By: Nicholas Bass
Yankuba Touray’s lawyer Abdulai Sissoho on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that the death sentence by hanging was abolished in the early 90s, but it was restored, starting from 10 August 1995 with either life imprisonment or shorter-term imprisonment.
It could be recalled that on July 1, 2021, former Minister Yankuba Touray was charged with a single count of murder contrary to section 187 of the Criminal Code Cap. 10:01, Volume 3, Laws of The Gambia.
According to the particulars of offence, Yankuba Touray sometime in June 1995 at Kololi in the Kanifing of The Gambia within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court and with malice aforethought caused the death of one Ousman Koro Ceesay by beating him with pestle-like and other dangerous weapons thereby committing an offense.
Yankuba, however, on 8 July 2019, was arraigned before Justice Ebrima Jaiteh and pleaded for constitutional immunity to the single charge of murder levelled against him, and a plea of not guilty was entered against him.
When the appeal of Yankuba was called yesterday at the Supreme Court, his lawyer Sishor argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were not collaborated, adding that the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies were based on ”opinion not facts” while questioning the jurisdictional authority of the trail Judge [Justice Jaiteh] in passing such capital sentence by hanging.
Lawyer Sissoho claimed that the Court of Appeal did not properly evaluate his client’s appeal, adding that the Court of Appeal tried to affirm the decision of the lower court while pleading with the Supreme Court to properly check the testimony of the sixth prosecution witness, Alagie Kanyi, a former member of the Gambia Armed Forces.
He further deduced that the testimonies of the 2nd,3rd, and 7th, Ensa Mendy, major Amat Jangum, and Muhammed L.K. Bojang do not collaborate with the testimony of the sixth prosecution witness, Alagie Kanyi, stating that the court should look into the timeline of the incident that led to the death of ex-finance minister Ousman Koro Ceesay.
According to lawyer Sissoho, the 2nd and 3rd prosecution witnesses, Ensa Mendy and Amat Jangum said that they were at the accused’s house till 7 pm and left for the state house. ”Therefore, I urge this court to look at this specifically’‘, lawyer Sissoho submitted.
The Director of Public Prosecution AM Yusuf responding to lawyer Sissoho stated that the testimonies of the 2nd,3rd,4th, and 5th, Ensa Mendy, major Amat Jangum, Lamin Ndure, and Pa Abibu M’Baye were not at the scene of the crime, adding, Mendy and Jangum said that they were instructed by Yankubato take his family to Edward Singateh’s residence. ”That collaborated with the testimony of PW6, Alagie Kanyi,” DPP said.
”My Lord, it is our submission that the Supreme Court will not disturb the finding of the lower court except where there is misjustice”, DPP Yusuf said.
He argued that Yankuba was given the opportunity, but he chose to be silent by exercising his constitutional rights, stating that the accused, Yankuba, should have called two survivors to testify before the court to prove his innocence.
DPP Yusuf argued that the accused Yankuba misunderstood the difference between power and jurisdiction while pleading with the court to uphold the decision of the lower court.
Meanwhile, according to lawyer Yankuba’s lawyer’s ground of appeal argued that the lower court failed to properly evaluate the evidence adduced by the prosecution before arriving at a preserve decision.
According to paragraph 2b except pw6, Alagie Kanyi, none of the witness [oral testimonies] or documentary evidence adduced before the lower court shows and or proves that the acts and or omissions of his client caused the death of Ousman Koro Ceesay.
The state in their response to Yankuba’s lawyer said that the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial Judge that the prosecution had proven that the accused [appellent] together with Edward Singateh, Peter Singateh, and others killed the deceased, Ousman Koro Ceesay. The case adjourned for judgment.