 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11640 Posts |
 Posted - 20 May 2016 : 15:03:44
|
Accused person collapses, in trial of six female alleged demonstrators
By Dawda Faye
The Point: Friday, May 20, 2016
 Lele Bojang, who was charged along with Isatou Saidy, Sukai Dahaba, Kaddy Samateh, Fatoumata Sarr and Amie Touray, on Thursday 19 May collapsed outside the court as she was being escorted to the toilet.
She was then rushed to the police clinic.
This followed the writing of a ruling by Magistrate Abeke of the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court, who rose and walked into his chambers to continue writing the ruling.
The accused persons were charged with seven counts of conspiracy, unlawful assembly, riot, incitement of violence, riotously interfering with vehicles, holding procession without a permit and disobeying an order to disperse from an unlawful procession, according to a new charge sheet.
When the case was called, state counsel S.K. Jobe rose and said he was representing the state.
Lawyer Mendy stood up and told the court that she was representing the accused persons along with Haddy Daneh Jabbie, Sagarr Jahateh, Lubna Farage, F. Mahoney and Yassin Senghore.
State counsel Jobe told the court that the state had put its house in proper order, adding that they were ready to proceed with the case, and that the accused persons could take their plea.
He stated that the charge sheet they had filed superseded the previous one, adding that they were ready to make progress.
Lawyer Mendy rose and stated that the previous charges were incompetent, adding that they applied for the previous charge sheet to be struck out.
She said they entirely left everything with the court.
Magistrate Abeke then stated that since the prosecution had come back with a proper charge, they could proceed with the case and that the accused persons could take their plea.
Lawyer Mendy rose and said that before the accused persons proceed to take their plea, the defence wanted to bring to the court’s attention and that of the state counsel that they had not been given access to the accused persons.
She further stated that they had made certain efforts to see the accused persons, but they were told that they were not available, adding that she was only able to speak to them when they were brought to court.
She was informed that the accused were kept at the PIU headquarters, she further told the court.
She urged the court to order that the defence counsel be given access to the accused persons before they take their plea.
In the meantime, she continued, since the prosecution had stated that they were properly before the court, they wished to apply for bail for all the accused persons, considering the circumstances that had been earlier placed before the court.
Counsel Mendy adduced further that if the state was not opposing bail, she would not belabour the point, adding that bail conditions are that contained in section 99 subsections 2 of the CPC, bearing in mind that the charges before the court are misdemeanours and are bailable offences.
She added that this section states that it should not be excessive.
She further submitted that refusal or delay in granting bail to any of the accused persons, considering that they had been in detention for more than 72 hours without bringing them before the court, would be tantamount to a violation of their rights.
State counsel S.K. Jobe rose and said the defence counsel had raised three issues: that the defence did not have access to the accused persons, that they wanted to be given the opportunity to speak to the accused persons and that they made an application for bail.
He said he understood the concern of the defence counsel in regard to having access to the accused persons.
He adduced that these were assertions that he could not agree or disagree with, citing the Evidence Act (section 141), and said that he who asserts must prove.
He added that section 145 of the Evidence Act read together, placed the burden of proof on the defence counsel to prove that several efforts had been made to access the accused persons, but to no avail.
He said there was nothing to show that the defence counsel did not have access to the accused persons, adding that the defence could not presume that was the status quo.
He further proposed allowing the defence to have access to the accused before taking their plea, provided that the defence could talk to the accused persons immediately and make progress.
He argued that the practice concerning the third issue was unknown to the jurisdiction, that is, that the defence applies for bail before their plea was taken.
Therefore, he stated, the application by the defence should not be allowed at this stage of the case, adding that what was prudent to be done in the case was to allow the accused persons to take their plea, and then argue for bail.
He urged the court to disallow the application, and give the defence ten minutes to see the accused persons.
Counsel Mendy said she was surprised that the state counsel does not know the difference between a civil case and a criminal case, adding that burden of proof is on the prosecution and not the defence, hence his referral to section 141 and 145 of the Evidence Act.
