When the case was called yesterday, Counsel M. Singhateh appeared for the state while Lawyer Samuel Ada of the National Agency for Legal (NALA) appeared for the accused.
Counsel Singhateh made an application for the testimony of the fourth accused to be held in camera.
She cited Section 3 of the Children's Act as the basis for her request. Additionally, she argued that the close relationship between the witness and the accused warranted a closed-door session as the witness is a son to the accused.
Lawyer Samuel Ada from the National Agency for Legal Aid (NALA), who was representing the accused, did not object to the minor testifying in the chamber.
However, he pointed out that the defence had not provided them with a birth certificate to verify the witness's age.
In response, counsel Singhateh referred to the witness statement of PW4, which indicated that the witness was 13 years old.
Lawyer Ada countered that only a birth certificate could definitively establish the child's age.
He emphasised the child was neither the accused nor the victim in the case but merely a witness.
He further argued that the law provided for closed-door (in-camera) proceedings only in cases of sexual offence involving a child, which did not apply in this instance. He urged the court to conduct the proceedings in open court.
After considering the arguments presented, Justice Ebrima Jaiteh in his ruling held that the witness was a child according to the police statement, which he would hold until otherwise.
“The testimony of the witness will be held in camera,” Justice Jaiteh ruled.
