By Francis H. Murray
Detective Inspector Joseph Abubarkarr Sanu of the Scientific Support unit of the Criminal Investigations Department has told a high court in Freetown that he was on duty at the CID headquarters on the 30 March 2020 when Detective Inspector Aminata Kamara of the Breaking and Larceny Syndicate submitted specimens to him for expert examination on behalf of Detective Superintendent M. K Allieu, the operations officer at the CID.
He said he received one Gluck 17 pistol with registration No. S/L CID 20-DFEF 234, one Gluck 21 pistol with registration No S/L/ CID -17 / MUS 841- 107 B, a magazine containing 10 live rounds and two empty magazines.
The witness told the court that they observed during the course of their examination that the Gluck 17 pistol was a 9x19 millimeter caliber capable of inflicting harm while the Gluck 21 pistol was an 11 43x23 millimeter and that all were in a good working condition.
He explained that according to a standard set by the International Organization for Authorization, all electronic and machine devices as defined in physics must have a mark to show the country of origin, without which the source of the said device becomes obscure, adding the Gluck 17 pistol could not be owned by any government or institution.
He added that unlike the Gluck 21 pistol, the Gluck 17 pistol could be easily concealed and moved around adding that both weapons lacked any external safety measures and could be fired within seconds.
Defense lawyers objected to the testimony of Inspector Sanu on the grounds the prosecution did not put them on notice ahead of such expert testimony so that they could examine the credentials of the witness.
Lawyer Joseph Kamara argued that under common rules of evidence, the evidence in question was inadmissible without an order made by the presiding judge.
State Prosecutor Adrian J. Fisher argued that there were no specific legislative procedures that required a trial by a judge and jury to determine the competence of an expert witness. He said defense lawyers were served with copies of the ballistic report and they didn’t object to it at the time.
Justice Momoh Jah Stevens in his ruling on the matter said that having gone through the Criminal Procedure Act of 1965 he didn’t find any provision in support of the defense’s objection, adding that an expert witness must be distinguished from an ordinary witness on the basis of years of experience and scope of opinion. He ordered that a trial within trial be done in cross-examining the witness based on his credentials, in the absence of the jury.
Under cross-examination by lawyer Africanus Sesay, the witness told the court that the expert examination was done by a team from his office.
Answering to questions from the lawyer representing the second accused, Inspector Sanu said that at the time the said Gluck 17 pistol was handed over to him it was not loaded. The matter continues.
Copyright © 2020 Politico Online