She adduced further that it was fortunate for the accused had access to their counsels since they were in court, adding that there is no law that says that access to counsel should be limited to ten minutes.
The case was then stood down to know whether Lele Bojang, who collapsed, would be brought back to court to continue the case.
She was not brought back.
Lawyer Mendy applied for bail for the accused persons when the case resumed, following their plea of not guilty. She urged the court to grant them bail on reasonable conditions.
The state counsel then urged the court to grant the accused persons bail on conditions commensurate with the offences charged.
Magistrate Abeke subsequently granted the accused persons bail of D20,000 with a Gambian surety each, who should swear to an affidavit of means and to surrender their ID cards.
They should give out their proper addresses.
The case was adjourned until 24 May 2016.
Source: The Point
Related Topics:
- Trial of April 14 alleged demonstrators
- 36 UDP SUPPORTERS IN DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL FOR 10 DAYS TODAY Says UDP National President
- Lawyer Darboe, Party Executives Arrested amid Protest
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11640 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jun 2016 : 15:00:00
|
Case of six alleged demonstrators fails to proceed
BY Dawda Faye
The Point: June 07, 2016
The case involving Isatou Saidy, Lele Bojang, Sukai Dahaba, Kaddy Samateh, Fatoumatta Sarr and Amie Touray failed to proceed on 6 June 2016, before Magistrate Abeke of the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court, due to illness of the magistrate.
The accused persons were charged with seven counts of conspiracy, unlawful assembly, interfering with vehicles, holding procession without a permit and disobeying an order to disperse from an unlawful procession.
When the case was called, the state counsel, Sheriff Kumba Jobe, stood up and told the court that he was representing the state.
Lawyer Mendy then rose and informed the court that she was representing the accused persons along with lawyers Anna Njie and Amie Jobe.
Magistrate Abeke informed the court that he was not well, and did not have the strength to go further.
He then asked the prosecution and the defence to take a short date to continue the case for hearing.
The case was subsequently adjourned until 14 June 2016.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
 |
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11640 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2016 : 19:35:36
|
State files bill of indictment at High Court in case of six women
The Point: Wednesday, June 15, 2016
State counsel Sheriff Kumba Jobe yesterday told the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court that the state had filed a bill of indictment at the High Court, in the case involving Isatou Saidy, Lele Bojang, Sukai Dahaba, Kaddy Samateh, Fatoumatta Sarr and Amie Touray.
They were charged with seven counts of conspiracy, unlawful assembly, riot, incitement of violence, riotously interfering with vehicles, holding procession without a permit and disobeying an order to disperse from an unlawful procession.
When the case was called, defence lawyer Anna Njie rose and told the court she was representing the accused persons, along with Amie Jobe.
State counsel Jobe further stated that he had an application to make, adding that they had received the case file and the investigation report.
They had thoroughly studied the case file, he adduced, and that the state had advised itself to have the matter be heard by the High Court.
He said it was in the interest of justice that the case would be heard and determined by the High Court, where the accused persons would be provided adequate facility and time to prepare their defence, which is a fundamental right of the accused persons.
He added that they had filed a bill of indictment at the High Court, adding that they are yet to receive a hearing notice.
He further stated that whenever they receive the hearing notice, they would come back to the court to have the matter struck out.
In the interim, he said, they were applying for an adjournment, and craved the court’s indulgence to grant the application.
Lawyer Anna Njie then rose and said the case was adjourned for hearing for the prosecution to open their case.
She added that they had been informed by the state counsel that they had filed a bill of indictment at the High Court.
To that effect, she continued, the court has not been provided with the indictment, and there was nothing shown by the state counsel.
She argued that they could not have two cases on the same matter pending before two different courts, adding that if the state intended to proceed with the matter before the High Court, it was her submission that proper application should have been made to withdraw the case.
