Kerr Fatou Online Media House
with focus on the Gambia and African News. Gambia Press Union 2021 TV Platform OF The Year

Brusubi Court Rejects Counsel Senghore’s Preliminary Objection

Muhammed Krubally
Principal Magistrate, Brusubi Court

By Landing Ceesay

Brusubi Tribunal Court rejected the preliminary objection raised by Counsel Yassin Senghore seeking the striking out of the 3 counts against her clients. 

Counsel Yassin Senghore argued that the charges against Ms. Nenneh Freda Gomez and Mr. Lamin Sey (her clients) are ‘defective in material particulars’ and urged the court to strike out the matter.

The lead counsel Senghore raised a preliminary objection to the charges against her clients before plea taking. In backing her point to raise preliminary objection the counsel invited the court to Section 161 A of the Criminal procedure Code.

Counsel Senghore submitted that, the judgement decided by Justice Bakary in Nenneh Freda’s case at the High Court has a bearing in this Criminal case and therefore urged the court to hold that the charges brought against the accused persons are defective in material particulars and strike out the matter.

The lead prosecuting officer, Superintendent M. Jarjou who represented the Inspector General of Police in response to Counsel Y Senghore’s submissions, stated that the submissions of Counsel Senghore are baseless and did not hold water; and referred the Court to Section 110 of the Criminal Code with respect to drafting or framing charges.

Prosecutor M Jarjou argued that since Section 110 of the CPC states that every charge or information shall contain and shall be sufficient, if it contains a statement of the specific offence or offences with which the accused are charged with, such particulars if necessary to give reasonable information in the nature of the offence charged. 

In his ruling, Principal Magistrate, Muhammad Krubally of the Brusubi Tribunal Court said he is of the opinion that the particular case against Nenneh Freda Gomez, Gilbert Mendy and Lamin Sey at the High Court was a civil one; while this particular case on which the two accused are charged with is Criminal, which required the prosecution to proof its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

“The import of section 54 of Evidence Act in my view here can only be applicable, if the case against the two accused persons herein is also civil, similar to the one earlier decided against them at the High Court. Unfortunately, I emphatically emphasize that, the principle and law draw a line between a criminal and civil case wherein as we know, civil case requires proof on the balance of probability or preponderance of evidence, while the criminal case requires proof beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

“In view of the circumstances, under which this case may be viewed reference to all the facts emanating from the three counts on which the two accused persons herein stand, the preliminary objection raised by their erudite senior Counsel as per the defection of the said preferred charges as well as the well-articulated responds by the prosecution with case laws and statutes relied upon by both sides. I hereby hold and conclude that, the said Counts 1, 2 and 3, so preferred against Nenneh Freda Gomez herein the first accused and Lamin Sey herein the second accused are good, valid and competent and not statutorily defective. The submissions made by counsels in their preliminary objections against the preferred charges against the first and second accused herein by the prosecution are hereby discountenanced,” Magistrate Muhammed Krubally rejected the preliminary objection on Wednesday.

The first accused (Nenneh Freda Gomez) and second accused (Lamin Sey) were arraigned on 3 counts charge of conspiracy contrary to Section 369 of the Criminal Code and  Idle and Disorderly Persons contrary to Section 166) c) of the Criminal Code Laws of The Gambia 2009.

Count 1 alleged that on 19th November 2021 at the former Anti-Crime Base, Bijilo conspired to commit a misdemeanour therein to wit; Idle and Disorderly, thereby committed an offence. 

Count 2 alleged that the accused on the mentioned date and place conducted themselves in a manner likely to occasion or provoke a breach of peace, thereby committed an offence.

Count 3 alleged that, the accused on the mentioned date and place resisted and unlawfully obstructed the Police Intervention Unit whiles on the due execution of their duties, thereby committed an offence.

Counsels Yassin Senghore and Salieu Taal represented the first and second accused.

Comments are closed.