By Abass Jalloh
Magistrate Sahr Kekura of Pademba Road Court No. 1 yesterday denied bail request for musician Alhaji Amadu Bah, popularly known as LAJ, after the defence counsel renewed the bail application which had earlier been denied on procedural grounds.
LAJ was making his 4th court appearance yesterday 30th June 2022 since the commencement of his robbery with violence trial on 20th June 2022.
The magistrate earlier requested the accused’s medical report following his lawyers’ complaint about his health condition.
During the hearing on the 28th June 2022, defence lawyers representing the musician, contested the photo presented by the second prosecuting witness, Musa Mansaray, a pump attendant, as evidence that LAJ punched his left eye during the incident at Leonco fuel station at Congo Cross in Freetown, over two weeks ago. The defence lawyers demanded the original source of the photo.
Making his first appearance at the Pademba Road Magistrate Court No. 1 on the 28th June 2022, the witness narrated what transpired between his co- pump attendants and LAJ and his friends at the Leonco fuel station at Water Street, Congo Cross in Freetown. The witness testified that at the time he was making a statement at the Congo Cross Police Station on 12th June 2022 after the incident, he requested someone to take a photo of him for evidence that LAJ punched his left eye during the incident.
Mansaray explained that he was holding a bag and LAJ at some point collared him for the bag. He said after he refused to give the bag, LAJ punched him and he fell down while still holding on to it.
The witness said he handed the bag to the manager and then went to the Congo Cross Police station to make a statement.
In his reaction after examining the photo, defence Lawyer Madieu Sesay requested the originality or source of both the phone and the photo, stating that the latter was not the original copy. He said contrary to the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) he requested for an original copy of evidence to be tendered in court.
Sesay also argued that the phone was not the source of the photo. He said the photo shown in court was downloaded with an Itel phone and that it was in the download section, with a Samsung phone.
The lawyer representing the State, Yusif Isaac Sesay objected to the points raised by the defence, noting that the witness had already laid the foundation that his phone was used to take the picture. He asked that the phone not be tendered as evidence.
Section 70(1) of the CPA of 1965 provides that: “Any document purporting to be an original report under the hand of any public officer who is a medical practitioner, dental surgeon, analyst, chemical examiner or geologist, or of any assayer or mineralogist recognized by the Minister of Mines for the purposes of this section by notification published in the Gazette, upon any substance or thing submitted to him for examination or analysis and report, may if it is directed to the court or is produced by any constable to whom it is directed or someone acting on his behalf, be used as evidence of the facts therein stated in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Act.”
However, Magistrate Sahr Kekura overruled the defense's request for the originality and source of a photo of the second prosecuting witness saying that the witness can tender the phone in question to be part of the court proceeding.
In his ruling yesterday 30th June 2022, before the commencement of cross-examination of the second prosecuting witness, Magistrate Kekura stated that the Law of Evidence is clear that “it is either you are the author, the custodian or the recipient”.
The magistrate said: “The witness who is about to tender the phone in question clearly states on both that he got the phone and it has been in his custody.Therefore as a custodian of the phone, he can tender the phone because it falls within the three categories of people who can tender documents or items in court. Thus, I hereby discount the objection raised by the defense counsel, for the PW2 to tender the phone and let it become part of the court records.”
Defense Lawyer, Madieu Sesay, expressed concern that there were two dates for the photos taken. However, the magistrate stated that he only recorded 22nd June 2022, and 11:54 am as date and time respectively.
During cross-examination, the witness stated that the photo of him was taken on the 12th of June 2022, but the details of the phone stated 22nd June 2022 and 11:54 am.
The witness also stated that he took the photo of himself and printed it and went to the Lumley Hospital after he was instructed by the Congo Cross Police for medical examination. The medical report was tendered in court.
State counsel Sesay referenced section 59 of the CPA Act of 1965 for the restriction of the mobile phone to be used in court and be returned to the witness.
Lawyer Sesay said the section is “not applicable” and that the phone is “very important” in the proceedings for the magistrate to determine what to do with the details as presented for the purpose of the case, expressing fears of tampering of the photo.
The matter was adjourned to Tuesday 5th June 2022.
Copyright © 2022 Politico Online (01/07/22)
