When the case was called yesterday, state counsel, Kimbeng T. Tah together with A. Jobe and Mendy announced their appearance for the state, while Lawyer Camara together with Fatoumatta Jallow appeared for the accused person.
In ground one of his ground of appeal, he claimed that the trial judge Momodou S.M Jallow failed to analyse the entire evidence of the applicant. On ground two, Camara claimed that the judge erred in holding that Section 23 of the constitution provides for an exception on the ground of morals.
On the particulars of error, Lawyer Camara further added that the court misconstrued the exception contained in Section 23 of the constitution to apply to individual case with no adverse impact on public morals/morality
On ground three of his notice of appeal, Camara further claimed that the trial judge failed to analyse the applicant’s brief and completely ignored the arguments contained therein. On ground four, he added that the trial judge failed to cast his mind to the fact that the respondent is an interested party and cannot be trusted with conducting the DNA examination.
On this particulars of error, Camara said, the ruling failed to encapsulate and not supported by the evidence adduced before the court and having regards to the circumstances of the case, while on ground five, he stated, the learned trial judge erred in adopting the respondent’s brief of argument in its entirety as its own, while claiming that on this particulars of error, the trial judge failed to give reasons in adopting the respondent’s brief.
In moving his application, Lawyer Camara said their motion seeks for four prayers, adding that prayers one and two are in the alternative to prayers three and four.
“My lord the motion prayers are mutually exclusive; that’s one and two and visa-a-vie three and four,” he said, claiming that there motion is supported by 45 paragraph affidavit which the affidavit was sworn by Bubacarr Keita and that they rely on all the paragraph contained therein particularly from paragraph four to paragraph 45.”
The case has been adjourned to Monday 25 July for the defense counsel to complete his submission and for the state counsel to respond to the motion dated 18th July 2022.
