The
Special Criminal Court in Banjul presided over by Justice O. Ottaba yesterday
denied bail to Sira Wally Ndow, former Petroleum Minister, Momodou O.S. Badjie,
GNPC Managing Director, and Nuha Touray, Secretary to Cabinet.
The
applicants were represented by A. Samba, Y.H. Cox, I. Richards, and L.S. Camara
whilst B. Jeng, A. Mendy and S.K Jobe appeared for the respondent.
Delivering
his ruling, Justice O. Ottaba said the applicants filed an application seeking
to release the applicants on bail pending any charge that would be brought
against them.
He
said submitting on behalf of Sira Wally Ndow-Njie, senior counsel Ida Drammeh
said her client was unable to have access to medical attention.
She
laid emphasis on paragraphs 8, 9, 10, and 11 which are the main grounds of her
application relating to the medical condition of Sira Wally Ndow-Njie, and
urged the court to grant the applicant bail.
Counsel
Loubna Farage submitting on behalf of Nuha Touray associated herself with
senior counsel Ida Drammeh’s submission.
Counsel
L.S. Camara submitting on behalf of Momodou O.S. Badjie said the application
was supported by a 25-paragraph affidavit with exhibits attached.
He
said they rely on all the paragraphs and in particular paragraphs 4 to 25,
adding that the applicant does not pose a “flight risk” since his documents are
with the NIA.
He
said with regards to the arguments contained in the affidavit in support on
section 8 of Economic Crime Specify Offences Act, the court should exercise its
discretion in favour of the applicant having regards to the fact that there was
no counter affidavit of opposition.
“I
want the court to take judicial notice of the following in exercising its
discretion; that the matter was meant to be heard on 14 July and adjourned to 18,
21 and 27 July 2016 and that the applicant had been in custody since 22 June
2016 without a proper indictment before the court.
“In
the circumstances, I enjoin your lordship not to free or quit and discharge
him, but to grant him pre-trial liberty, that’s all we are asking for,” counsel
added.
The
trial judge further stated that by virtue of section 99 sub section 1 of the
CPC, the court has the discretion to grant or refuse bail in view of the facts
and circumstances of the case looking at the seriousness of the crime, nature
of the offence, severity of the punishment, probability of the applicants
committing the offence again, likelihood of charges being brought against them
and the probability of the applicants interfering with the course of justice.
He
added that it was a general rule that when a party failed to file a counter
affidavit the facts in the affidavit in support was deemed admitted, but the
court could look at the nature of the offence committed.
He
said the mere fact that the respondent did not file a counter affidavit does
not mean that they had conceded to the facts in the affidavit in support.
The
trial judge adduced that the mere fact that the applicant is sick does not
warrant the court to grant bail in favour of the applicant, as there are
medical facilities in the prisons and the applicant could be given medical
attention when the need arises.
He
added that the applicants should place sufficient and convincing material
before the court for the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the
applicant.
Therefore,
he added, the applicants have woefully failed to lay before the court
sufficient and convincing material to warrant the court grant bail in their
favour.
“I
have examined and considered the submission made by both parties. I decline to
grant bail to the applicants. I find and hold that the application lacks merit.
The application is refused and hereby dismissed. I hereby ordered for the
applicants to be remanded in investigative custody,” he said.
