Mar 21, 2012, 2:29 PM
When the case was called, ASP Singhateh rose and told the court that he was applying for an adjournment, because the witness who was supposed to testify came earlier in the morning, and then left.
Lawyer Edu Gomez then rose and argued that the witness should have waited, and should not have left earlier.
He said the case was to be heard at 12.30 p.m. and the witness came before the scheduled time and left.
He further stated that he was defending the accused person’s best interest, adding that the court should protect and enforce her fundamental rights and freedom by virtue of section 17 and 24 of the constitution.
It was the right of the accused person to be tried within a short period of time.
The prosecution had applied for an adjournment on several occasions for their witness to testify, counsel went on, further stating that he sympathized with the prosecutor for his inability to proceed with the case.
He then urged the court to order the prosecution to close their case so that the defence would start their case.
In his ruling, Magistrate Abeke told the court that he would adjourn the case for the last time, to give the prosecution an opportunity to bring their witness.
He subsequently adjourned the case until 6, 7 and 8 June 2016, for continuation of the hearing.
The prosecution had already called three witnesses, who testified against the accused person.