Sep 20, 2016, 1:22 PM
The defence counsel Lamin Camara in the ongoing trial of Oley Sey and Abdou Rahman Bah last Friday declared that his client Oley Sey had no case to answer.
In his submission before Magistrate Lamin George of the Banjul Magistrates' Court, Lawyer Camara stated that application was premised on the fact that the prosecution had not made out any prima facie case against the first accused Oley Sey to require her to enter her defence.
"It is my submission that the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses did not meet the legal bench mark to require the first accused to enter into a defence," he stated.
He said that for a no-case-to-answer submission to succeed it had to be proved to the court that the elements of the charges have not been proven or established by the prosecution witnesses.
According to him, if the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses is manifestly unreliable that no tribunal can safely convict.
Alternatively, he added that if the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses had been thoroughly discredited under cross examination that no reasonable tribunal can convict on it, then a no case application can be upheld by the court.
Lawyer Camara further submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses had been categorically and consistently clear on the circumstances surrounding the involvement of the first accused in the matter. He said the prosecution witnesses' evidence is not in the least suggestive of any act of stealing the sum of D500, 000, and neither is it suggestive of conspiracy to steal between the accused persons.
He added that the prosecution needed to prove or adduce a prima facie of the meeting of the minds between the accused persons of an illegal enterprise to wit, conspiracy to steal the sum of D500, 000, the property of JamesJunkungJammehMemorialNursery School.
According to him, the prosecution did not prove the element of that charge.
On the charge of stealing, he said, the prosecution needed to prove the intention to defraud the said nursery school of the sum of D500, 000.
He said it is not in the evidence of any prosecution witnesses that the first accused Oley Sey was given D500, 000, being property of JamesJunkungJammehMemorialNursery School.
As a result, he urged the court to acquit and discharge the first accused as the prosecution had woefully failed to prove a prima facie case against his client.
In response, the police prosecution Cadet Inspector Keita said the testimony of the prosecution had corroborated the fact and had proven the ingredient of the charge against the accused persons.
He submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses had proven that the accused persons attended a presentation of D500, 000 to the said school and the money was handed over to the second accused person. He added that the prosecution evidence established that the said sum of D500, 000 was in the custody of the accused persons.
It was also the evidence of the prosecution that the sum of D300, 000 out of the D500, 000 was recovered from the accused persons respectively, "leaving a balance of D200, 000," he added.
He said it was also established from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the first accused person did not belong to the community of Abuko and therefore she had no say on the utilisation of the money.
Pressing further, he said the prosecution had proven the element of the charges against the accused persons as the money was in the custody of the two accused persons for a period of one week or more.
The prosecution, in his opinion, had proven a prima facie case in all the counts preferred against the accused persons.
He therefore urged the court to dismiss the no-case-to-answer application made by the defence counsel.
The case was then adjourned until 23rd September 2008.