6.
The Complainant states
that he
thereafter
in July
2012 applied
directly
to
the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by way of special leave on the ground
that there had
been a serious miscarriage of justice. The Complainant submits
that his appeal to the Privy Council was rejected, and that he thus has no means
to proceed
with
such an application, hence
the need
to approach
the
African
Commission.
7.
The first ground for stating that there was a miscarriage of justice, according to
the
Complainant
is
that
the
period
that
he
spent
in
remand
prior
to
his
conviction was not subtracted from his sentence, as was the case for one of his
co-accused.
8.
The Complainant further avers that the court erred in disallowing the defence
from calling witnesses to testify on his behalf pursuanMo Section 10)(2)(e) of the
Constitution, thereby depriving him of a fair trial. He further asserts that he was
not
allowed
allegedly
to
tender
a
masterminded
prosecution
the
witness,
murder,
who
w.hich
was
would
a
co-accused
have
enabled
who
the
Complainant to corroborate his defe
ce of <lure s. In addition he was prevented
from adducing an
to substantiate what he calls 'trial
evidentiary
ba is
by the
press', which in fact refers to the overwhelming,. adverse publicity generated by
the case. He alleges that the adverse publicity made it impossible for him to have
a fair trial.
9.
The Complainant further alleges that the court refused to allow the defence to
proceed with the opening speech and that the jury then reached conclusions on
facts not within their purview.
10. In
addition,
the
Complainant
avers
that
the
court
allowed
hearsay
evidence
submitted by the prosecuting counsel, that the court misdirected the jury in its
summary of the defence of duress, and that the Court of Appeal increased the
Complainant's sentence on erroneous premises.
11. The
Complainant
also
alleges
that
during
the
trial
the
interpreters,
who
translated the proceedings from English to Creole, translated in low tones such
that the counsels and the judge could not hear the translations. He further alleges
, biba;;;,>;.
that the translations were not digitally recorded, and as such, they coul
�v>
&�,:
sEtRfrA..:,,
"llr;\.
0
·
;
counter-checked
by
the
appellate
court.
Additionally,
the
Comp!
·f
a'n
�
t
1;
i
2
I'!:-,
'
'fr.
.r.
AU·UA
;<:>
\
JI
�:�""O'·'",,/
·�GE�';;,-