By: Audrey Raymonda John
Defence counsel A Mansaray has battled with section 18 of the persons Act to be a preliminary investigation but not summary offense and also objected based on section 20 sub section 5 (ii) of the legal practitioner Act that the documents signed by Augustine Alie a pupil barrister to be expunge.
Defence counsel was representing one Fatmata Sillah who was dragged to court on a private summon by complainant Emma Kadiatu Barrie.
The accused was charged for wounding with intent, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, public insult and provocation, Threatening language, abusive language and insulting conduct contrary to section 3(I) of the public order Act No 36 of 1965.
He said the letter was signed by a pupil barrister who according to him does not have the right to sign such documents.
He also objected to count one and two on the grounds that the information is a preliminary investigation. He said section eighteen emanated from a PI and that it should not brought before the court on summary. Defence counsel said section 18 for which his client was brought to court for is a felonious offence.
He said the bottom line in his objection is the issue of felony.
In that light, he urged the Bench to discharge the matter because the law is bad on the way the drafter drafted the letter.
Responding to the defense, prosecuting counsel M Mondeh said the defense could have described the matter on judicial level. He said the objection was untenable and same cannot be sustained.
Prosecuting counsel also stated that the defense didn’t show whether the pupil who signed the letter ought not to do so by bring authority to substantiated that.
Prosecuting counsel said the authorities the defense is relying on doesn’t not clearly stated as to whether the one who signed the letter has not signed the register of the general legal council.
He said the objection of defense counsel is frivolous, and scandalous.
Having heard both sides magistrate Sahr Kekura said section 18 of a private criminal summons is different form section 18 of the inspector General summons.
There is no law that says section 18 should not be tried separately.
Magistrate Sahr Keikura further stated that he has the jurisdiction to preside what was brought before him.
“As far as I am concerned all offenses start from the magistrate court, save for sexual offenses”, magistrate Sahr Kekura concluded.
Defence counsel seeks for his client to be put on bail but the learned magistrate said he cannot because there is medical evidence attached to the file.
Magistrate Sahr Kekura advised both counsels to keep the peace until the matter was disposed off. The matter was adjourned to Wednesday 22nd of March 2023.