Police
prosecutor Sub-Inspector A. Badjie yesterday informed the Banjul Magistrates’
Court that the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Mama Fatima Singhateh,
has signed the fiat in the case involving 30 government officials before
Magistrate Kebba Baldeh.
When
the case was called, prosecutor Badjie told the court he was representing the
IGP along with Sub-Inspector Bojang and Sergeant 656 Jaiteh.
Lawyers
Camara, Njie and Senghore represented the accused persons.
Sub-Inspector
Badjie then said the 2nd, 3rd and 12th accused, who were absent, were granted
bail by the court, adding that the reasons for their absence was not known to
the prosecution.
The
case is a criminal case, and the accused should make themselves available
before the court, he continued.
Since
they could not ascertain their absence, they would apply that the court revokes
their bail which would make them available on the next court sitting, he went
on.
Prosecutor
Badjie adduced that Malang Jammeh, the tenth accused, could not fulfill the
conditions of bail and is still at Mile 2 prisons, and their absence had
contributed to a setback in the case.
He
urged the court to grant their application.
Lawyer
L.S. Camara, speaking for the third accused person and the others, asked
whether the prosecution could have proceeded without the accused persons.
He
argued that yesterday’s business was the production of the fiat, to show that
the case was properly before the court.
Counsel
Camara added that the 2nd, 3rd, 12th, 29th, and 30th accused persons were
absent, and the case could not have proceeded without them, so long as their
names are on the indictment.
The
prosecutor’s statement that the absence of the 2nd and 3rd accused persons
impeded the trial of the case was not correct.
Asking
the court to revoke the bail of the 3rd accused was wrong, he continued, adding
that revocation of bail was not automatic.
He
further stated that the sureties should be summoned to court to produce the
accused, and should show cause why they should forfeit the bail bond.
Counsel
Camara argued that the prosecutor’s application was wrong in law, adding that
the prosecutor had not produced the fiat, and there was need to amend the
charge or strike out the names of the 29th and 30th accused persons.
He
urged the court to refuse the application of the prosecutor.
Lawyer
Omar Njie told the court that as a matter of law, the revocation of bail by the
court was not automatic, because of the absence of the accused.
He
added that there are laid down rules for the forfeiture of a bail bond, adding
that the 2nd and the 30th accused persons had never been brought to court.
He
adduced that the issue of absconding while on bail did not arise, adding that
those were the issues to be looked into, as set out in the procedure for
recognizance.
Sub-Inspector
Badjie responded that at that moment, they were not up to the level of
producing the fiat, adding that they had the fiat and would tender it.
He
said the fiat is about the accused persons, and they should be present in court.
He
added that counsel Camara referred to section 24 (3f) of the constitution that
he, Camara, stated that he did not know why the 3rd accused was absent.
He
said this prompted them to make their application.
At
this juncture, he applied to tender the fiat which he said was signed by the
Attorney General, to which a cover note addressed to the IGP was attached.
The
defence did not raise any objection, and the said fiat was admitted by the
court.
Magistrate
Baldeh finally ruled that the accused could not take their plea in the absence
of the other accused persons, adding that if the accused persons failed to
appear in court at the next sitting, their sureties would give reasons why they
should not forfeit the bail bond.
The
case was adjourned until 14 November 2016.
