Oct 20, 2014, 11:48 PM
Amadou Sanneh was arraigned alongside Malang Fatty and Sambou Fatty, charged with conspiracy to commit an act with seditious intention, sedition, possession of seditious publication and false swearing.
Moving the bail application, defence counsel R.Y. Mendy submitted that she was applying for the court to admit her client to bail on such terms and conditions, as there was no affidavit in opposition filed by the state.
At that juncture, the state counsel, Maurice Agiah, stood up and informed the court that they had filed an affidavit in opposition.
She continued her submission and stated that their motion was supported by a 17-paragraph affidavit dated 7 November 2013, and they are relying on all the paragraphs.
Counsel Mendy stated that granting of bail was at the discretion of the court, adding that the court would take specific notice of the fact that the 3rd accused had a specific health condition which was contained in paragraph 9, 10 and 11 of the affidavit.
She argued that the defence had exhibited a medical report on diabetes and spinal cord, submitting that the conditions at Mile 2 are not conducive for the 3rd accused person, the applicant.
The bedding provided at Mile 2 was not conducive for the 3rd accused and applicant, and also caused deterioration in his health condition, she said.
“I had a look at the affidavit in opposition. It is apparent that the same facts deposed to are not challenged. The respondent admitted the poor bedding condition and they also admitted the poor ventilation and congestion at Mile 2, and also admitted the deteriorating health condition of the applicant at Mile 2,” counsel Mendy submitted.
“They did not also deny that the applicant is diabetic and has a spinal cord problem, and it is also clear that there is no specialized medical doctor at Mile 2,” she added.
The applicant made it clear that there was only one specialized doctor in diabetes in this jurisdiction, she said, stating that the respondent had stated that the applicant had apparently seen his doctor, but failed to provide the record of that visit and receipt.
The applicant had exhibited his business registration certificate to show that he was the sole proprietor of A A and Co, and this fact was not denied, that the business was in the total control of the applicant, she submitted.
She said his absence would not be good for the business, and the respondent had stated that the offence with which he was charged with are bailable, and the punishment was minimal.
She further submitted that the prosecution had closed it’s case and the investigation, adding that there was nothing before the court that if the accused was granted bail, there was likelihood that he would commit another offence or would jump bail or interfere with the witnesses.
There was nothing before the court that warrants the court to refuse bail and she urged the court to act judicially andjudiciously, and grant the applicant bail and that they would satisfy all terms and conditions, she said.
In response, state counsel Maurice Agiah submitted that it was in the court’s record that the applicant was brought before the court, seeking bail and it was refused.
He added that the motion brought before the court was not asking for the review, but was a fresh bail application.
They should go to the upper court since this court had earlier refused him bail, and he urged the court to dismiss the application.
He submitted that they had filed a five-paragraph affidavit in opposition and they are relying on all, as well as the exhibits attached to the motion in support.
He submitted that though the offence was a misdemeanor, its impact was grievous.
The case continues today for ruling on the bail application.