By Francis H. Murray
Closing addresses of both the prosecution and defense lawyers to a twelve-member jury in the alleged murder of 5-year-old Khadija Saccoh, involving 1st accused Mariama Sajor Barrie and 2nd accused Ibrahim Bah, have ended at the High Court in Freetown with Justice John Bosco Allieu presiding.
Addressing the jurors on Thursday 18 March 2021, defense lawyer for the 1st accused, Lawyer Alhaji M. Kamara, told the court that his client was arraigned before the court on a two-count indictment of conspiracy to murder and murder.
He said that in order for the prosecution to prove the conspiracy charged, it must prove that the accused persons conspired to do an unlawful act resulting to the murder of the deceased, arguing that they had “woefully failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt”.
Citing the elements of murder, which he said included an unlawful killing with malice aforethought or premeditated and with the intention to kill, he submitted that the prosecution had not shown either by way of direct or circumstantial evidence that the 1st accused killed Khadija.
Referring to the medical cause of death of the deceased, Lawyer Kamara said that the only reason why the fingerprint examination results were not before the court was because it turned out to be negative, adding that even the evidence of the prosecution witnesses before the court pointed out to the love the 1st accused had for the deceased with no indication of malice or hatred.
He urged the jurors not to trust the evidence of the pathologist, describing it as “shocking and a pack of lies”, stressing that it was not possible for two adults to strangle a 5-year-old without her dying instantly until she was taken to the hospital.
He concluded that in the absence of the fingerprint examination results, which were to be conclusive and the prosecution’s failure to convince the jury by satisfying the test of proving its case beyond reasonable doubts, the counts must fail and a not-guilty verdict return in favor of his client.
Addressing the jurors on behalf of the 2nd accused, Lawyer Emmanuel T. Koroma said that it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of his client beyond reasonable doubt, without which such doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.
He went on to note that the failure of the state to produce a forensic fingerprint evidence connecting the accused with the offense in itself amounted to doubt in their minds, adding that there was nothing before the court by way of evidence to prove that the 2nd accused killed the deceased or conspired with anyone to do so.
He stressed that the case of the prosecution is “frivolous, malicious and vexatious” as proven by all of their witnesses.
In his own address to the jurors, state prosecutor Joseph A. K Sesay said that it was their duty to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and in the course of doing so had led in evidence a total of 13 witnesses and 21 exhibits in support of his case.
He said that the prosecution must show by way of evidence the elements of the offenses, which included an agreement, doing an act in furtherance of the agreement, an unnatural death which occurred within one year and a day with both accused persons mentally normal.
Citing the medical cause of death of the deceased, he said that there was evidence to show that the deceased didn’t die a natural death but was brutally murdered and died on the same day. He added that it was presumed that both accused persons were normal up till the time of his address as they had denied both charges at the time of their arraignment and even entered their own defense at the end of the prosecution’s case.
He added that with both prosecution and defense witnesses admitting that the deceased was brilliant and smart, and the fact that the deceased had no signs of virginity at the time of her death according to the autopsy, showed that there was something the deceased was not allowed to say to the world.
Lawyer Sesay told the jury that with the 1st accused admitting having been in custody of the deceased until her sudden demise, pointed to the fact that something must have gone wrong or an injury inflicted on the deceased for which they as judges of fact were to decide.
He concluded that the case of the prosecution was neither malicious nor frivolous or vexatious as alleged by the defense, stressing that the deceased was brutally murdered with certain bones broken in her body.
Presiding Judge Justice Allieu is expected to deliver his direction to the jury today on the point of the law, which would be followed by their retirement to consider their verdict.
Copyright © 2021 Politico Online (19/03/21)
