Sep 22, 2009, 6:31 AM
The defense counsel representing the three accused persons in the ongoing government theft case, Lt. Bakary Camara, Lt. Manlafi Sanyang and Domenico Fedelish, has put up a no-case to answer submission against the prosecution evidence.
The trio are being tried on the allegation of consipiracy to commit a felony and stealing while Lt. Camara was further charged with two counts of giving false information.
In his submission, defense counsel Lamin Camara representing Lt. Camara and Manlafi Sanyang, submitted that in the process of trying to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt, the prosecution called six witnesses. He stated that what is required of the prosecution is to prove a prima facie against the accused persons, failing which the court should discharge and acquit the accused persons. He said the evidence put forward by the prosecution is unreliable and inconsistent, adding that the evidence before the court does not even suggest any conspiracy theory between Lt Camara and Manlafi Sanyang.
Lawyer Camara further submitted that the vehicle in question, BJL 4063 B, was registered in the name of the Kanilai Family Farm in July 2001, according the document before the court. He added that none of the prosecution witnesses testified before the court that Lt Camara and Manlafi Sanyang conspired and stole the vehicle BJL 4063B. He finally submitted that the prosecution had woefully failed to prove the essential element of the case against the accused persons and urged the court to uphold the no-case submission.
In reply, ASP Touray, the prosecuting officer, submitted that the accused persons are before the court as per the charge sheet, proof for which the prosecution called six witnesses. Prosecutor Touray further submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution revealed that the accused persons had indeed conspired and stolen the vehicle registered BJL 4063 B. He therefore urged the court to dismiss the no-case submission, calling on the accused persons to enter into their defense.
The case was then adjourned to 13th May for ruling.