The State urged the Court of Appeal to set aside the decision of the High Court and ordered the conviction and sentence of the 2nd respondent Gibrial Darboe, 3rd respondent Ebrima Sanoh and Fabakary Jawara, the 4th respondent in respect of all counts charged.
The State noted that they were dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court and pointed out that the learned trial judge erred in law and fact in holding PW2 (Yaya Manjang) and PW7 (Karamo Jatta) as accomplices.
The State also stated that the learned trial judge wrongly evaluated and assessed the evidence of PW1 and PW7, to conclude that they were part and parcel of the coup d’etat and as such considered them as accomplices.
It could be recalled that after a judgment was delivered which led to the sentencing of the ringleader of the coup, Sanna Fadera and the acquitted and discharged of the other three respondents, Director of Public Prosecution, AM Yusuf urged the court to remand the 2nd, 3rd and 4th accused persons.
However, the court ruled that for the accused persons who were acquitted and discharged to be in remand goes against the very fabric of their Rule of Law
The court further indicated that the State was always at liberty to appeal any decision they feel aggrieved with and therefore, the court granted the 2nd, 3rd and 5th accused bail in the sum of D100, 000 with one Gambian surety who must deposit an affidavit of means.
The court also ordered the prosecution to file the necessary notice and grounds of appeal within 30 days, failing which the order for remand shall elapse.
In the appeal dated 20 November 2023, the State further appealed that the Judge erred in law and fact in holding that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The State also pointed out that the prosecution led enough evidence against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents in the case, adding that trial Judge erred in law and fact in evaluating and assessing the evidence on records to acquit and discharge the respondents; that the trial judge erred in law when he acquitted and discharged the respondents, having regard to the evidence adduced by the prosecution against them.
The State further established that Justice Mahony erred in law when he rejected to admit the cautionary and voluntary statements of the 4th respondent; and he erred in law when he failed to consider that the procedure adopted in recording the cautionary and voluntary statement of the 4th respondent was in compliance with the applicable law and rules of obtaining evidence from a suspect.
