Police prosecutor Colley told the court that they were instructed by the Attorney General’s Chambers to stand down the case so that the state counsel would take over the prosecution.
Lawyer Edward Gomez, who is part of the defence team, told the court that the application was insensitive and inappropriate, adding that the Attorney General’s Chambers is an institution that has so many qualified practitioners.
He argued that the Attorney General’s Chambers had enough time to prepare other counsel to appear.
He said this was most disrespectable, adding that he was going to the High Court.
He said he strongly opposed the application made by the prosecutor, and applied for the case to be adjourned.
Lawyer Marong, one of the defence counsel, told the court that he associated himself with the submission made by Lawyer Gomez.
The Justice ministry has enough lawyers, and could appoint one of them to appear, adding that they should not be taken by surprise.
Marong added that the prosecution should put their house in order, further stating that the prosecutor should have applied for an adjournment since the case would be taken over by the state counsel.
Prosecutor 3560 Colley then told the court that the state counsel would not only take over the case, but would also proceed withthe case.
He added that the complainants had suffered. Colley said he did not understand the defence counsel’s statement that they were taken by surprise.
He urged the court to disregard the objection made by the defence counsel.
Lawyer Gomez then told the court that the prosecutor had no right to say the complainants had suffered.
He added that section 24 of the constitution is clear, and argued that the prosecution brought the accused to court, and should prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
He maintained his application for the case to be adjourned.
Magistrate Tabally then said he was going to attend a meeting, and adjourned the case, to 7 January 2015 for hearing.
In a similar case, the prosecutor made the same application.
Lawyer Gomez also told the court they were adopting the same objection.
This case was adjourned to 7 January 2015, for hearing.