In the ongoing high-profile police shooting murder trial involving defendants Ousainou and Amie Bojang, the defense counsel for the second accused has formally objected to the government’s request to halt proceedings, claiming that the action is unjustified and would violate the defendants’ right to a fair trial.
Amie Bojang’s lawyer, Adama Sillah, filed an affidavit contesting the state’s request for a stay. Justice Ebrima Jaiteh’s June 10 decision, which mandated that three high-ranking government officials testify in court as witnesses in the continuing murder prosecution of Ousainou and Amie Bojang, is being contested by the government.
Jarra Sanneh, a legal assistant at Mari Bantang Chambers, swore the affidavit, which was submitted on June 16. Sanneh claimed to be knowledgeable about the case’s specifics and to have the power to act on behalf of the defense.
The government’s application, according to the defense, is “frivolous and vexatious,” and it is a deliberate attempt to thwart the court’s legitimate ruling. According to the complaint, the state is also attempting to prevent the defense from providing crucial testimony and from exercising its rights in full.
According to the affidavit, “there are no compelling or significant reasons to justify granting the state’s request.” Additionally, it contends that individual petitions from the called witnesses, not the prosecution, are the appropriate way to challenge a subpoena.
Concerning the defendants’ rights to liberty and fair process, the defense highlighted that a delay of proceedings is especially improper in a criminal case, particularly when the defendants have been detained since their arrest.
The statement directly disputes a number of the state’s main claims in its motion, arguing that it would be against the interests of justice to halt the trial. In order to defend the accused’s right to a fair trial, defense attorneys emphasized that the court’s previous order was issued on its own merits.
The defense also emphasized that unless specifically instructed by the appeal court, the filing of a Notice of Appeal does not automatically halt trial proceedings.
Sillah charged that the prosecution was trying to “circumvent a lawful court order” and prevent important government witnesses from appearing, whose testimony could help the court establish the case’s facts.
The defense would suffer a “gross miscarriage of justice” and be denied their right to a fair trial and hearing if the state request was granted, the document said.
Defense attorneys characterize the state’s application as “vexatious, frivolous, and an abuse of the court’s process,” arguing that dismissing it respects the right to a fair trial and serves the interests of justice.
Justice Jaiteh, the presiding court, will render a decision on Monday over whether to approve the state’s request following the state’s anticipated legal response.
