Focus on Sierra Leone had given the authorities sufficient account and facts on which they could have acted.

Second, just take a moment to read our reportage on the matter. Compare them with the judge's elicitation of the facts in this judgement:

The Scam Over Sierra Leone's High Commission (6 May 2000)

The unending drama at the Sierra Leone High Commission (23 April 2000)

I still smell a rat at the High Commission! (24 December 1999)

Still, They vandalise the image of Sierra Leone (30 August 1999)

We dare say that there is not much difference, factually speaking, between what we published then and that outlined by Deputy Judge Leaver QC, as the background to the case.

Third, whichever way this case goes some heads must roll in the name of public accountability and transparency. The forthcoming elections, if they ever go ahead, should make no difference to that. Let's simply hope that this case brings something positive, cheerful, and advantageous for Sierra Leone.

Fourth, it has recently come to our hearing that the present High Commissioner, Mr Suleiman Tejan Jalloh, is allegedly claiming credit for what is happening and for the possibility of restitution and/or damages in this affair. We have three simple words of advice for him: Please, shut up! (We had cause to question his behaviour on another occasion.) Opportunistic claims like that come cheap and are not the stuff we expect from our high level diplomatic representatives. After all, this case involves the propriety or impropriety of actions that have amounted to egregious damage to our country’s vital economic interests, allegedly taken by a representative of the Government, which Jalloh now represents. There is absolutely no credit in it for anyone, let alone those who appear to want to exploit it merely for personal political advantage. Neither the Government of Sierra Leone nor its agents are doing us favours by pursuing this case in the British courts. They have no choice in this matter other than to rectify the damage that has been done. What happened should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. Therefore, if anyone attempts to use this case as a stepping-stone for their own political elevation or glorification, we will tell it to their faces where to get off.

In conclusion, we would like to restate that the services that we provide on this site, are gratuitous and solely in the service of our country and people, and nothing else. We would never knowingly set out to disparage, deliberately misrepresent or mislead, or do anything intentionally to prejudice or injure the welfare and national interest of Sierra Leoneans.

Our interest in these matters should therefore always be seen from this, and only this perspective.

© FSL