PALO CONTEH AND THE GUN AT STATE HOUSE: INTERIM COURT REPORT >>>>>>>>
By Adiatu Fourahbay
The Defence Team for Palo Conteh, Led by Abdulai O Conteh together with Joseph F Kamara, Ady Macauley, Africanus Sorie Sesay, and Wara Z Serry-Kamal filed a 33-page no-case submission at the High Court before Justice Stevens presiding.
The thrust of the submissions hinges on the sufficiency of the Consent given by the Attorney General & Minister of Justice to proceed with the treason trial of Palo Conteh. The Defence argues that since the consent granted by the AG did not meet the requirement as set out in section 1(2) of the Treason Act of 1963, the case has no legs to stand on and must be dismissed. The defence heavily relied on the Lansana and eleven other treason trial cases, especially the judgment of justice Tambaih (JJ) to drive home this point.
The Defence further argued that one of the counts must be struck out because it wasn’t one of the counts committed by Justice Stevens under the section 136 proceedings.
To crown it all, the defence prayed that Justice Stevens must stop the case and free Palo because the prosecution headed by the AG has not proved the essential elements of the offences charged, the witnesses have been discredited by the defence team under cross-examination and the evidence adduced by the prosecution has been so tenuous that no Jury properly directed can convict on it.
The Defence will present its oral arguments today and the Prosecution, who have been served with the 33-page submissions, are expected to reply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PROSECUTION WANTS TO RAMBO THE FIRST DEFENDANT as a one-man army to assassinate the president with a Glock seventeen pistol", these are the exact words of counsel defending First Defendant Rtd Major Alfred Palo Conteh, Lawyer A.O. Conteh when making a no-case submission on behalf of his client.
Making his submission, defense counsel said First Defendant is standing trial on three indictments of Treason and several others under the Small Arms Commission Act. He said First Defendant was also charged with the perjury Act of 1911.
Lawyer A.O Conteh said the fiat in which the matter was brought to court by the Law Officers Department was defective citing an Indian case against the King of Lancaster of 1948.
He said according to section 1(2) of the Treason Act [1963], the consent of the Attorney General of doing the fiart is to state the fact in which they are charging the defendant.
"It is the fiart that grant the jurisdiction to try the defendant on a case of Treason and the court lacks that jurisdiction because of the absent of the fiart", counsel for the First Defendant stated.
Submitting further, counsel for the First Defendant. A.O Conteh said because of the above, the First Defendant has no case to answer citing the case of Lansana and eleven others of 1971 tried by Justice Jambalaya.
Counsel for the First Defendant further stated that the case of his client is the first Treason case in this country which did not have an overt Act. Backing up his argument, he cited the 36 Edition of Archibald Criminal Pleading Law and Practice pages 1140.
He said the evidence must be applied to the Overt Act and not to the charge as done by the Law Officers Department.
Defense counsel A O Conteh submitted that the charge of Treason was wrong and terrible and therefore his client should not have been called to stand trial on a charge that does not have the Overt Act, citing Black Stone Criminal Practice.
Lawyer A.O Conteh said the fiat in which the matter was brought to court by the Law Officers Department was defective citing an Indian case against the King of Lancaster of 1948.
He said according to section 1(2) of the Treason Act [1963], the consent of the Attorney General of doing the fiart is to state the fact in which they are charging the defendant.
"It is the fiart that grant the jurisdiction to try the defendant on a case of Treason and the court lacks that jurisdiction because of the absent of the fiart", counsel for the First Defendant stated.
Submitting further, counsel for the First Defendant. A.O Conteh said because of the above, the First Defendant has no case to answer citing the case of Lansana and eleven others of 1971 tried by Justice Jambalaya.
Counsel for the First Defendant further stated that the case of his client is the first Treason case in this country which did not have an overt Act. Backing up his argument, he cited the 36 Edition of Archibald Criminal Pleading Law and Practice page
He said the evidence must be applied to the Overt Act and not to the charge as done by the Law Officers Department.
Defense counsel A O Conteh submitted that the charge of Treason was wrong and terrible and therefore his client should not have been called to stand trial on a charge that does not have the Overt Act, citing Black Stone Criminal Practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment