Dec 2, 2013, 10:47 AM
Counsel Gomez was speaking after the fifth prosecution witness was discharged and the prosecution asked for an adjournment to call another witness, when the time allocated to them was not exhausted.
After PW5 was discharged, state counsel O. Danso asked for an adjournment to call her other witnesses.
Defence counsel E.A. Gomez said he was not objecting to the application for an adjournment, but was dissatisfied about the way the case was progressing, and he “respectfully” laid the blame at the doors of the prosecution.
He said the time given to them was not exhausted, yet the prosecution did not call another witness for the hearing to continue.
He added that if the prosecution had called another witness, the case would have been proceeding.
They had been allocated time and the prosecution should have come with their other witness so that when PW5 would finish testifying they could proceed with the next one, he said.
In response, state counsel O. Danso said calling witnesses entirely depends on them, adding that she was thinking that counsel was going to cross-examine the witness, which was not done and which was why they did not come with the other witnesses.
They have been moving with the case by calling witnesses every time the case would come up, she said, adding that they would not want to waste the court’s time and would endeavour to call their witnesses.
case continues on 10 July 2015 at 1pm.