Senior Magistrate Abdoulie Mbacke of the Kanifing Magistrates' Court recently ruled against a no-case-submission made by Defence Counsel Lamin K. Mboge, in a fraud case involving Amadou Jallow, Amadou Bailo Camara and Saikou Trawally.
In his ruling, Magistrate Mbacke stated that the court had carefully considered the submission and counter submissions made by the parties.
According to him, the court was of the view that the no-case-submission of the Defence could not succeed on the grounds that during the testimonies of the two prosecution witnesses, the elements or the ingredients of the offence preferred against the accused persons did actually surface.
He indicated that on the charges of conspiracy, the complainant's testimony had revealed that he was introduced to the marabout by the first accused who charged the marabout with the task of making a Lastihar (fortunetelling) about the state of his business.
Magistrate Mbacke went on to state that the marabout introduced one of his junior scholars, Amadou Bailo Camara to the complainant and recommended him as the one good in doing the Lastihar.
He further stated that the first accused undertook to pay any amount charged by the junior marabout, stating that the junior marabout told the complainant that the liquid only costs D50, 000, which the latter paid to him.
He added that the second accused got the complainant to Barra from where he and the second accused traveled to
Further ruling, Magistrate Mbacke stated that the second accused washed four Dollar notes out of the lot and said the liquid was not enough to cater for the rest. He added that the first accused disclosed that he knows some people who can do it, though they work with a Lebanese, to which he instructed the second accused to contact them.
According to him, the first accused telephoned the third accused and the latter told them to come over to
Furthermore, he said no fruitful results were produced by the third accused, thus showing the presence of the elements of the offence of conspiracy, involving the three accused persons with regards to the offence of obtaining money by false pretences.
He ruled that it was obvious that the first accused had failed to refund Lamin Jallow, the two million CFA he took from him, and that the second accused also received D50, 000 from the complainant by instructing him to pay the money to the first accused, noting that the purpose for which it was paid never materialised, as no genuine Dollars were produced.
The trial Magistrate indicated that the purpose for which the D264, 000 and D1, 500,000 were paid to the third accused, though he was urged to do so by both the first and second accused persons, was never fulfilled. He further ruled that the intention of the accused persons to defraud the complainant and his friend was clearly manifested in their dealings.
He finally stated that the Defence has a case to answer and ordered the accused persons to open their defence.
The case was adjourned to 9th December 2009.
