Representing the State, Director of Public Prosecutions, A.M. Yusuf, who appeared alongside State Counsel F. Touray, informed the court that the Prosecution had not yet filed its brief.
The DPP argued that the State remained within time, claiming the Defence brief had been served “recently,” though no specific date of service was disclosed to enable the court to verify that assertion.
The development drew immediate attention, as the matter had already been fixed for adoption, a procedural stage that ordinarily presumes that all written briefs have been filed and exchanged.
In response, Defence Counsel A. Sillah submitted that the case was the Prosecution’s and the State, being fully seized of its own evidence and legal position, should not require further indulgence at such a critical stage.
Justice Jaiteh initially directed the DPP to proceed with an oral submission, emphasising that the sole objective of the trial was to determine whether the State had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence already before the court. However, the DPP declined to proceed orally and insisted that he required the previously granted 28 days to file the written address.
Justice Jaiteh expressed concern that written briefs are intended to aid the court and promote efficiency, not to create delay.
He underscored that postponements in filing submissions inevitably delay judgments, with consequences for the accused persons, victims, witnesses, and public confidence in the justice system.
Seeking to balance fairness, the court invited the Defence to state its position. Counsel J. Jeng indicated that the Defence would not oppose granting the State 14 days to file its brief.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh referenced the High Court Practice Direction of 2013, which provides that where written addresses are ordered, they shall be filed within 28 days of the conclusion of the hearing, with each party allotted a maximum of 14 days.
He noted that the court had already exercised its discretion by granting the 28-day period an enlargement beyond the standard timeframe contemplated for each party.
While acknowledging that delays in the Court’s Audio Transcription process contributed to the timeline, the judge held that, that further delay could not be justified, particularly on a date set for adoption.
Accordingly, the earlier 28-day allocation was varied. The State was ordered to file and serve its written brief within 14 days, by March 12, 2026. The Defence was granted four days thereafter until March 17, 2026 to file any reply strictly on points of law.
The court further ordered that all briefs filed would be deemed duly adopted without the need for oral adoption.
Justice Jaiteh adjourned the matter to March 30, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. for judgment, making it unequivocally clear that no further application for extension of time would be entertained.
He reiterated that adherence to procedural timelines is not a matter of convenience but a fundamental component of the constitutional right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
Read Other Articles In Headlines
PIU officer assaulted, rifle seized in armed robbery attack at Fass Njaga Choi
Feb 13, 2023, 11:31 AM
