Prosecutor applies for case to be transferred to High Court

When the case was mentioned, ASP Mballow rose and told the court that he was representing the IGP along with Sergeant 3560 Colley.

Lawyer Batchilly informed the court that he was representing the third accused and was holding brief for Lawyer Gomez for the fourth accused. Lawyer Moses Richards appeared for the seventh accused.

ASP Mballow then told the court that he was applying under section 169 (1) (a) of the CPC to substitute the previous charge with economic crime.

Lawyer Batchilly informed the court that the application to substitute the charge was made on 26 August 2014, by Chief Inspector Touray who was the prosecutor.

ASP Mballow then stated that count three is an economic crime charge against the accused persons, accompanied by counts one and two which are conspiracy and obtaining money by false pretence.

He argued that section 9 of the economic crime Act states that the court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the case, and that it is the High Court that should hear the case.

He therefore applied for the case to be transferred to the High Court.

Lawyer Moses Richards stood and said they were taken by surprise, arguing that what the prosecution should have done was to separate the charges and take count three, which is the economic crime charge, to the High Court.

He added that count one and two could be tried at the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court, as they are criminal offences.

He submitted that the accused persons are under bail and are restricted, adding that if they started the case afresh, it would cause hardship.

He then urged the court to separate the charge which should be transferred to the High Court, where it could be heard.

He further argued that count three is not an amendment but an additional charge.

He said this was a ploy on the part of the prosecution.

ASP Mballow objected to the last statement made by lawyer Richards, because it was an allegation.

Lawyer Moses Richards rose and told the court to order that the third count be taken to the High Court which has the jurisdiction to hear the case, adding that the liberty of the accused was at stake.

Lawyer Batchilly stood and said he associated himself with the submission made by lawyer Richards.

He urged the court to consider whether justice would be best served.

“The prosecution made reference to the constitution but the constitution is for all of us, including the accused persons whose rights should be protected,” lawyer Batchilly told the court.

He argued that count three should be transferred to the High Court, because the trial on counts one and two had already started, adding that transferring counts one and two would not be in the interest of justice.

ASP Mballow rose and said that lawyer Richards talked about separating the charges.

He argued that to join offences was at the discretion of the prosecution, adding that the court could not order that the counts be separated

He cited some authorities to support his argument.

At this juncture, lawyer Batchilly objected because he said ASP Mballow was “not arguing on points of law.”

ASP Mballow maintained that they have the discretion to separate the charges.

He urged the court to disregard the objections made by the defence.

The case was adjourned to 25 November 2014, for ruling.

In a similar case involving Oumie Saffiatou Jallow, Sheikh Dawda`York, Ebrima Kebbeh, Demba Sowe, Kemo Fatty and Alpha Kanteh, who were charged with conspiracy, obtaining money false pretence and cheating,

ASP Mballow made the same application for the case to be transferred to the High Court because a charge of economic crime was included in the new charge sheet.

He said they had amended the charge dated 10 November 2014, adding that they were applying under section 169 (1) (a) of the CPC to substitute a new charge.

Lawyer Batchilly objected to the application made by ASP Mballow.

He said he was adopting his application as in the previous case.

Lawyer Moses Richards also adopted his application as in the previous case.

Lawyer Gomez associated himself with the applications made by his colleagues.

The case was adjourned to 25 November 2014, for ruling.