“If I heard the defence counsel, I will overrule him. I will overrule his objection, but I will not be bored to overhear him. I will listen to him,” Justice Jallow posited.
Meanwhile, Lawyer Camara said: “My lord, can we have your statement in the record please. You said if you hear from the defence, you will overrule him. Can we have that on record please? My lord, you just say something which is very serious.”
“My lord, we want to insist that your statement be recorded in the record and it should be recorded. My lord doesn't hear me, and my lord doesn't know the cause of my objection. I am citing the law and the Constitution of the Republic of The Gambia on fair hearing. My lord just said if I hear him, I will overrule him. That should be in the record my lord. Put that on record,” Camara insisted.
Jallow responded by saying: “It’s not necessarily important to put that on the record. What I have said is clear, because I know the law and equally the law is under my fingertip. I know the law and I know what the law provides. Under such circumstances, there is no law in any commonwealth jurisdictions which will not render this document admissible. That’s the truth.”
The heated debate began when the State Counsel P. Gomez sought to have the DNA result to be admitted as evidence into exhibit in support of their case. However, Lawyer Camara stood up and claimed that “we have extensive objection for the DNA result to be admitted.”
Justice Jallow said: “The courts abide by time and we will operate by that time. We will grant an adjournment to the prosecution in order for them to continue with their witness with senior defence to continue on his objection and “we will never get tired and never get bored to hear him out completely. But we are not going to stay here beyond the prescribed time. That’s beyond me and above me. Now we will hear senior defence counsel read section 175 C sub-sections (1) at the next adjournment date. That’s all.”
“The document (referring to the DNA result) which was unsealed by the DNA expert from Ghana will be in the custody of the state counsel because it has not yet been admitted. You can keep it and make necessary service as it were, but we know the content and we have seen it and the witness is here. He has not gone anywhere. It would have been an easy way and easy ride out of this place with this evidence being admitted.”
Defence Lawyer Camara stated: “The constitution has protected the right of Bubacarr Keita in fair hearing. Section 19 is very clear. My lord just said if you hear me you will overrule me without hearing me. My lord, I have the right to be worried and concerned because my lord has just said whatever I am doing now and tomorrow is an exercise in futility because my lord is going to rule against me.”
State Counsel P. Gomez also interjected: “My lord, is it possible that we would prefer when you have arguments from both parties, then my lord can make the final decisions. We would honestly prefer from our end, when the defence makes an objection, no matter how it may be seen or sensible it may appear or the prosecution likewise, we think it will be much better going forward for my lord to hear the argument in the subsequent ruling.”
Camara said: “We will not be participating in the process of seeing the DNA result because our objection was based on this process. We will take this to the court of Appeal. So, we will not participate in this process. Our process is that the law requires this document to be served to us so that we can prefer for this day when we take on the DNA expert.”
“That’s the law of this land, and because of this, that document is not admissible and it’s not admissible in United Kingdom and not admissible in Ghana, because if Mr. Abban goes to the High Court in Ghana, the Ghana prosecutors serve this document without serving the defence, the document will be rejected,” Camara emphasised.
Edward Kofi Abban, the DNA expert from Ghana who spent 12 years in the Forensic Unit of the Ghana Police Service also began his testimony yesterday, giving his evidence on how he received the DNA samples from Francis Jatta of the Gambia Police Force; how the samples were kept at their laboratory; analysis conducted on the samples and how the samples were sealed among others.
The Case is adjourned to today Wednesday 12 October for the continuation of his testimony and for the defence to continue his argument for the objection of the DNA result as exhibit.
