Jan 5, 2012, 2:24 PM
The high court presided over by Justice Abi will on Wednesday 19 August 2015 decide on the bail applicationof Taranga FM MD, Alajie Abdoulie Ceesay.
Ceesay was charged with seditious intention before Magistrate MS Jallow of the Banjul Magistrates’ court.
Justice Simeone Ateh Abi yesterday adjourned the bail application for ruling, after hearing defence counsel Combeh Gaye-Coker’s reply on points of law.
When the case was called, DPP Barkun appeared with O. Danso and Jaiteh for the state, while lawyer Combeh Gaye-Coker appeared for the applicant.
In her reply, counsel Combeh Gaye-Coker said it was her submission that the court has the power to grant bail to the applicant, not only for the applicant to answer to the charges at the magistrates’ court, but also to any other charge brought against him, and urged the court to use that power in granting bail to the applicant.
“It is my submission that the law is that the burden is on the prosecution, who are opposing to bail, to prove that the facts by the applicant are not sufficient enough to warrant the granting of bail to the applicant,” she said.
It was her submission that in this case the respondent facts on the applicant do not warrant denying the applicant bail.
She added that when a person is charge with a bailable offence that is not punishable by death or life imprisonment, there is a high presumption in favour of bail.
She said the DPP stated that the more serious the offence, the more likely the accused jumping bail.
The DPP made the same submission in the case of Momodou Sabally versus the state, who was granted bail even after the court’s ruling was based on that fact.
The DPP also cited the case of Amadou Sanneh and Alajie Jobe, who are all charged with sedition and were refused bail, she went on.
Counsel further submitted that there is a difference between those cases and this case, as each of those cases relied on their own facts.
In this case, she added, all they have before them are the charges, adding that there is no law which requires the applicant in this case to need sureties.
All that she is saying was that he had sureties that would bail him, if granted bail, which is a matter of fact, counsel submitted.
She said the DPP had said the allegation of detention and torture by the applicant was not substantiated.
“It is relied upon to agreeing that their allegations on detention and torture are not substantiated. My submission is that, in this case, the fact is admissible,” she said.
The allegation of torture is raised in their affidavit in support of paragraph 16 and 17 and purported to be denied in paragraph 3c of the affidavit in opposition, counsel continued.
“I urge the court to grant the application and grant the applicant bail on such terms and conditions that are reasonable, so that he will avail himself in this court or any other court.”