The accused, Muhammadou Lamin Jaiteh, permanent secretary at the Ministry of Health, Balla Kandeh, programme manager of the Malaria Control Programme, and Omar Malle Ceesay, executive director of HePDO, were charged with theft, forgery, economic crime, disobedience of statutory duty, official corruption, and conspiracy to commit a felony.
In his points of arguments, defence counsel L.S Camara said the Curricula Vitae (CVs) of consultants Mohammadou Sissoho, Basiru Philott and Abou Sallah were not listed in the bill of indictment but were served with the said CVs.
Counsel Camara also argued that the proper procedure was that the CVs could have been listed in the bill of indictment to give notice to the defence that the CVs would be relied upon.
Defence counsel Camara further argued that the CVs were public documents within the context of section 113 of the Evidence Act (EA) hence the photocopies ought to be certified under section 115 of the EA.
In response, DPP AM Yusuf submitted that the CVs were not public documents because CVs were not kept by any public body and that the Health Programme and Development Organization (HePDO) was not a public body and the consultants were not engaged by any public body or government agent.
The prosecution further argued that the defence counsel was served with all the documents in question, but admitted that it was an inadvertent oversight not to have listed the CV in the bill of indictment. He therefore applied for the court to grant the prosecution leave to amend the information and not to allow technical justice to defeat substantial justice.
The Court ruled that the prosecution was duty bound to serve all the documents they intended to rely on in the case. However, the court said the non-listing of documents in the bill of indictment was not a precondition for admissibility of documents.
“The test of admissibility is relevant pursuant to section 3 of the Evidence Act,” Justice Jaiteh stated, saying: “I must state that the CVs, contract documents and study reports are relevant in this trial and therefore are admissible.”
The court, therefore, overruled the objection of the defence counsel and admitted into evidence as exhibits all the CVs, consultancy reports from HePDO and contract documents between HePDO and Mohammadou Sissoho, Basiru Philott, Abou Sallah and Mamout Ceesay.
