State Fires Back in Juju Case

The State has replied to the No-Case submission made by the defence in the ongoing criminal charm case against Abdoulie Oseh Corr, Alassan Mbowe and Babucarr Njie.

The trio are standing trial at the Banjul Magistrates’ Court before Principal Magistrate Edrissa Mbai on charges of attempting to acquire a criminal charm for malefactor, offering criminal charm for reward and conspiracy to commit a felony. Both deny the charges.

In his submission, the Director of Public Prosecution, R.N Chenge, submitted that the prosecution had made a prima-facie case to all the accused persons which required the court to call them to enter into their defence. He submitted that any person who made charms for the protection of power committed an offence, adding that ‘making’ means ‘causing to exist’. He said those making juju include those who caused to exist and in this case the prosecution had established a prima-facie case against the accused persons.

DPP Chenge further submitted that the 1st accused financed the juju man’s trip from Sierra-Loene to The Gambia to make jujus according his specification. He said he put PW1 inside a hotel and later took him to the 3rd accused house were the 2nd accused was present. He added that the accused persons caused the jujus to exist and intended to protect the power against gunfire and that has the power to protect against that malefactor. He said what the prosecution needs was the quality and not whom the juju was protecting and that the quality of the juju was to protect. He adduced that what the prosecution established was that the jujus for the protection of gun fire, adding that the prosecution had even when further to prove that the jujus was to be use by some malefactor. He said the prosecution had also established that the jujus were for the 10 gallant men and when the accused told PW1 that the jujus was for the 10 gallant men, PW1 knew the meaning of 10 gallant men. He stated that the accused persons did not belong to any legitimate armed security force of the country whom are they fighting. He asked what lawful business were they doing which they did not want the NIA to know, adding that the accused persons had questions to explain and that they should be called to enter into their defence. He said the prosecution had stated in it case what is meant by 10 gallant men and now is for the accused to explain what they mean by 10 gallant men if they had any. DPP Chenge submitted that it was in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the accused persons met to bring the jujus. He said according to the 2nd accused they have a financier for these jujus and therefore the accused persons had a case to answer. He said the accused persons had done all the stages with regard to the jujus only to be tested when they were arrested.

DPP Chenge finally urged the court to overrule the defence no-case submission and called on the accused persons to enter a defence.

The case was at length adjourned until 20th January 2009 for ruling.