The State, represented by State Counsel S.L. Jobarteh, had challenged the acquittal on seven grounds, alleging misdirection in law, improper evaluation of evidence, and failure to consider the totality of the prosecution’s case.
In a detailed judgment, Justice Jaiteh rejected all seven grounds of appeal, holding that the trial magistrate properly directed herself on the law and correctly found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
He emphasised that an appellate court must approach an appeal against acquittal with great circumspection and should only interfere where the decision is perverse, unsupported by evidence, or founded on a clear misapprehension of the law.
Justice Jaiteh indicated that he found that the prosecution’s allegations of forgery were not supported by cogent evidence, particularly in the absence of expert handwriting analysis.
He further faulted the State for relying heavily on Nigerian judicial authorities without supplying copies of the judgments, contrary to the High Court Practice Direction of 2013, rendering those authorities unusable.
On the reliance placed on a newspaper report suggesting that one witness was “on the run,” Justice Jaiteh ruled that such publications, while admissible, do not constitute proof of the truth of their contents and could not ground a criminal conviction.
He concluded that the magistrate’s decision to resolve doubts in favour of the accused was a proper application of settled principles of criminal justice, and accordingly dismissed the appeal and affirmed the acquittal of all three respondents.
Immediately after the appeal was dismissed, State Counsel S.L. Jobarteh, made an oral application on behalf of the State, seeking an order to remand the respondents in custody or, in the alternative, to admit them to bail pending an intended further appeal.
Relying on sections 325(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025, counsel argued that an oral notice of intention to appeal obliged the court to make orders securing the respondents’ attendance.
The application was opposed by defence counsel, Mr. L.K. Mboge, who argued that the respondents had been acquitted after a full trial and that the acquittal had now been affirmed by the High Court.
He stressed that the case had hung over the respondents for more than a decade, during which they had appeared diligently before the courts and never attempted to evade justice.
In those circumstances, counsel submitted, it would be manifestly unjust to remand them or impose bail conditions after two courts of competent jurisdiction had confirmed their innocence.
In a separate delivered ruling, Justice Jaiteh rejected the State’s application to remand the respondents, describing such a step as unjustified and oppressive in the circumstances. While acknowledging the prosecution’s statutory right to appeal, the judge stressed that the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act are procedural and protective, not punitive, and must not be used to undermine a subsisting judgment of acquittal.
Justice Jaiteh noted with concern that the application was made by a State Counsel who had not been present when the judgment was delivered and before any written petition of appeal had been filed, as required by law. He warned that the criminal process must not be employed as an instrument of harassment and that the right of appeal must be exercised responsibly and with due regard to the liberty and dignity of acquitted persons.
Balancing the requirements of the law with the interests of justice, the court declined to remand the respondents and instead admitted them to self-bail for a period of 30 days, on condition that each deposits a valid national identification card with the Principal Registrar of the High Court.
Justice Jaiteh ordered that if the State fails to file a written petition of appeal within that period, the self-bail will automatically lapse and the respondents will stand fully discharged in accordance with section 325(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 2025.
Jaiteh issued a stern caution to the prosecution, deprecating the practice of signalling an intention to appeal without first hearing or considering the judgment sought to be challenged. Such conduct, he warned, risks undermining the finality of judicial decisions and eroding public confidence in the administration of criminal justice.
Read Other Articles In Headlines
