Wednesday, September 27

Darboe’s Lawyers Ask Magistrate Thomasi ToRecuse Himself from Case

Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr +

By Nicholas Bass

The lead lawyer for Yankuba Darboe Thursday applied to the Banjul Magistrates’ Court for Magistrate M. L Thomasi to recuse himself from his client’s case, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal at the Banjul High Court.

In a marathon submission yesterday, lead defense counsel Lamin S. Camara stated that the chargeof contempt of court was not before MagistrateThomasi when his(Camara) no case-to-answersubmission was ruled in favor of the defense.  

Counsel Camara argued that the court hadpresumed Darboe guilty as charged without giving him the time to give his defense before the court. 

In paragraph two of the defense counsels’ motion, an order for Magistrate Thomasi to recuse himself from taking any further steps in the hearing and determination of the charge(s) filed against Yankuba Darboe, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal at the Banjul High Court was sought.

Their motion was supported by a 31-paragraphaffidavit crafted to provide relief for their client on the grounds that the court erred in law and facts when it held that no case-to-answer submission filed by the defense was solely based on thecharge of sedition.

Paragraph two of the notice of appeal stated that the court erred in law when it held that the evidence of the prosecution and its witnesses hadlinked Darboe to the alleged commission of the offense charged.

The lead prosecutor Commissioner AbdoulieSanneh, at this juncture, rose to say that the defense counsel’s application had no bearing on the matter before the court. 

Magistrate Thomasi then adjourned the matter to 25 Sept. for the ruling on the motion of the defense counsels’ no case-to-answer submission on the charge of sedition. 

It could be recalled that Magistrate Thomasi on 17 August 2023, ruled that the no case-to-answerwas solely based on sedition contrary to Section  52 (1)(B) of the Criminal Code thereby failing to substantiate its submission on contempt of court charges contrary to Section 106 (D) (I) of the Criminal Code.