The state counsel was responding to the defence’s counsel’s no-case-to answer submission made earlier.
He said the state had established the elements of a case against the accused person, which was supported by the evidence of PW2 and PW3, who said the accused person called to select five participants.
He said mobilization was done by the accused person, which was a cleared testimony the state had proven its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
It was the duty of the prosecution to establish a prima facie case against the accused person, the prosecutor went on.
He noted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was enough to maintain the charge against the accused person.
The evidence of PW2 and PW3 have helped the state to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, which was required for the prosecution to establish the alleged crime against the accused person.
He said the no-case submission could not succeed, as the defence counsel never discredited the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
The no-case submission could not be upheld without discrediting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, he added.
Exhibit A, which was the questionnaire, had given more support to the charge against the accused person, the prosecutor continued.
“We are urging the court to deny the application for no-case by the defence counsel,” he said.
Replying on points of law, the defence counsel, L.S. Camara, told the court that PW1 did not say that an independent witness was present while recording or obtaining statements from the accused.
He added that what was more interesting, in the evidence of PW1, was that he informed the court that the accused person alongside two others were trying to conduct a nationwide survey without clearance from the authorities.
Counsel further submitted that during PW1’s evidence in-chief, he
testified that he investigated the matter during the course of which
they found out that the accused conducted a training activity for potential surveyors for about four to five days, and that these surveyors were sent almost to all the regions in the country.
He said exhibit A was admitted, but it has no core value to the case, counsel went on.
“I therefore urge the court to overrule the objection of the state counsel and acquit and discharge the accused person,” counsel Camara said.
The case was adjourned to 29 April 2015, for ruling.
