Abdel Karim Jaiteh
The High Court in Banjul has set aside June 10 to give verdict in the ongoing Yankuba Touray’s case, as to whether the former junta member and one-time minister, should open his defence or not after both the prosecution and defence made their case in the no case to answer submission.
Reacting to the defence application on the no case submission earlier made by the attorney for the suspect, the State Counsel, AM Yusuf reminded the court about the nature of the charge sheet, witnesses presented before the court and the exhibits, and argued that Section 166 earlier cited by defence is erroneous in this case.
He also referred the trial judge to Section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code and argued that their submission is in pursuance to the said Section and urged the court to accommodate and listen to their submission.
Prosecutor Yusuf also referred the court to the practice direction of the high court which he read out to the court and other judicial authorities which he submitted and explained the discharge of a suspect after a no case submission is made.
According to prosecutor Yusuf, the evidence before the court is clear that could warrant a clear explanation from Mr Touray.
It was the State Counsel’s argument that a ‘no case’ can only be upheld when there is no evidence or in an event where the evidence is so discredited as a result of cross-examination or unreliable that no tribunal can convict.
It was the contention of the acting State Chief Prosecutor that the evidence so far presented before the court have established every essential elements of the offence as charged.
The State Prosecutor who appeared along with a team of state lawyers averred that when a ‘no case’ is made, what is expected of the prosecution is to proof whether there is prima facie case which could compel the suspect to open his defence.
In his half an hour submission while moving his submission in a half-jammed hush courtroom, Prosecutor Yusuf went through the evidence of each of the prosecution’s nine witnesses and submitted straight forward that their evidence is so reliable that, the court should warrant Mr Touray to open his defence.
He described the prosecution sixth witness, Alagie Kanyi as “an eye witness” to the incident which led to the death of Ousman ‘Koro’ Ceesay and it was his evidence that ‘Koro’ was killed in the house of the suspect.
“There is nothing to be contradicted in the evidence of prosecution witness six, Alagie Kanyi, and it is our submission that the factor that needs to be put into consideration is whether to uphold the application or not but the elements of the offence are established by the prosecution,” prosecutor Yusuf further submitted.
Prosecutor Yusuf further contended that the court at this stage cannot evaluate the evidence of the witnesses or considered the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, citing cases and laws to back up his argument.
“My Lord, there is case to answer and it is our submission that in order to establish the elements of murder, three things should be considered: whether there is death, whether the suspect was involved or whether there was malice which should be considered by the court.
The evidence before the court is reliable and cross-examination has in no way discredited the witnesses. We therefore urged the court to discountenance the no case submission and urged the suspect to open his defence as the evidence of Mr Kanyi suffice that ‘Koro’ is dead,” prosecutor Yusuf finally submitted before the case was adjourned to next week for verdict.
