High Court Justice Ebrima Jaiteh has dismissed an application by State prosecutors seeking to have the seventh prosecution witness, Saul Frazer (PW7), declared a “hostile witness” in the ongoing trial of Paulo Djabi and two others.
The application followed an intense exchange between State Counsel S. L. Jobarteh and the witness, a real estate professional with 18 years of experience. Counsel Jobarteh questioned whether Frazer had conducted due diligence on the accused persons during property transactions. When asked, the witness replied, “What is due diligence?” prompting the State to argue that a professional of his experience should be familiar with due diligence requirements under the Anti-Money Laundering Act.
After Counsel Jobarteh explained the concept, Frazer stated that his firm does not conduct due diligence checks beyond collecting the basic information found on clients’ identification cards. He also said he could not confirm whether a Deed of Assignment was executed following the sale agreements.
The prosecution argued that the witness’s demeanour was “shifty and evasive” and applied to have him treated as hostile. Defence Counsel S. M. Tambadou opposed the request, insisting that the witness was simply telling the truth and that no legal basis existed for such a declaration.
In a detailed ruling, Justice Jaiteh sided with the defence, noting that the prosecution had failed to meet the legal threshold required to classify a witness as hostile. A witness, he explained, can only be declared hostile if there is clear evidence of deliberate untruthfulness, evasion, or contradiction of prior statements with adverse intent.
Justice Jaiteh found no such evidence. He observed that Frazer answered all questions without evasion and that any unfavourable testimony to the prosecution does not justify a declaration of hostility. He also noted that the State had not shown any “material inconsistency” between Frazer’s oral testimony and his previous written statements.
The judge emphasised that declaring a witness hostile is an exceptional remedy that “must not be invoked simply to cure evidential weaknesses in the Prosecution’s case.”
Justice Jaiteh therefore rejected the State’s application, ruling that Saul Frazer remains a prosecution witness and that his testimony stands as given.