Lamin Camara, the defence counsel for Supt Manlafi Sanyang, the former government vehicle controller, has applied for an adjournment in order to decide whether he should proceed with the case or not.

Defence counsel Camara made these application in the middle of the trial, when DPP Emmanuel Fagbenle called his third witness, Bakary Bojang, a police investigator attached to the Serious Crimes Unit of the Gambia Police Force, who told the court that he knew the accused.

Bojang informed the court that when the matter was first reported to him, he went with his colleagues to the Licensing Department at the Police Headquarters, where he questioned the commanding officer ASP Fabureh about the particulars of the said vehicle. He added that ASP Fabureh told him that the vehicle in question belongs to the Immigration Department.

At that juncture, DPP Fagbenle asked whether he had checked through the records. Bojang answered in the positive, adding that the records confirmed that the vehicle belongs to the Immigration Department.

Bojang further informed the court he went to the NIA office, after gathering the information. He said he found the accused and confronted him on the particulars of the vehicle in question, but the accused confessed that he knew about the said vehicle.

Bojang said he further asked the accused about the vehicle, Supt Sanyang said he sold it to one Alhagie Conteh, the first prosecution witness. He said Mr Conteh, when contacted, confirmed that the accused sold the vehicle to him at D75,000.

At that juncture, the defence counsel Camara raised objection on the basis that the evidence Bojang was giving is “hearsay” insofar as the evidence is meant to prove the veracity of the vehicle in question. He consequently applied for adjournment in order to advise himself and ponder on whether to proceed with the case.

But DPP Fagbenle rejected the application on the basis that the defence did not give any reason for his decision to withdraw in the middle of trial. Camara responded that a counsel has the right to withdraw from any case, because the service rendered is to the accused and not to the state, arguing that blocking this would tantamount to “forced labour and we are not in that generation”.