Dec 2, 2010, 12:09 PM
Mambanyick Njie was being tried for allegedly giving false information to a public officer.
The case was supposed to proceed with the testimony of the fifth prosecution witness (PW5), Omar Sampo Ceesay, Chairman of Basse Area Council and the then First Vice President of the Gambia Football Association (GFA).
Chairman Ceesay, who should have proceeded with his evidence-in-chief, was said to have travelled out of the jurisdiction, as well as the prosecuting officer, Saja Sanyang.
First Class Alieu Faye told the court the prosecution was applying for an adjournment on the grounds that the witness in the case, Omar Sampo Ceesay had travelled out of the jurisdiction for official mission.
He said the prosecuting officer, Saja Sanyang, had also travelled to Basse for official mission, so in light of this, the prosecution was applying for an adjournment for a fortnight to enable the concerned parties to be present on the next adjourned date.
In response, senior defence counsel A.B Gaye told the court that anybody who comes to the court to ask for the court indulgence for an adjournment needed to disclose frankly; not what he or she thinks.
He said the prosecution told the court they are constrained to proceed with the case, but they did not tell the court when the parties should be in court, which was very important to know when they would be present.
Counsel said this observation applies to the prosecuting officer travelling to Basse was rather meaningless and he had not disclosed when this prosecuting officer would be back.
Senior counsel told the court that the court should have observed the prosecutor, Alieu Faye, who held brief for the prosecuting officer coming to the court without even a file.
The adjournment was at the desertion of the court to adjourn any case or not, but now how could the witness travel without the police knowing where he went to, counsel asked.
He therefore urged the court to expunge the witness, Omar Sampo’s evidence in the case or give the prosecution a short adjourned date within this week.
Delivering his ruling, the trial magistrate said the court had concurred with the defence counsel’s application to expunge the witness evidence in the case.
However, in the interest of justice, the court would give the prosecution one more chance. If the witness failed to appear in court, the court would definitely proceed with the case.
The case was then adjourned till 2 December 2013, for hearing.