The decision by the state to enter nolle prosequi (to terminate the criminal trials) of Yankuba Touray and Fatoumatta Jahumpa Ceesay before the High Court was both legal and honourable.

Equally, the reason for terminating it was also apt and justifiable. It reinforces the position that the state must not proceed to prosecute on an indefensible charge.

The AG’s decision to terminate the prosecution showed the application of his dual role: to advise the state on matters of law and to protect rights of persons in the state. Generally, no prosecution should persist which will, in the end, make an alleged accused person a victim of the state machinery.

The likelihood of wronlyly prosecuting Touray and Jahumpa on untenable and non-cogent indictments and evidence was certainly averted by the Attorney General.

As we hailed the decision, we must begin to ask why the case was terminated now and not beforere?

Why did the police prosecution proceeded to charge the duo on the facts and evidence contained in the Investigation file?

At that stage the police prosecutor had listened to the story of Alagie Kanyi and had concluded that there was a case to answer and proceeded to arraign the duo before the magistrate court.

Again, we must ask what more evidence did the state have which neccesitated the taking over and filing of fresh imdictments at the High Court?

Did they not advice themselves on the witness statement of Alagie Kanyi and/or the available evidence? Why was Alagie Kanyi allowed to mount the witness box if the evidence with the state cannot be substantiated against the accused persons.

Answers to the foregoing questions will strengthen the cardinal principle that a person shall only be charged before a court of law if there exist evidence and facts to support the charge.

Cogent and compelling facts and evidence are necessary for the police/state to have because the unchangeable position of the law is that the state/ police must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused person.

Terminating the case against Touray and Jahumpa at this stage is timely, if not, by each passing day of their trial, the state will be occasioning harm on them.

Putting the wheels of prosecution into motion cannot be dictated by whims and caprices. It must be preceded by a thorough investigation by the IPO and meticulous study of the case file and drafting of proper legal opinion by the state/DPP. Thus, the decision should have come before their arrest or at worst before charging them to court.

By Simon Sabally