Heated Argument in Pristine’s D20m Trial

The Daily Observer (Banjul)

Sidiq Asemota

13 May 2011

The criminal trial involving the state against Pristine Consulting Company, Abdourahman Touray and Hassan Touray resumed yesterday, Thursday 12th of May 2011 before Justice Joseph Enwa Ikpala of the Special Criminal Court in Banjul.

The accused persons are charged on a four-count information, which alleges among other things that they converted the sum of D20 Million belonging to the government of The Gambia, being money realised from the printing and sale of the current National ID Cards.

At the resumption of sitting yesterday, D.O. Kulo, director of Special Litigation (DSL) informed the court that the notice of information had already been published in a national newspaper in The Gambia and for avoidance of doubt, he craved the court’s indulgence to grant him a two-week adjournment, so as to enable the prosecution see whether the 2nd accused, Abdourahman Touray who is not in the country could get information of the court and appeared voluntarily for his trial.

Lawyer Ida Drammeh, defence counsel for the 3rd accused, Hassan Touray objected to the application for an adjournment and stated that the 3rd accused, Hassan Touray is still in detention and therefore an adjournment of the case would be prejudicial to the 3rd accused person. Ida Drammeh submitted that the adjournment applied for constitute an abuse of court process, adding that Section 24 Subsection B of the 1997 Constitution guarantees the accused the right to be tried within a reasonable time.

Ida Drammeh argued that the application for an adjournment shows that the state has no evidence with which to prosecute the 3rd accused. Ida Drammeh concluded that the state was in the habit of bringing frivolous charges against persons, detaining them and thereafter withdrawing or abandoning the case. She however urged the court that if the judge grants the state application for an adjournment, then the case should be adjourned to Monday, 16th of May 2011.

In his reply, DSL, Kulo submitted that it is wise and prudent to allow the sleeping dog lie. Kulo said that since the defence is waking up the sleeping dog from slumber, he intends to make an application before the court to order the arrest of any senior staff of the Pristine Consulting Company, since according to him, Pristine Company is one of the accused persons on the information. D.O. Kulo submitted that he would get the state to use the Interpol to arrest Abdourahman Touray, the 2nd accused, wherever he is and get him back to The Gambia.

At this juncture, Ida Drammeh got up and objected to the manner DSL Kulo replied. She submitted that as a rejoinder on point of law, Kulo is restricted to reply to issue of law and not to prey (go) into other issues. Replying to the objection, DSL Kulo submitted that so far as objection is taken to his application for an adjournment, he is entitled to reply both in law and in respect of all the factual issues raised by the defence.

In a short ruling, the presiding judge, Justice Ikpala then permitted D.O. Kulo to give a full reply to all factual issues as well as on the point of law raised by the defence counsel, Ida Drammeh. Upon ruling, DSL D.O. Kulo continued his submissions and argued that the issue raised by the defence to the effect that the 3rd accused, Hassan Touray is in detention is most untenable and untrue, because the vacation judge, Justice Awa Bah had already granted the accused person bail. He pointed out that what was only left was for the accused to furfil his bail conditions as required by the vacation judge and regain his freedom.

Kulo told the court that the accused stay or continued detention is not the fault of the court nor that of the state. On the abuse of court process, DSL Kulo defined what is meant by the abuse of the processes of the court and argued that in the instant case, the state is not guilty of the wrongful use of the court processes.

Referring to Section 24 Sub B of the 1997 Constitution, DSL Kulo told the court that the emphasis should be on the phrase “Reasonable time”. He informed the court that the information against the accused, Hassan Touray and his brother Abdourahman Touray who is out of the country was filed on April 2011 and that the information was still very fresh.

Kulo concluded that asking for an adjournment for two weeks within which to get the 3rd accused, Abdourahman Touray to appear in court to take their plea would not constitute a breach of Section 24 Subsection B of the 1997 Constitution. Kulo reminded the court that if a period of grace is not given and the accused persons are tried in absentia, they could later appear and still raise the issue that they were not given enough time to appear and defend themselves. Kulo therefore urged the court to grant the adjournment for two weeks for benefit of doubt.

On the submission of the defence counsel, Ida Drammeh that the application for adjournment is made because the state has no evidence to try the accused persons, DSL Kulo replied that the submission of the counsel from the bar should be based on established facts before the court. He concluded that there is no established facts before the court that the state actually lacks the evidence with which to prosecute the accused persons.

Reacting to the submission that the state was in the habit of bringing frivolous charges and detaining persons and later abandoning the cases, Kulo said that the Ministry of Justice of today is not the same as the Ministry of Justice of yesteryears, when Ida Drammeh was a state counsel in the Ministry of Justice. He concluded that the Ministry of Justice as it stands today is ever ready to initiate and take their cases to logical conclusion.

At this juncture, Ida Drammeh then got up and pointed out to the court that from the time she was called to the Bar to date, she has never worked at the Ministry of Justice.

Reacting to this information, DSL Kulo said he was reading through the list of state counsel who had served in the Ministry of Justice and saw the name of Ida Drammeh and based on that he held that the opinion that it was the defence counsel, Ida Drammeh and that if however his opinion is wrong then he is sorry for that aspect of his reply. DSL D.O. Kulo immediately withdrew that statement, but maintained that the fact that the Ministry of Justice as it stands today is ever ready to pursue its cases to conclusion.

In his ruling, Justice Joseph Enwa Ikpala held that the High Court has been in the habit of adjourning cases within the time frame of two weeks and that an adjournment of the said case for two weeks would not be a breach of Section 24 Subsection B of the 1997 Constitution. The adjournment sought by the prosecution was granted and the case was adjourned to the 26th of May 2011.

AllAfrica – All the Time