Anna Njie further argued that the indictment filed had to be brought to the attention of the accused persons, adding that it was trite law that the Attorney General could always file a case at the High Court, which is pending at the magistrates’ court.
In the circumstances, she continued, to grant an application for an adjournment until such a time the case filed at the High Court was properly received, would amount to injustice to the accused persons.
She said she could not see what was stopping them from withdrawing the case, adding that she was opposing the application made by the state counsel.
She adduced that it was either they proceed with the case or withdraw it. She, therefore, urged the court to dismiss the application.
State counsel Jobe in response told the court that the defence did not cite any law in opposing the application, adding that the defence counsel clothed herself with the unclear principle of abuse of process.
The defence counsel said that having the matter before the court, while awaiting the bill of indictment at the High Court, would amount to abuse of process.
Fortunately for the prosecution, and unfortunately for the defence counsel, there was no law cited to support her argument.
Jobe added that there is no law which states that they should withdraw the matter and that this was the proper thing to do, adding that they were minded on the consequence of withdrawing the matter at this juncture.
They refuse to take the recommendation made by counsel, Jobe told the court.
He said the defence counsel argued that granting an adjournment would cause grave injustice to the accused persons.
He saw no grave injustice to the accused, since they are on bail, and urged the court to grant them the application.
Magistrate Abeke then said he would not say anything as it was not the duty of the court to withdraw the case.
He further said as for adjournment, it was the discretion of the court to adjourn the case and, therefore, allowed for an adjournment applied by the state counsel.
At this juncture, Anna Njie told the court that at the time the accused persons were arrested, they had with them their personal belongings, which were taken from them.
She said some of them had money with them which were also taken from them, adding that they had written to the Police Intervention Unit to hand over their belongings, but nothing had happened.
Since “their belongings are in the custody of the state”, they apply that the court orders the state to hand over the belongings to the accused persons, and urged the court to grant the application.
State counsel Jobe in response said they were not opposing the application nor supporting it, adding that they had no idea about the personal belongings taken from the accused persons.
He said they could not make any comment about the said belongings, adding that since the defence had written to the PIU for recovery of the belongings of the accused persons, the proper thing to do was to wait for their reply.
In his ruling, the magistrate said that nothing about the personal belongings was known, and that the letter written to the PIU had not been provided by the defence before the court.
He said the court could not speculate about the said belongings.
He subsequently adjourned the case until 28 June 2016, for hearing.
Author: Dawda Faye & Isatou Senghore-Njie |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11640 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2016 : 13:10:29
|
State applies for case of six female alleged protesters be transferred to Basse
By Halimatou Ceesay
The Point: Wednesday, June 22, 2016
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) S.H. Barkun yesterday applied for the case filed involving Sukai Dahaba and 15 other alleged protesters to be transferred to Basse.
The DPP made the application before Justice E.O. Dada at the Banjul High Court, when the case was called for mention.
The six women are Isatou Saidy, Lele Bojang, Sukai Dahaba, Kaddy Samateh, Fatoumatta Sarr and Amie Touray.
However, the rest of the nine other accused persons in the indictment were not revealed to the press.
When the case was called, the DPP informed the court that the case was slated for mentioning, but the accused persons are currently detained at Jangjanbureh and that he was applying for the matter to be transferred to Basse.
The trial Judge, Justice E.O. Dada, said the case filed dated 8 June 2016 was assigned to her by the Chief Justice (CJ), and she would, therefore, return the case file back to the CJ for re-assignment as per the application of the DPP.
It would be recalled that on 14 May 2016, state counsel Sheriff Kumba Jobe told the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court that the state had filed a bill of indictment at the High Court, in the case involving Isatou Saidy, Lele Bojang, Sukai Dahaba, Kaddy Samateh, Fatoumatta Sarr and Amie Touray.
They were charged with seven counts of conspiracy, unlawful assembly, riot, incitement of violence, riotously interfering with vehicles, holding procession without a permit and disobeying an order to disperse from an unlawful procession.
