Following a preliminary objection from defence counsel Lamin Jobarteh on section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code (
This expunging of the count followed defence counsel bitter arguments that the charge did not contain the necessary particulars of statement worthy of double charges. That counts five and count six are the same wording and the same particulars of offence, and to the same circumstances of the charged preferred.
Replying on points of law the state prosecutor A.M. Yusuf and S.H. Bahoum argued that defects of a charge must be brought before the accused person take his or her plea.
In his ruling Justice Wowo of the High Court ruled that in the interest of justice, "I have to strike count five since it is the same with count sixth. Justice Wowo further ruled that contents of every specific offence to which an accused is `charged must give reasonable information to make the charge understandable.
Defence counsel further submitted that the same argument and principles goes for count nine and ten, count eleven and twelve and thirteen and fourteen.
At this juncture, the presiding judge adjourned the matter to
It will be recalled that the alleged accused, Manjang Sanyang and Oumie Ceesay, are standing charges on fourteen counts of criminal offences ranging from economic crimes, to fraud and theft.
