The accused was not present in court when the case was called. Prosecutor Sanneh objected to the adjournment of the case.
He told the court that the medical report was purportedly prepared by a neighbourhood clinic. “Your Worship, this is not a medical report. It has not been prepared by the Medical and Health. There is nothing to show that the accused has admission to be treated overseas. The medical report is bogus. On the last adjournment, the accused was not present in court. This is a ploy by the defence to stall the case. There is a civil case at the High Court which is related to this criminal case. This is why the defence is buying time for the civil case to progress. Assuming without conceding, if the accused is out of the jurisdiction, I apply under Section 163 of the CPC to try him in absentia,” he submitted.
The defence counsel argued that the prosecuting officer was giving evidence when Commissioner Sanneh told the court that he saw the accused in town. As he continued arguing, Commissioner Sanneh asked him to reply on points of law.
The defence counsel urged the court to disregard the submission made by Commissioner Sanneh. “The prosecutor cannot tell me to stick my submission only on points of law,” said the defence counsel. He cited Section 24 of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Evidence Act to support his argument.
After a long and heated debate between the defence counsel and the prosecutor, Magistrate Touray of the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court adjourned the case to the 9th September, 2024, for ruling.
