Defence
counsel E. Sanneh yesterday told the Banjul Magistrates’ Court that the
prosecutor’s application, for a bench warrant to be issued for the arrest of
some accused persons who were not present in court, was premature.
He
said this before Magistrate Kebba Baldeh, in the case involving government
officials.
When
the case was mentioned, Inspector Sanyang said he was representing the IGP.
Lawyers
Omar Njie, E. Sanneh and Yasin Senghore represented the accused persons.
Prosecutor
Sanyang applied to amend and expunge the 29th accused person and Kebba S.
Touray from the charge sheet, adding that the two accused persons never
appeared in court.
He
said their names should be expunged from the charge sheet, so that the case
could proceed by virtue of section 169 of the CPC, adding that the 2nd and 3rd
accused persons never appeared in court.
Lawyer
E. Sanyang said the application made by the prosecutor was not done in the
right procedure, adding that the prosecutor should have applied to withdraw the
charge against the accused persons, who were not present in court under section
68 (1) of the CPC, rather than applying under section 169 of the CPC to amend
the charge sheet.
He
said once the application was granted, then the amended charge sheet would
include the 26th accused, who would take their plea.
He
argued that the prosecutor’s application was misconceived.
Magistrate
Baldeh then ruled that the application by the prosecutor would not cause
injustice to the accused persons.
He
ordered for the names of the accused persons to be struck out.
Prosecutor
Sanyang then urged the court for the other accused persons to take their plea.
Lawyer
Omar Njie said the 2nd, 3rd, 29th, and 30th accused persons were not in court,
adding that, as a result, they could not take their plea.
He
argued that the charge sheet should be amended to reflect the court’s order.
He
then asked whether the prosecutor was dropping the charges against the four
accused persons who were absent.
Prosecutor
Sanyang then said that the 10th accused person took his plea, adding that he
was granted bail, but could not fulfill the bail condition.
He
was present at the last sitting, the prosecutor continued, adding that the 12th
accused was among those who took their plea, and that he had fulfilled his bail
condition and is currently under bail.
He
further stated that the 12th accused person was absent at the last sitting, and
no reason was given to the court.
Prosecutor
Badjie had earlier applied for the court to revoke his bail or for his surety
to show cause why he should not forfeit the bail bond.
The
16th accused person was also coming to court, but for the previous two sittings
he was absent, though he was not on court bail.
Sanyang
then applied for a bench warrant to be issued for the arrest of the 16th
accused person, who was absent.
This
was in the interest of justice, he went on, adding that the 23rd accused person
was absent, and this was not the first time.
The
accused should not hold the court to ransom, further stated.
He
also applied for a bench warrant to be issued for the arrest of the 23rd
accused, adding that it was not their intention to delay the case.
E.
Sanneh said in respect of the 23rd accused person, he was attending a master’s
post-graduate degree course in Asia.
He
was instructed by the 23rd accused person to act on his behalf on 18 October
2016, adding that he was charged while he was not in the country, Sanneh told
the court.
He
urged the court not to issue a bench warrant until the reason or reasons were
known as to why those were not present in court.
Magistrate
Baldeh ruled that the 23rd accused was never arraigned.
In
order not to delay the case, he would order for a bench warrant to be issued
for the arrest of the other accused who were absent.
The
case was adjourned until 21 November 2016.