State counsel Jobe further stated that he had an application to make, adding that they had received the case file and the investigation report.
They had thoroughly studied the case file, he adduced, and that the state had advised itself to have the matter be heard by the High Court.
He said it was in the interest of justice that the case would be heard and determined by the High Court, where the accused persons would be provided adequate facility and time to prepare their defence, which is a fundamental right of the accused persons.
He said they had filed a bill of indictment at the High Court, adding that they were yet to receive a hearing notice.
He further stated that whenever they received the hearing notice, they would go back to the court to have the matter struck out.
In the interim, he said, they were applying for an adjournment and craving the court’s indulgence to grant the application.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11640 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2016 : 13:01:06
|
State counsel’s application is premature, says defence counsel, in trial of six alleged protesters
By Dawda Faye
The Point: Wednesday, June 29, 2016
 Defence counsel Amie Jobe, who is representing Isatou Saidy, Lele Bojang, Sukai Dahaba, Kaddy Samateh, Fatoumatta Sarr and Amie Touray, yesterday told the court that the application made by the state counsel, S.K. Jobe, for the arrest of Sukai Dahaba, who was not present in the courtroom, was premature.
The accused persons were charged with seven counts of conspiracy, unlawful assembly, riot, incitement of violence, riotously interfering with vehicles, holding procession without a permit and disobeying an order to disperse from an unlawful procession.
When the case was called, defence counsel Amie Jobe rose and told the court that she was representing the accused persons.
State counsel S.K. Jobe then stood up and said he was representing the state along with A. Sambou.
He then told the court that Kaddy Samateh and Sukai Dahaba were not present in the courtroom.
Defence counsel Amie Jobe then applied for a stand down to find out the whereabouts of the accused persons.
Her application was granted, and the case was stood down. Later, Kaddy Samateh walked into the courtroom.
When the case resumed, Amie Jobe told the court that Kaddy Samateh, who was absent, had walked into the courtroom, and that she did not know the whereabouts of Sukai Dahaba, who did not show up.
S.K. Jobe then applied to the court to issue a bench warrant for the arrest of Sukai Dahaba.
Defence counsel Amie Jobe argued that Sukai Dahaba had never been absent, adding that this was her first time to be absent and she should be given an opportunity to appear in court.
S.K. Jobe responded that there was no provision in a criminal case that provides the number of days or time for which the accused person should be present to answer charges before the court.
He further argued that he saw no basis for the immaturity of his application as stated by the defence counsel.
Amie Jobe then rose and told the court that S.K. Jobe should reply on points of law.
The state counsel submitted that section 240 of the Criminal Procedure Code gave him the power to respond to any argument
He urged the court to disregard the defence counsel’s submission.
Magistrate Abeke then ordered for the arrest of the surety of Sukai Dahaba to be brought to court.
The case was adjourned until 11 July 2016.
Picture: Magistrate Abeke |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11640 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jul 2016 : 21:20:33
|
U-turn in trial of six alleged protesters
By Dawda Faye
The Point: Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Isatou Saidy, Lele Bojang, Kaddy Samatah, Fatoumatta Sarr and Amie Touray, who showed up at the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court to answer criminal charges against them, were yesterday 11 July 2016 whisked away by police officers in a police vehicle when they stepped out of the courtroom.
This development followed the adjournment of the case until 12 July 2016, when Magistrate Abeke informed the court that he was supposed to report at the High Court concerning a judgment he delivered.
The accused persons were charged with conspiracy, unlawful assembly, riot, incitement of violence, riotously interfering with vehicles, holding procession without permit and disobeying an order to disperse from an unlawful procession.
They denied the allegations, and were subsequently granted bail.
During the last sitting, Sukai Dahaba was not present in court and, as a result, the magistrate ordered the arrest of her surety who was to be brought to court.
The accused persons were represented by lawyer Amie Jobe, and the state was represented by Sheriff Kumba Jobe and A. Sambou.
|
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Accused person collapses, in trial of six female
