(Friday 14th February 2020 Issue)
Defence
Counsel Abdoulie Sissoho, who is representing Yankuba Touray, ex-junta
member, in a murder trial, on the 13th
February, 2020, cross-examined Alagie Kanyi
who had already testified before Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the High Court in
Banjul.
He
asked him whether he previously made a statement about the accused. The witness
responded in the positive. He also asked him whether it was not true that he
had made a statement regarding the accused which he confirmed to the court.
The
state counsel, A.M. Yusuf, objected to the question asked. He said that by
virtue of the Evidence Act, the witness could not be asked any question that
may tend to expose him to a criminal charge, citing Section 178 of the Evidence
Act.
The
defence counsel replied that the question was relevant and they were testing
the veracity of the evidence of the witness, noting that the question would not
expose the witness to a criminal charge. However, the presiding judge ruled
that the question asked would expose the witness to a criminal charge and
disallowed it.
The
defence counsel then asked the witness whether it was true that he made
statements regarding the accused. He answered in the positive. “Tell the court
what were the statements,” Counsel Sissoho told him. In response, he stated
that on the 2nd July, 2019, he was called at Kairaba Police Station in
connection with the murder of Koro Ceesay.
“Is
it not true that you also made a statement regarding the accused and Fatoumata
Jahumpa-Ceesay?” he enquired. The state counsel objected to the question asked
on the grounds that it was not relevant in the proceedings, citing Section 201
of the Evidence Act. He argued that the charge before the court is the state
against Yankuba Touray.
Counsel
Sissoho replied that the objection by the state counsel was misconceived. He
dwelled on Section 201, 202 and 203 of the Evidence Act to support his
argument. “The purpose of cross-examination is to discredit the witness and
test the veracity of his evidence. I urge the court to discountenance the
objection made by the state counsel,” he told the court.
On
points of law, the state counsel told the court that specific provision takes
precedence over general provision. The presiding judge ruled that the question
asked by the defence was in connection to a matter which was not relevant to
the case before the court.
Counsel
Sissoho then asked again: “Kanyi, did you not testify before Justice Amina
Saho-Ceesay regarding the accused?”
“This
is my first appearance regarding Yankuba Touray in a murder case,” Mr. Kanyi
answered.
The
witness was asked when he was enlisted in the army. He said it was on the 15th
January, 1986. He was asked what his intake number was, and he replied that it
was intake 5. He was also asked whether he knew the intake number of Edward
Singhateh. He answered that he could not remember.
He
also told the court that he was not in the same intake number as Peter and
Yankuba who was in intake number 6. “Is it not true that you never had personal
relationship with Peter Singhateh?” he was asked. In response, he said that
they had because Peter Singhateh was his commander.
The
case was adjourned to the 24th February, 2020, for continuation.
