By AbdelKarim Jaiteh
It is always the contention of the lawyers as dictate by the law that in any criminal trial, the burden of prove rest on the shoulders of the prosecution, and if the prosecution fails to discharge such burden, it will shift on to the defence as both parties pursue for justice at the end of the trial.
Presenting his case before Justice Ebrima Jaiteh on no case to answer, barrister Abdoulie Sissoho drew the attention of the court to the nature of the charge sheet and the total evidence so far laid before the court by the prosecution nine witnesses, and submitted that there is no preponderance evidence before the court to warrant the suspect to open his defence or convicted on such evidence.
Further submitting his argument before the court under Section 7(B) of the 1997 Constitution and Common law and Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, barrister Sissoho at that point read out the particulars of the charge sheet and drew the attention of the trial judge to the last sentence of the particulars of offence which said the suspect hit one ‘Koro’ Ceesay by biting him with a pistol which he argued cannot be substantiate by the prosecution.
It was the argument of the defence that the court has to looked at the totality of the evidence to see whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against Mr Touray to warrant him to open his defence, citing relevant law authorities as well as practice direction to strengthen his submission.
Lawyer Sissoho further challenged that it is the duty of the prosecution to furnish the court with substantial evidence to show that Mr Touray has actually committed an act of murder.
Drawing the attention of the presiding judge to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses particularly prosecution witnesses’ number six and nine, counsel Sissoho argued that there was no prove that ‘Koro’ Ceesay is death because the evidence of the said witnesses could not justify the death.
“There is no evidence before the court to justify that ‘Koro’ is dead. From the scientific and conclusive autopsy report, there is no indication or proof of death rather presumption of the remained body of ‘Koro’ Ceesay.
No evidence was laid by prosecution witness number nine to justify that the remained were kept to conduct autopsy and all the witnesses except prosecution number six never saw the deceased with the suspect,” barrister Sissoho explained while referring to witnesses’ number 5, 7, 1 and 9 as irrelevant witnesses in the case which have no value.
The act of the suspect according to the defence was not measured in the bill of indictment neither the ownership of the weapon was connected to him which he argued most be established by the prosecution.
Barrister Sissoho further submitted that based on the total circumstantial evidence by the authorities, ‘Koro’ Ceesay died as a result of an accident, noting that the testimonies to the witnesses were inconsistence particularly prosecution witnesses 2,3,4 and 6, while describing Alagie Kanyi, a confessed serial killer as a witness who speaks from “both side of his mouth” whose evidence is totally inconsistence.
“There is no need to prosecute Mr Touray, there is no deceased and there is no weapon. Mr Touray should be declared a free man by next week because there is no case to answer. I therefore urged the court to discharge and acquit Mr Touray,” barrister Sissoho finally submitted before the matter was adjourned to next week for the state to fire back.
