Nov 9, 2016, 10:38 AM
He made this pronouncement when he adopted his brief before Magistrate Gomez.
He started by reading his brief to the court, summarizing the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses.
Lawyer Gomez argued that if the security officers had not shot the car, Ya Binta Jarju would not have been killed.
He said the autopsy report indicated that the cause of death of Ya Binta Jarju was head injury due to gunshots.
“Who fired the shots?” he asked.
He submitted that the shots were fired by the security officers, adding that they should have been charged with murder.
He urged the court to discharge and acquit the accused.
ASP Mballow also adopted his brief.
He said they disagreed with the submission made by the defence counsel.
He started by summarizing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, referring to some authorities to support his argument.
He submitted that the security officers shot the car to disable it, adding that “the medical doctor is not the law” and that it is the court that could determine the cause of death.
He argued further that if it were not the accused’s failure to stop, Ya Binta Jarju would not have been killed, adding that the accused had the intention to cause the death of Ya Binta Jarju.
He submitted that the accused caused the death of Ya Binta Jarju.
He also urged the court to convict the accused and sentence him accordingly.
Magistrate Gomez then announced that both briefs filed by the defence and the prosecution had been deemed properly filed.
The case was adjourned to 16 June 2015, for judgment.