It would be recalled that under cross-examination, Counsel Mendy asked the witness whether he had filed a suit at the High Court. He responded in the positive. He also asked him whether the accused had filed a statement of defense. He confirmed that he had done so.
“When did the accused file the statement of defence?” Counsel Mendy wanted to know.
“I cannot remember the date but it was in November, 2023,” said the witness.
At this juncture, Counsel Mendy handed the witness a copy of the statement of defence and asked him to confirm whether it was the said document. The witness answered in the positive. The defense counsel then applied to tender the document. Commissioner Sanneh, who was representing the IGP along with ASP Colley, did not raise any objection to the tendering of the document. It was, as a result, admitted by the court.
Counsel Mendy told the court that he was applying for the cross-examination of the witness to be interposed to allow them to file for a stay of proceedings. He stated that Exhibits 1 and 2 (writ of summons & the statement of defence) gave them the opportunity to apply for a stay of proceedings because there is a civil suit filed by the witness at the High Court. He cited Section 24 of the 1997 Constitution. “There should be a fair trial, Your Worship,” Counsel Mendy argued. He cited some authorities to support his argument.
ASP Colley rose and said that they were opposing the application made by the defence counsel. He stated that there was no evidence to show that the accused has not been given a fair trial. “Your Worship, the accused has been accorded a fair trial. Section 24 of the 1997 Constitution cited by the defence does not apply. We have even handed all the documents to the defence we intend to rely on in this case. This is the second time the defense has applied for a stay of proceedings. Their first application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed. They cannot have a second bite of the cake. In fact, they abandoned their application when they first applied for a stay of proceedings. There is no known law to interpose the cross-examination of a prosecution witness. We are asking for a cost of GMD10,000 against the defence for wasting the time of the case,” ASP Colley stated at length.
Counsel Mendy then replied on points of law. The case was subsequently adjourned for ruling.
Sulayman Saho, according to the prosecutors, sometime in the month of July, 2023, at Kotu Mini Institutional Area, in the Kanifing Municipality of the Republic of The Gambia, he, with intent to intimidate, insult or annoy Ebrima S. Camara, trading as (E&P ATLANTIC LTD), unlawfully entered and remained into Mr. Camara’s government allocated land with serial registration No. K251/2023, without authority or legal documents.
The case was adjourned to the 14th May, 2025, for the defence counsel to continue the cross-examination of the first prosecution witness.
