By Alieu Jallow
Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh of the Banjul High Court has questioned Lawyer Sagarr C.T. Twum’s legal professional fitness following her conduct during a court proceeding. The presiding judge, who is presiding over Kumba Sinyan vs. the State, found counsel Sagarr’s actions to be disrespectful and questioned whether the said counsel is fit to be a legal professional. The question arose following the counsel’s statement regarding how the court is handling her client, Kumba Sinyan, who is standing murder trial.
Following the court’s verdict to overrule the defense’s application for adjournment, as well as the overruling for the client to answer a question in open court, counsel Sagarr declined to proceed with her case and equally advised her client, Kumba Sinyan, to remain silent. This action prompted Justice Sidi K. Jobarteh to consider forwarding the matter to the General Legal Council for disciplinary actions to be taken against her and advised that the accused shouldn’t pay the price for her counsel’s actions.
During the proceedings, the defense for the accused (Kumba Sinyan) filed an application to have the mobile phone go through the contact list. This application was granted by the presiding judge. Defense Counsel asked her client regarding her earlier statement about the taxi driver whose phone number was saved in the phone and tendered.
“Do you have his number and what is his name?” lawyer Sagarr asked.
Kumba Sinyan replied, “Yes! Babucarr Mbye.”
“What is his number?” Sagarr asked.
“76×××××××,” Sinyan answered.
The presiding Judge, Justice K. Jobarteh, requested the phone and pointed out that the name in the phone is saved differently from the name Babucarr Mbye. At this point, Kumba Sinyan acknowledged that she saved it as Babucarr Taxi.
The presiding judge reminded the defense that it is in the middle of her defense and asked if she wished to have witnesses in her defense. The defense responded in the affirmative, prompting the judge to request the names and contacts of the witnesses in court, which sparked a debate.
After an argument between the counsel for the accused and the presiding judge on the names and numbers of the witnesses she intended to rely on being read, the presiding judge insisted for the defense to reveal the names and numbers of the accused’s witnesses in open court since the question was raised in court.
At this juncture, Lawyer Sagarr C.T. Twum sought an adjournment to advise her client on how she intends to conduct their defense. The state prosecution counsel, M. Sanyang, objected to the adjournment, noting that the defense was given ample time to open their defense without any interference. She further argued that the defense was in possession of the phone for almost three days, hence giving them the upper hand to extract any information they intended to rely on in the trial, thus perceiving the defense’s move as a tactic to procrastinate the trial.
The case was adjourned to Thursday, 24th October, at 10:00 am for continuation.
