Oct 7, 2013, 11:24 AM
The DPP made the application before Justice E.O. Dada at the Banjul High Court, when the case was called for mention.
The six women are Isatou Saidy, Lele Bojang, Sukai Dahaba, Kaddy Samateh, Fatoumatta Sarr and Amie Touray.
However, the rest of the nine other accused persons in the indictment were not revealed to the press.
When the case was called, the DPP informed the court that the case was slated for mentioning, but the accused persons are currently detained at Jangjanbureh and that he was applying for the matter to be transferred to Basse.
The trial Judge, Justice E.O. Dada, said the case filed dated 8 June 2016 was assigned to her by the Chief Justice (CJ), and she would, therefore, return the case file back to the CJ for re-assignment as per the application of the DPP.
It would be recalled that on 14 May 2016, state counsel Sheriff Kumba Jobe told the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court that the state had filed a bill of indictment at the High Court, in the case involving Isatou Saidy, Lele Bojang, Sukai Dahaba, Kaddy Samateh, Fatoumatta Sarr and Amie Touray.
They were charged with seven counts of conspiracy, unlawful assembly, riot, incitement of violence, riotously interfering with vehicles, holding procession without a permit and disobeying an order to disperse from an unlawful procession.
State counsel Jobe further stated that he had an application to make, adding that they had received the case file and the investigation report.
They had thoroughly studied the case file, he adduced, and that the state had advised itself to have the matter be heard by the High Court.
He said it was in the interest of justice that the case would be heard and determined by the High Court, where the accused persons would be provided adequate facility and time to prepare their defence, which is a fundamental right of the accused persons.
He said they had filed a bill of indictment at the High Court, adding that they were yet to receive a hearing notice.
He further stated that whenever they received the hearing notice, they would go back to the court to have the matter struck out.
In the interim, he said, they were applying for an adjournment and craving the court’s indulgence to grant the application.