Prosecution objects ‘no-case application’ in SMJ trial


Mr Babucarr Drammeh argued that prosecution has proved the necessary elements of the offence and asked the court to overrule the application. 

Replying to the application which was filed on Monday by defence lawyer, Lamin Camara, Mr Drammeh drew the attention of a Banjul Magistrates Court sitting to the charges. He also summed up the evidence of the prosecution witnesses for the trial magistrate, Samsideen Conteh.

It could be recalled that prosecutors charged that Mr Jaw has conspired with others, failed to register a business and disobeyed statutory duty. He has since maintained his plea of innocence. He was earlier charged along with Seth Yaw Kandeh, a Ghanaian and Olufemi Erinle Titus, a Nigerian who had both pleaded guilty to the charges. They had since been sentenced to various fines by the court.


 In a bid to convince the court as why the no-case submission should not be dismissed, the prosecutor cited various sections of the law as well as cases. Mr Drammeh contended that it is trite law that for a court not to uphold a no-case application, the necessary elements of the offence as charged have to be established.

He added: “The question that needs to be asked is that, what are the ingredients of the offence the accused is charged with? We submit that the evidence adduced before this court by the prosecution witnesses established that substantial necessary elements of the offence have established the ingredients of the offence as charged. And by looking at the evidence of the witnesses, there is evidence that the accused persons have conspired among themselves and conspiracy can be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence which has been established by the prosecution.”

The prosecutor further told the court that Seth Yaw Gandeh stated in his statement that he did not approach any government institution or university for clearance before conducting the survey.

He further said: “This act is a clear indication that the accused persons have conspired among themselves and it also clearly manifested that a prima facie case has been established on count one. And it is also an undeniable fact that the accused has committed an offence by engaging in a business without registration which is against business registration act 2004.”

The state prosecution urged the court to disregard the application by the defence and asked it to enter their defence. Hearing resumes April 29 for ruling.