Lawyer tells court to free SMJ


Lawyer Camara who made his ‘no- case application’ before magistrate Samsideen Conteh yesterday argued that his client “did not commit any crime and no crime was in contemplation”.

In his application, Camara drew the attention of the court to the charge sheet as well as their rights which he said fall under Section 166 of the Criminal Code to which he said they wished to exercise.

 “The accused person Sait Matty Jaw is charged with four counts of various offences, ranging from conspiracy to commit a misdemeanour, failure to register a business and two counts of disobedience of statutory duty. It is our humble submission that prosecution has woefully failed to establish the minimum evidential burden to warrant his client to enter his defence,” he said.


 According to counsel, it is trite law that whenever  the prosecution fails to prove  the elements of the offence as charged, the court should proceed to discharge that particular accused person on that charge(s) after a ‘ no -case submission’ is made. 

Counsel after perusing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses drew the attention of the court to the testimony of each of the witnesses and submitted that the witnesses did not give any cogent evidence that required the court to ask Mr Jaw to tell his side of the story.

 “It is our submission that prosecution witnesses did not advance or give any cogent evidence that required the court to ask the accused to enter his defence. It is also my humble submission that no crime was committed and no crime was in contemplation by my client,” Lawyer Camara contended. 

Barrister Camara finally urged the trial magistrate to acquit and discharge Mr Jaw since the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary element of the offences as charged.

The case was adjourned to April 15 when the prosecution is expected to reply.