The High Court in Banjul has set aside 19 March whether to grant the defence application for the production of the TRRC recorded evidence of the state witness, Alagie Kanyi and that of the previous case file involving Yankuba Touray and others.
The attorney for the suspect argued that the said documents are so fundamental that if not provided might paralyse their case and therefore must be provided by the state to enable them to prepare for their defence (report).
Since his arrest and prosecution by state prosecutors over the death of the former AFPRC junta finance minister, Ousman ‘Koro’ Ceesay, lawyer for the suspect, Abdoulie Sissoho is battling before the court to ensure his client is discharged and acquitted on a charge of murder.
When the case resumed today for continuation, lawyer Sissoho reminded the court about the motion he filed before the court which was dated 25 February 2020 and filed on the same day.
According to barrister Sissoho, the motion is seeking three prayers and supported by twenty-four paragraphs sworn-to by one Fatoumatta Camara, while urging the court to consider the ground of his prayers.
The motion barrister Sissoho further submitted, that it was in accordance with the order of the court and the evidence of prosecution witness, Alagie Kanyi who has earlier confirmed making statements in relation to the death of ‘Koro’ Ceesay.
Lawyer Sissoho further referred the trial judge to Sections 221,225 and 210 of the Evidence Act which he read out to the court and submitted that the registrar of the court and the executive secretary of the Truth Commission should come or assign someone to tender the documents without giving evidence.
The documents he further contended are so fundamental to the case of the defence that if they are not produced, it might paralyse their case.
Responding to the motion, the state counsel, AM Yusuf also referred the court to the affidavit in opposition which he said, he relied on all the affidavit and condition beared in more especially paragraph 3I of the affidavit.
Prosecutor Yusuf urged the court to uphold the submission and discontenance the motion filed by the defence saying, ‘there is no valid supporting document attached to it.’
The case was at that point adjourned for reply on point of law by the defence and 19 March for ruling.
