They denied any wrongdoing after count three was amended.
Commissioner Ceesay, prosecuting officer, applied for the case to be transferred to the High Court and also for the accused to be remanded in custody, pending the hearing of the case at the High Court. He said that the anti-money laundering gives an explanation of the word ‘court’ in the act. He further submitted that the word ‘act’ that appears at legislation means ‘High Court’. “Regarding the bail of the accused persons I am aware that the court has the power to grant bail to the accused. I urge the court to overrule the application of the defence counsel,” he stated.
Defence Counsel Camara opposed the application made by the prosecutor for the case to be transferred to the High Court. He stated that the court has the jurisdiction to try the case, and there is absolutely nothing that the alleged anti-laundering act should be tried at the High Court. He questioned the interpretation of the word ‘court’ and he asked why the word ‘court’ was defined to mean the High Court. He said that there is no provision in the anti-money laundering Act to show that the case should be transferred to the High Court. “There is no section in this Act that renders the authority of the court futile, except in the case of economic crime and treason,” he argued.
On the application of bail, he posited that the charges against the accused are not punishable by life imprisonment or death sentence. “The bail of the accused is a fundamental human right and the court does not refuse bail to punish the accused,” he summated.
The case was adjourned until today for ruling.
