Nov 19, 2010, 1:09 PM
Justice M. Abdoullah of the Banjul High Court yesterday dismissed the bail application filed by Abdoulie Ceesay and Foday Barry, both former officers at the National Drug Enforcement Agency (NDEA).
Abdoulie Ceesay, former public relations officer of the agency, and Foday Barry, former director of intelligence, individually filed bail applications before the court.
Foday Barry bail application
Delivering the ruling on the application filed by Foday Barry, the judge stated that the applicant had failed to file sufficient facts to convince the court to grant him bail.
The judge read both the submissions of the Director of Public Prosecutions and that of the defence counsel.
He adduced that the applicant filed an application, seeking an order for the court to admit him to bail, and it was supported by 11-paragraph affidavit.
The judge added that counsel for the applicant submitted that the offences with which the applicant was charged are bailable, further arguing that granting bail was at the discretion of the court.
Counsel urged the court to exercise it discretion judicially and judiciously, and grant the applicant bail, the judge said.
The judge further pointed out that the DPP also filed a 2-paragraph affidavit in opposition, and in his response argued that granting bail was squarely at the discretion of the court.
He said the DPP also urged the court to exercise it discretion judicially and judiciously, adding that the DPP further argued that there was a likelihood of bringing more charges against the applicant.
He said the DPP also contended that the applicant might tamper with the witnesses and the investigation, and could even jump bail.
The judge reached the conclusion that the applicant had failed to file sufficient facts to convince the court to grant him bail, and he thereby dismissed the bail application.
Abdoulie Ceesay bail application
Delivering ruling on the bail application filed by Abdoulie Ceesay, the judge stated that this was a case where paragraphs in support were contradicting, and he would not rely on a deponent who would lie on oath.
He stated that this was application brought by the applicant, seeking for the court to admit him to bail, further stating that the affidavit in support was supported by a 24-paragraph.
“The applicant is relying on all the paragraphs,” he said, adding that the applicant was a university student, but since he was under detention, he was not attending classes.
The judge further pointed out that the defence submitted that the applicant was arrested and arraigned before the court of law, and he was therefore urging the court to grant him bail.
Counsel also contended that as bail was at the discretion of the court, he would urge the court to exercise it discretion judicially and judiciously, he said.
On the other hand, the judge revealed that the DPP also filed 4-paragraph affidavit in opposition, and they wished to rely on all the four paragraphs, especially paragraph 3.
He said the DPP argued that the applicant had failed to discharge the burden imposed on him by law, adding that the DPP further submitted that paragraph 10 was not relevant since the applicant was no more at the NIA.
He added that the applicant was charged with economic crime, and there was a likelihood of bringing more charges against the applicant, stating that if the applicant was granted bail, he could tamper with both the prosecution’s witnesses and the investigation.
The DPP then urged the court to deny him bail, he said.
The judge in conclusion stated that he had noted that the affidavit in support was contradicting, and this was a case where paragraphs were contradicting.
“The court would not rely on the deponent who will lie on oath,” he stated.
He consequently dismissed the application.