Lawyer Wants Court to Sign Subpoena for TRRC to Produce Edward Singhatey’s Testimony Regarding Koro Ceesay’s Demise
Defence Counsel A. Sisoho has made an application for the Banjul High Court to sign a subpoena ordering the Executive Secretary of the TRRC to produce official statement of Edward Singhatey, a former member of the AFPRC.
Edward
Singhatey, together with Yankuba Touray (the accused person), were both members of
the Armed Forces Provisional Ruling Council (AFPRC) after toppling the regime
of ex-President Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara in July 1994.
Touray,
a retired military captain is accused of murdering Ousman Koro Ceesay who was
the Minister of Finance in June 1995 at his residence in Kerr Sering.
When
the question was put to Singhatey before the Truth, Reconciliation and
Reparations Commission (TRRC) he denied participating in the murder of Ousman
Koro Ceesay. Singhatey vehemently denied
knowledge of the accusation levied against him and Touray as he rebuffed Kanyi’s
allegation that they all participated in the murder of Koro Ceesay.
When
Yankuba Touray was asked to give testimony before the TRRC, he rescinded from
testifying as he relied on his claimed constitutional immunity. This was when
he was arrested and tried based on the allegation made against him by
ex-Corporal Alagie Kanyi of Jarra Sankuya.
The
prosecution called nine witnesses to prove their case but after closing their
case, Yankuba’s lawyer made a ‘no case of submission’ saying his client has no
case to answer. The high court judge, Justice Ebrima Jaiteh dismissed the
application and asked the ex-military officer turned politician to open his
defence.
Touray
brought his sister-in-law, Awa Minteh as his first defence witness. She gave
her evidence-in-chief and was cross-examined by the prosecution. Following Awa’s
discharged by the court, the Defence Lawyer Sisoho made the application for the
court to sign the subpoena ordering for the production of documents by the
Judicial Secretary and the Executive Director of the TRRC.
One
of the subpoena was for the court to order the Judicial Secretary to produce
the Coroner’s Inquest Report in respect of the dead of Ousman Koro Ceesay and
the other was for the court to order for the Executive Secretary of the Truth,
Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) to produce the official
statement of Edward Singhatey and his statement regarding the dead of Ousman
Koro Ceesay. Both motions for the subpoena were dated the 15th June
2020.
Lawyer
Sisoho relied on sections 220 and 221 of the Evidence Act as well as section
241 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) when he moved his motion for the
subpoenas to be signed.
“They
(Judicial Secretary and the Executive Secretary of the TRRC) are not going to
give evidence but to produce documents,” Sisoho said.
Lawyer Sisoho’s
application for the court to sign the subpoena was supported by a 20-paragraph affidavit.
“I
want to submit straight away that there is no affidavit in opposition to the
affidavit in support. It is trite that an affidavit which stands
unchallenged, undenied and uncontroverted is deemed as admitted,” Sisoho told the
court as he relied on several decided court cases.
Sisoho maintained that the documents they are seeking through the Judicial Secretary and the Executive Secretary of the TRRC are very essential to their defence.
“We
urge the court to sign the subpoena filed on the 15th June 2020,”
Sisoho said.
He
added: “With humility, without the production of these documents will cause great hardship to the accused and will amount to a denial of his constitutional
right to a fair hearing. The documents are very crucial to his defence.”
Sisoho
informed the court that prosecution witness six, Alagie Kanyi testified
regarding the dead of Ousman Koro Ceesay and gave two versions of the incident.
Sisoho said in one of his versions, Kanyi mentioned that it was Edward
Singhatey who killed Koro Ceesay and in the other, he said it was a group who
participated in the murder of Koro Ceesay.
The
senior lawyer said to clear the air it will be prudent for the documents to be
produced.
The
matter was adjourned to the 6th July 2020 @2 pm for the reply on the
two motions. The State prosecution team has indicated they will object to the
two motions.
Comments
Post a Comment