By Feima Sesay
Justice Alhaji Momoh Jah Stevens presiding judge over former sky bank manager Ikubokaje Nicol has on Tuesday 14th May 2024 ordered for him to be taken back to a hospital for continuation of his treatment under the strict supervision of the prison.
He made this order after he received a medical report from the Director General of Prison stating that the accused has a Chronic heart disease and cannot be treated at the Prison Hospital because they donot have the facility.
He further ordered that the he be hospitalized temporarily and a report to be presented to the court by the prison regarding his health condition after every two weeks.
Justice Stevens also cautioned the prison officer not to be allowed any intruder whiles the accused is at the hospital in order to ensure his safety.
After the order by the judge, State Counsel Lawyer A. Jalloh applied for an additional witness pursuant to section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1965, stating that he is the Registrar of the court.
Lawyer Wright said the witness in question was not eligible to give evidence before the court because he was in court through out the trial and that he said he had not disqualified him from testifying.
He added that even if he was qualified, but could not discribe himself as the custodian of those records.
The indictments, he said, was not based on any legal foundation as it did not come by section 136 neither a committal proceedings adding that the document, he wished to tender now could not be tendered.
There was no deposition that could be tendered as the stage from the moment the prosecution offered no evidence on the first indictment.
The State Prosecutor Lawyer Aruna Jalloh in reply said the witness they intended to bring was competent for the prosection as what he was about to do forms part of his judicial functions and therefore he could not only serve as witness for the prosecution, but also a witness for the defense.
He said the provision by which the notice was served was legal and therefore the prosecution could not be deprived. He submitted that the witness was the custodian of the said document and he was in custody of the records of the proceedings and therefore urged the judge to discountenance the objection made by the defense.
Lawyer Jalloh said there was a ruling to that effect and therefore they could not go into it, adding that a discharge was not a bar as defense objections had no legal basis.
Justice Stevens, in his ruling, stated that the document about to be tendered was a deposition of Dr Mohamed Bangura at Magistrate Court and the witness, he said, shall not be testifying as a witness of fact but a professional witness of the court.
“In this regard, this witness is a competent witness to produce and tender the statement of Dr Mohamed Bangura that testified at the Magistrate Court and cannot be located by officials of the court,” he ruled.
Prosecution witness No 6 Mohamed Coleson Kamara led in evidence by State Counsel Aruna Jalloh said he is a Registrar of the High Court assigned to the presiding judge.
He said some of his duties were to receive case file on behalf of the court, process orders from the court and serve notices on behalf of the court.
He said he received the original case file of the accused Ikubolaje Nicol and that the said case file contained the deposition of Dr Mohamed A Bangura who testified as a prosecution witness No.8 at the Magistrate court pages 53 to 60.
When the deposition was about to be tendered, defense counsel informed the court that there was no signature of the deponent on the deposition only the Magistrate.
Lawyer A Jalloh in reply submitted that the deposition was signed by the deponent and the Magistrate, noting that there is a signature of the deponent on pages 56, 58,59 and 60.
Lawyer Wright further intimated that there was no deposition before the court as the pages were not signed by the deponent and therefore could not be considered as a deposition, adding that the deposition should have been accompanied by a certificate issued by a Magistrate.
Lawyer Jalloh referred the judge to section 111 and section 65 of the CPA No 32 of 1965, adding that the absence of the certificate by a magistrate could not stop the proceedings.
The deposition was produced and tendered in court to form part of the prosecution’s case.
The matter was adjourned to the 21st May 2024 for further hearing.
