Mar 18, 2020, 1:23 PM
Counsel A.M. Yusuf on Thursday informed the High Court in Banjul before Justice
Ebrima Jaiteh in the murder case involving Yankuba Touray that he was
withdrawing his opposition to the motion filed by defense counsel Abdoulie
Justice Ebrima Jaiteh subsequently granted the application of the state counsel to withdraw his opposition.
It could be recalled that defence counsel Abdoulie Sissoho on the 12th March, 2020, argued with the state counsel, A.M. Yusuf, on the motion filed by the defense.
Counsel Sissoho, who is representing Yankuba Touray, informed the court that the defense had filed a motion dated 25th February, 2020, and filed the same day.
The motion, he said, was supported by 24 paragraphs sworn to by one Fatoumata Camara, adding that they relied on all the paragraphs.
He said the motion was filed pursuant to the orders of the court and also the evidence of Alagie Kanyi about two statements he made in relation to the death of ex-finance minister, Ousman Koro Ceesay.
Further that the application was brought pursuant to Sections 221, 225 and 210 of the Evidence Act 1994 and thus referred the court to Section 221 of the Evidence Act.
He requested the registrar of the court to provide the court record of proceedings of an earlier case involving Yankuba Touray in which Alagie Kanyi was a witness.
He indicated that these statements made by Alagie Kanyi at the TRRC could be submitted by the TRRC, further arguing that the documents are relevant for their defense, and they relied on Section 3 of the Evidence Act.
“We want the portion of the evidence of Alagie Kanyi at the TRRC where he mentioned the death of Koro Ceesay so that the court can compare his statement at the TRRC and his evidence in court,” Counsel Sissoho told the court.
State Counsel Yusuf opposed that they had filed in opposition to the motion filed by the defense. He argued that paragraphs 9 and 10 of the motion of the defense contravened Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, adding that paragraph 11 of the affidavit in support of the motion of the defense was a legal argument.
He thus urged the court to expunge it because it offends Section 92 of the Evidence Act, as well as paragraph 12.
“Paragraph 13 is misleading and the face of it is false and also offends Section 92 of the Evidence Act, as well as paragraph 18. Paragraph 22 is a prayer and a legal argument and cannot be cured by way of amendment because it is defective,” he challenged.
He urged the court to discountenance the motion of the defense because there were no valid supporting documents in it.
On the 16th March, 2020, the defense replied on points of law, which he said, was followed by the ruling of the judge on the 19th March, 2020.
Hearing continues on the 23rd March, 2020.