Judge sets aside ruling of magistrates’ court in Pablo Djabi drug case

The appeal against the decision of the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court assuming jurisdiction to hear the suit in charges against the accused Paulo Djabi, Nadine Perira, Mamadu Neto Djabi and Secuna Djabi was raised by the respondent’s counsel on whether the principal magistrate has jurisdiction to try offences under the Anti-Money Laundering and Combating of Terrorist Financing Act.

Justice Achibonga delivered that, as stated in section 2 (1) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Combating of Terrorist Financing Act,  when it comes to offences under the Act, the High Court is the only court with original jurisdiction to try them.

“It is the High Court, to the exclusion of all other courts, that has jurisdiction to try offences under the Anti-Money Laundering and Combating of Terrorist Act, 2012,” the Judge said. “Therefore, the trial magistrate erred in assuming a jurisdiction and he did not have to hear the case in the first place.”

The second issue that was raised by the respondent’s counsel was whether the trial magistrate had jurisdiction to grant bail to the respondents (the accused). The high court held that the court that has no jurisdiction to hear a case, “cannot assume jurisdiction to grant bail” in that case.

Justice Achibonga added that a court only grants bail in a case after it assumes jurisdiction over the case. “I do not therefore see how a court that has no jurisdiction over a case can purport to grant bail in that case,” he stated.

He further affirmed that the trial magistrate erred in granting bail to the respondents when he had no jurisdiction to hear the case in which he granted them bail.

The third issue that was raised by the appellant’s counsel and adopted by the presiding judge was whether the magistrate rightly exercised his discretion under the law when admitting the respondents to bail.

Justice Achibonga emphasised that the trial magistrate had neither jurisdiction to hear the case nor to grant bail. He said the third issue had become moot and its determination would only amount to the court engaging in a “mere academic exercise, which I do not intend to do”.