By: Hafsatu Z Bangura
First Prosecution Witness continued his testimony before Justice Emmy Wright of the High Court no.2 in Freetown in an alleged wounding with intent matter.
Defense Counsel for the 2nd accused I.P Mamie Esq inquired of the accused of his statements made to the police and previous testimony made in court in relation to the matter.
He inquired on his previous testimony that the witness said he had a breakdown at Pendembu and that he called a mechanic who told him that he would fix the car the next day.
The witness in his reply said to the defense counsel that he informed the car mechanic that his car problems was due to the fact that he wanted to go and visit his sick mother but defense counsel insisted on his previous answer before the court.
Defense counsel continued further in inquiring of him the name of the mechanic that he called and his number which the witness said he previously had the telephone contact of the mechanic but lost the phone he had the number on and his name is Samuel.
I.P Mamie Esq also challenged the Prosecution Witness that during the cause of the investigations of the matter at the police station that the witness obtained the telephone contacts of the 2nd accused his wife from Orange Mobile Company.
He also challenged the witness that in his testimony in court he said his car had a break down but in his statement to the police never mentioned of the car`s break down and were only pretending that the car had a break down.
The witness Mr Lansana Roberts said he never did and that he thought the relevance of mentioning his car faults was of no importance at the time and that it is true that his car never had a breakdown, citing that he was only pretending that it did and that when he testified that his car had a break down he was being truthful about it.
Defense Counsel I.P Mamie Esq made an application for the statement of the witness to be tendered in further cross examination questions from it but State Prosecutor H.M Bockarie Esq objected on the application made by Defense Counsel.
According to the defense his application for the police statement of the witness is solely based on the fact that the witness contradicts himself with his testimony in court and his statement made to the police.
State Prosecutor H.M Bockarie said the witness has already answered the defense counsel`s cross examination questions and that the witness does not in any way contradicts himself nor denied his statements or testimonies in court.
H.M Bockarie Esq said cross examination is based purely on what the witness has testified in court and that defense counsel application has no merit.
Defense Counsel for the 2nd accused continued his cross examination with the witness as he inquired and challenged him that the reason he kept calling his daughters in confirmation of the whereabouts of the second accused was that the witness was suspicious of the second accused due to a text message he received for the second accused of cheating on him.
He replied with an affirmative answer to the question put to him by defense counsel.
I.P Mamie Esq also challenged the witness that this text message he received from the second accused that he never tendered it to the police nor showed it to the police which he admitted to with a yes and that the whole incident according to his testimony has to do with the text message he received.
Defense Counsel asks for the witness`s phone in tendering it to the court to form part of the court records and evidence of the text message he received that the second accused sent to the first accused Cliiford Amiru Dumbuya.
But State Prosecutor objected to it and Justice Emmy Wright in objection made by State Prosecutor in battled chants of legal terms and citation of sections overruled the objection.
The witness then read the text message aloud in court.
The witness said he had never been in the habit of searching his wife’s phone and that the day of the incident he chased after his wife for over 5-6 hours as he said he was curious of the whereabouts of his wife and her safety.
The Defense Counsel tendered Exhibit of the second accused of the injuries she sustained at the time of the incident, Justice Emmy Wright in her rage of displeasure however tore the Exhibit due to the fact that there were no face on the exhibit to indicate if it was the second accused and that it could be anyone, that the content of the exhibit is blank
Defense Counsel for the 1st accused standing in loco for Elvis Kargbo Esq applied for bail for the accused person.
He made the application that the 1st accused is an IT professional at Sierra Leone Maritime and a care giver of a 9years of age child and mother and has been advised by Doctor Shuman to seek proper medical attention for his constant headache.
State Prosecutor objected on the bail application.
However, Justice Emmy Wright granted bail to the 1st accused on the following conditions.
Two sureties and sureties must surrender all passports and travelling documents, 150 million Leones or in like of the sureties and that sureties must be residents of Freetown.
The matter has been adjourned to the 30th August 2022.
State Prosecutor H.M Bockarie Esq and Defense Counsel S.A Ballay is representing the 1st accused person standing in loco for Elvis Kargbo Esq and I.P Mamie Esq for the 2nd accused.
Both accused persons are on bail.
