In a court battle regarding the acceptance of key evidence, Judge Ebrima Jaiteh at the High Court has decided in support of the Prosecution, allowing a disputed material to be included as evidence even though the Defence strongly objected.
Defense Attorney Tambedou maintained that Military Officer Babucarr Ngum, who testified for the prosecution, did not confirm the integrity of the evidence chain regarding the material purportedly discovered in the first defendant’s waistband. Tambedou asserted that Ngum consistently dissociated himself from managing the evidence, claiming that it fell under the jurisdiction of the DLEAG officials.
Moreover, Tambedou highlighted discrepancies in the characterization of the material, noting that although it was first reported to be in block form, subsequent descriptions characterized it as a combination of blocks and powder.
Tambedou opposed the submission of the evidence, stressing that the chain of custody had not been properly maintained. He contended, "The person responsible for safeguarding the evidence should be the one to present it in court, rather than this witness." Tambedou pointed out that there was an unclear record of who had possession of the evidence from the moment of arrest until the trial began.
In reply, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), A.M. Yusuf, rejected the idea that establishing a chain of custody is a mandatory legal prerequisite for presenting evidence. The Prosecution argued that the primary criterion for admitting exhibits is their relevance and requested the court to overlook the defense’s objections.
In delivering his judgment, Chief Judge Justice Ebrima Jaiteh recognized the defense's worries about discrepancies in the witness’s statement as well as issues with the handling of evidence.
Nevertheless, he highlighted two primary concerns: firstly, whether the witness was an appropriate individual to present the testimony, and secondly, whether the evidence held relevance to the case at hand.
Regarding the initial matter, the judge determined that despite inconsistencies in the witness’s account of the material, their involvement in collecting it qualified them as an appropriate person to submit it into evidence. Additionally, the court explained that Section 130 of the Evidence Act, referenced by the defense, pertains mainly to document handling procedures and does not apply directly to tangible items.
Concerning the pertinence of the material, the court ruled that because the defendants faced charges related to drugs, the substance under scrutiny was inherently connected to the case at hand. Referencing Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1994, which defines relevancy as the key requirement for admission, the judge determined that this evidence satisfied all required legal criteria.
After resolving both matters in favor of the prosecution, the court dismissed the defense's objections. The material, referred to as small blocks and powdered substances encased in black plastic nylon, was formally accepted as evidence and labeled as Exhibit P15.
The significance of the evidence will be assessed at the conclusion of the trial according to Section 96 of the Evidence Act, as the court mentioned.
The proceedings were postponed till May 12, 2025.
Provided by Syndigate Media Inc. ( Syndigate.info ).
Post a Comment