By Francis H Murray
Defence lawyers representing the Chairman and leader of the Alliance Democratic Party (ADP) Mohamed Kamarainba Mansaray and co-accused Marion Arouni, who’re both standing trial on an eight-count indictment which include conspiracy, sexual penetration and meeting a child for sexual purposes have disclosed that they’ll be making a no case submission for and on behalf of their clients.
The decision followed the close of the prosecution’s case after leading in evidence eleven witnesses who include the alleged victim, her parents, as well as investigating officers.
While she closed her case, lead State Prosecutor Umu Sumaray told the court that a committal warrant had neither arisen in the trial by reason of nature of the case nor did it go to the High Court by reason of Section 136 of the Constitution, but pursuant to Section 42 (1) of the Sexual offenses Act No 12 of 2012, with the consent of the Attorney General who signed the indictment by which the accused persons came before the High Court.
She said ‘‘we rest our case after 11 witnesses.’’
Shortly before she closed her case, lawyer Sumaray made an application for an amendment of the statement and particulars of offence in count 1, 6 and 7 of the indictment pursuant to Section 148 Sub Section 1 Act no 32 of the CPA 1965 which were granted.
She also dispensed of Fatu Banya and Detective Sergeant 8323 Conteh, two witnesses listed at the back of the indictment who could not come to court for certain reasons.
Meanwhile, the eleventh prosecution witness, Mohamed Samuka Konuwa, public servant at the National Civil Registration Authority (NCRA) where he serves as Deputy Director, information and Communication technology and Identify Management continued his testimony.
He told the court that the birth certificate of the alleged victim is a proof of citizenship which he said is referenced into the identity management system and stored in the national biometric database of citizens and foreign nationals resident in Sierra Leone.
He added that the document was created in 2017 and the data was transmitted on the voter identification unit of the identity management system followed by the generation of a verification certificate which contained biographic and bio-data with a unique identification number of that citizen.
The prosecution tendered the original birth certificate of the alleged victim, generated for the identity management system at the NCRA.
The witness went on to note that the alleged victim was born on 2nd February 2005 which was documented and registered on the 28th May 2017 and its data transmitted on the 30th May 2017.
Under cross-examination by lawyer Amadu Koroma for and on behalf of the 1st accused, the witness said that the NCRA stores information on citizens and foreign nationals resident in Sierra Leone and that the Births and Deaths office is under the NCRA.
Asked whether at the material time the birth certificate was prepared by the NCRA, the witness noted that it was not prepared by them but by the then Births and Deaths office which was separate and on its own, but which had since come under NCRA.
He admitted that the alleged victim was born on the 2nd Feb 2005, 9 nine years before the NCRA was created.
Referring to the birth certificate, lawyer Koroma argued that it appeared to have an erasure, but the witness said it was over written but not erased, citing specifically that the 2005 date was over written.
Under cross-examination by lawyer Jesse M. Gengo for the second accused, the witness said that he was not working for the institution as a person, adding that the NCRA provides complete leadership and supervises births and deaths which came into being in 2016.
Challenged that the NCRA did a very poor job in writing the figure 5 on the birth certificate, the witness denied saying that the document was beyond what was written on the face of it.
Gengo argued that when the one police officers while testifying, told the court that they went to the village where the birth certificate was prepared and they find any trace of it.
Also challenged that the over writing on the document had altered its authenticity, the witness denied saying that besides the figure five which was overwritten, the document also had a page and volume number and signature which further authenticated it.
The matter was adjourned to the 16th December 2020.
Copyright © 2020 Politico Online
